Simply amazing! I could hit NONE of the winning numbers in each of the previous 3 MD PB Challenges (9/24, 9/28, and 10/1).
If I had bought all possible 15,015 combos out of such (15+5)sets, I would have lost $15,015, anyway. Other participants' look not so unlike. This drawing alone, all possible combos out of 11 participants would have costed $165,165, but, at a glance, $0 winnings.
What would have happened if my $15,015 had been split in each of 357 baskets of single WBs but with each of all 42 RED Powerballs? I would have had guaranteed winnings of $1,071 instead of $0.
How about all participants together? All possible combos would have costed $165,165 but with $0 winnings. But, if the money, $165,165, had been split in 3,933 such baskets, guaranteed winnings would have been $11,781, instead of $0.
Interestingly, 9/28($3 winnings) and 9/24($0 winnings) drawings had extremely similar results.
I just realize that Guaranteed Winning Strategy might be indeed better for the following two reasons: 1) it has the same expected value as any random or own-considerate selections, 2) and, further, it guarantees a certain minimum amount of winnings, while random or one's own considerate selections do not, or can not.
Frankly, so far I have failed to think of the above reasoning.
Is there anything wrong with above reasoning, other than the matter-of-too-much-money to be invested? (I think this might lead to an issue related to possibly the superiority, indifference, or inferiority of a POOLed guaranteed winning strategy)