"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:lSrWc.12411$N11.3899@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:aVoWc.11091$aB1.636@twister.socal.rr.com...

"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:oHlWc.154$cx.28@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

I've updated the prediction sentence which is even more specific and

has

a
greater payout.

I will also not copout and try to refer to a previous MD5 checksum,

just

to

prove how certain I am.

Also, for any given date, only the final MD5 checksum provided will be

valid

to avoid anyone saying I'm putting multiple MD5 checksums so I can
pick

and

choose afterwards.

Using all the same rules as specified before with the same first ten
lines
of washingtonpost.com from Sunday :

Najaf Fighting Intensifies: U.S. Tightens Cordon U.S. planes bomb

the<PRESS

ENTER>
prediction sentence here<PRESS ENTER>
MD5 checksum of the two lines above<DO NOT PRESS ENTER>


The new MD5 checksum for the above text for tonight's Florida Ca$h 3

drawing

on Monday 23rd August 2004, 8pm EST is :

a0d4fc1ab9920aa945e518d0b395be36

It's only 8:45am EST when I posted this, please confirm.

I think everyone will agree that a more specific prediction is better
evidence that what I've proposed works.

You are deviating from the agreement.
This is a step toward making multiple 'predictions'
and picking the right one after the drawing.

Maybe you didn't read the above post in it's entirety?

Maybe you are assuming repudiating earlier predictions
is simple, neat, and complete.
The more prediction that are made the more confusion
there is likely to be as to which is the latest.
Some people might see the latest one.
Some might miss it.
I'm not saying you are doing this but an unscrupulous
person might try to create confusion and take advantage
of it. They might say, Oh, no, that last change is a forgery.
Or they might say, Hey, no, you missed the final update.
At this point things are still pretty clear but I'd say
in the future wait for the deadline to post your prediction
checksum and no changes are allowed.

Thanks for confirming this was received before the 8pm EST drawing.

You agreed to deliver the prediction checksum
on Sunday.
There must be a hard deadline sufficiently in
advance of the drawing and there must be only
one prediction.

In our discussions I would probably have
accepted the prediction checksum being delivered
the morning (say 11:00 AM) of the drawing so
I am not inclined to disqualify based on
going over the deadline.

True.

There must be only one prediction.
We shall go with the above
a0d4fc1ab9920aa945e518d0b395be36.
If you don't provide the clear text of that
prediction after the drawing you get a 0
for this drawing. No deviation. No changes.
No excuses.

I'm inclined to demand the clear text of
the first prediction too.
Afterall, it should pay too.
However that would be admitting multiple
predictions, muddying the test.

Like I said, read the post above.

See my response above.

I'll attribute this as a startup glitch.
If and as this test continues there must
be only one prediction per drawing.
Once a prediction is made for a drawing
there shall be *no* changes, *no* revisions,
*no* updates.

I'm going to make a change to what you said above.

Because I posted the checksums publicly, and it being the first time I
did
so, I have had even stronger perception of whether it was right or wrong.

I will therefore make it a rule that only the checksum I post on Monday
mornings before 11am EST will be considered. It may or may not match any
previous checksums for the prediction sentences only, which I publicly

post

in a single thread only during the week before Monday, as I said the
perceptions I received were much stronger.

Don't post any early or preliminary predictions.
There is no point to it and it only serves to increase confusion.

Under these conditions, only *the final MD5 checksum* which is posted and
only ONCE on Monday mornings before 11am EST will be judged, since that
is
the prediction which will be invested in.

I've already outlined my process and it is an ongoing process based on
intentions.

Yeah, I have an ongoing divination process too that becomes
ever more certain and is 100% accurate right after the drawing.

I now know that by making these intentions publicy known, even
though secure, makes an even greater impact on my perceptions. Therefore,
only the final checksum I use will be considered valid. There will be no
copping out or reverting to a past checksum, I already made that clear
above. This is no way invalidates the proof. Everyone should agree on

that.

I don't want to see any preliminary predictions.
I suppose you could post them *with a clear indication
that it is not final*.

The one official prediction must be clearly marked so.
I also don't want you saying something like, "The third preliminary
prediction is the one I choose as final".
Exactly one prediction must be labeled as the official
prediction and it must be complete and self contained.
To do otherwise is to significantly compromise the test.

In addition, the discussion has generally
been that you would predict the first digit of
drawing. It has also been mentioned that
the prediction could be of another type (but
that the criterion is an overall average of
5 to 1 payout).

This one will payout much greater.

As the cashier says when you by a lotto ticket,
Good luck. :)

The ambiguity in the prediction is a little bit
of a concern.
You must adequately specify the prediction.

I will specify a prediction that will always be at least 5 to 1, in this
case it is more.

If you predict one digit but don't mention
the position it will be assumed to be the
first position.

The prediction sentence states clearly what the digits are and in what
positions they are, if they are known.

For instance, if two digits are known but not their positions, that still
pays out 8 to 1 which is even better than knowing one digit in its

position.

If it comes up in a position
other than the first you get 0.

That's not what the real world payout is though. Remember my dreams are
always based on the real world payout. You are setting conditions that
try
to make the information I produce seem worthless, but it is not.

Nevertheless in the checksum I have provided, the first winning digit has
been stated in it's position as well as more information whicn improves

the

payout beyond 5 to 1.

Thus, I have done even better that what we agreed upon.

If you specify one digit, specifically say
the position is unknown, and that digit
is drawn (in just one position) the payout
is 5 to 3.

Let me explain why under certain conditions it is better to first try
just
knowing the minimum and maximum digits of the draw, rather than the

position

of a digit.

In the case where the number drawn is like this : 978.

If you worked on finding the minimum digit only, you would have gotten 7.
This automatically gives you information about the other two digits, they
are 7 or greater. And with that information only you would already have a
great advantage because you eliminated even more steps from the binary
search.

So I guarantee I will produce at least one digit in it's postion (5 to
1),
or that I know two digits not in their position (8 to1)

It all depends on the circumstances of the particular drawing. It is good
first to check what the minimum digit is and what the maximum digit is
because that alone can reduce the steps. Sometimes it might be like 210,

in

which case you found the minimum to be 0 and the max to be 2, and that

alone

is worth much more than 5 to 1.

So it all depends on the particular drawing. But like I said, including

the

checksum I provided this morning, I will always either :

Provide a digit in it's known position (5 to 1) or
Provide two digits not known in their positions (8 to 1)

No knowledge of the numbers after being drawn may
be used in deciding how the digits predicted
should have been bet.

Of course not. But as I am trying to show you, knowing two digits without
their positions pays out even higher than knowing one digit in it's
position.

If you predict 123 and say the order is unspecified
it must be bet '6-way box' and if the numbers come
up in the order you listed you can can't say after
the fact that it should be counted as having been
bet 'straight'.

Absoultely correct. Only what the prediction sentence states is counted
towards the payout calculation. Because of course there will be times
when
the order I present them in will match the winning number. I am not going

to

count any such luck. Only what is SPECIFICALLY stated as known in the
prediction sentence counts.

In fact, there is no reason for you not to give the
bet type or betting instructions minus the digit
values, in clear text with the prediction checksum
before the drawing.
Would you agree with that?

The prediction sentence will always provide clearly what information is
known. Only what known information is provided will be used in keeping

tally

of the odds overcome thus far each week.

For instance if I give two digits not giving their positions, and
correct,
that prediction overcame odds of 1 in 16 which pays out 1 to 8, not just
1

to 5 as in giving only one digit in it's known position, i.e. the odds
are
even greater against trying to predict two digits without ordering, than
just one digit in it's position.

And the final predicition I make on Monday mornings will be the only
prediction that counts, even if a prior prediction contained even MORE
payout, it's prediction sentence will not even be given so as to imply I
knew something more, but held back.

I will provide what I know to be the confirmed information that always

gives

the best payout.

Sometimes that will be giving two digits out of their positions(8 to 1),
instead of one digit known in it's position(5 to1). Understood?

I generally agree with the above.
I have some concern that the possibility
of ambiguity in the prediction is not elimated,
but it is not a big concern at this time.

So, one hour to go, right.

--
RB
aa#2187

I think as long as the additional prediction only adds additional
digits, rather than changing the original digit, the additional
prediction should be allowed, as long as we are given the clear text to
both predictions so that we can verify that there was no change in the
prediction for what the first number drawn would be.

Mark, didn't you remember what I said regarding this first week? It was
intended to be a "test phase" and a proof of concept. Naturally in going
through any test phase, a revision might be made before the full stretch. I
have discovered that posting the predictions publicly, even though secure,
have improved perception greatly. I am reserving the right to make as many
public secure predictions as I want to, only the final checksum will be
valid. That is the revision I want to make. And I want to use all the time
available up to Monday morning. The final prediction checksum will always be
posted Monday morning and that will be the ONLY one used. This in no way
invalidates the test. I'm sure you will agree.