Active Topics Memberlist Search Help | |

Register Login |

Keno and Lotto Compared | |

LottoPoster Forums : KENO : Keno and Lotto Compared |

Topic: PRIZES IN LOTTO ILIYA BLUSKOV v COLIN FAIRBROTHER | |

Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Colin F
Lotto Systems Tester Creator & Analyst To dream the impossible dream ... Joined: September 30 2004 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 678 |
Topic: PRIZES IN LOTTO ILIYA BLUSKOV v COLIN FAIRBROTHERPosted: January 22 2014 at 6:36pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

ESTIMATING GROUPED PRIZES RETURN IN LOTTO FOR SPECIFIED DRAWS AND SET OF NUMBERS PLAYED by Colin Fairbrother(includes summary of debate between Colin Fairbrother and Professor Iliya Bluskov January 2014) I pose the rhetorical question, " ... whether other than through sheer luck the odds can be bettered." in the header at my site LottoToWin. To any mathematician worth his salt the answer is no. That being so are their sets of numbers one can play in Lotto that get us pretty spot on with the odds? The answer is yes - I have shown the Steiner Cover C(22,6,3,3)=77 achieves that as much as is possible with a hypothetical Pick 6, Pool 22 Lotto game. (The syntex in order is Pool 22, Pick 6, Guarantee or Match 3, Hits and Minimum Lines 77.) The logical next question is, are there sets that reduce your chances of getting the maximum return in Lotto in the reasonable short term? - the answer is yes and I will demonstrate that below. Prize tables are commonly given by Lotto Operators for a Lotto Design as in Australia for the System 7 and System 8 which are respectively all the Combinations of six integers for a Pool of 7 or 8 integers. eg see Prize Divisions Tatts Lotto The important point is that if playing a System 8 or Full Wheel 8 the Prize Table is not given for a hypothetical 6/8 Lotto game but for the actual Lotto game, say, 6/45. To do otherwise would be considered to be misinformation and grossly deceptive. This is precisely what Professor and Doctor Iliya Bluskov does in his booklets. System Prize Tables can be produced mathematically but for other sets only through analysis of the Lotto design by testing it eg a 6/49 Lotto game against all the 13,983,816 possible combinations of six integers for prizes or matches and these can then be grouped. You can do it yourslf by getting the free CoverMaster program from John Rawson. For details see - Constructing Best Lotto Covers or Wheels In the Covermaster Detailed Report the probability for each group can be obtained by moving the decimal point to the left two places in the percentage column. You can arrive at the likely prize results for the simulated draws required by simply multiplying the probability by the draws required.Despite trials backing up this method Bluskov maintains it is flawed and does not take into account the occasional big winner which would render the interpretation invalid. He maintains that despite the Lotto Design being already tested against the 13,983,816 possible CombSixes in a 6/49 Lotto game for prizes it should be done again for each prize group. The intention is obvious - to obfusticate and over complicate a simple task with a simple intention. Bluskov laughs at the idea that lower prizes can be used to assess the merits of a Lotto playset despite it being proven time and again in trials. Of course a big win can occur but it can be set aside and reliance put on the more repetitive prize groups. All the Covers or Wheels tested at - LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE by Colin Fairbrother have been done in a consistent manner and not one has performed better in returns than Partial Covers with no repeat subsets, full Pool used and Coverage maximized. Some have given very poor returns. In my popular free online article titled - ANALYSIS OF 15 LOTTO NUMBER SETS - WORST TO BEST the second worst is the System 8 or Full Wheel for Pool 8 when applied to a 6/49 Lotto game which is all 28 combinations of 6 integers from 8 integers. Here it is - 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 7 1 2 3 4 5 8 1 2 3 4 6 7 1 2 3 4 6 8 1 2 3 4 7 8 1 2 3 5 6 7 1 2 3 5 6 8 1 2 3 5 7 8 1 2 3 6 7 8 1 2 4 5 6 7 1 2 4 5 6 8 1 2 4 5 7 8 1 2 4 6 7 8 1 2 5 6 7 8 1 3 4 5 6 7 1 3 4 5 6 8 1 3 4 5 7 8 1 3 4 6 7 8 1 3 5 6 7 8 1 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 8 2 3 4 5 7 8 2 3 4 6 7 8 2 3 5 6 7 8 2 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 This Full Wheel has a lot of repetition of the subsets. Instead of 560 distinct CombThrees there are only 56 repeated 10 times. Instead of 420 distinct CombFours there are only 70 repeated 6 times. Instead of 168 CombFives there are only 56 repeated 3 times. Many Covers or Wheels have excessive repetition of the subsets. Intuitively one would think, correctly, that it would be harder to get any of these prizes because of the repetition while realizing when they did occur there would be multiple prizes. This Wheel has a guarantee for a hypothetical Pick 6 Pool 8 Lotto game but no such game exists. The guarantee is that after the draw if the 6 numbers drawn are in the 8 chosen then you win or share first prize. Of course this guarantee is totally irrelevant and useless when using this Wheel in a 6/49 Lotto game as only 28 of the 13,983,816 combinations are available just like any other jumbled up set of 28 lines. These deceptive lower Pool guarantees are not much different to saying if one of your lines has 6 integers that are the same as the winning 6 integers you win or share first prize. Analysing this 28 line set by testing against the 13,983,816 possible combinations of six integers in a 6/49 Lotto game and then multiplying the probability by 36 for a good approximation of 1000 plays or 36 draws we get 36 most likely occurrences - 6 5 4 3 Total Probability Most Likely- - - - 13327132 0.9530397 34 - - - 10 596960 0.0426893 2 - - 6 16 57400 0.0041047 - - 3 15 10 2296 0.0001642 - 1 12 15 0 28 0.0000020 - In a trial over 36 draws we are expecting 2x10=20 match Threes. The results below apply the 28 line Pool 8 Full Wheel over 36 draws using the UK Lotto results starting from draw 1 for 20 trials. Draw Range 3 4 5 61 to 36 20 - - - 37 to 72 20 - - - 73 to 108 40 - - - 109 to 144 - - - - 145 to 180 20 - - - 181 to 216 10 - - - 217 to 252 50 - - - 253 to 288 30 - - - 289 to 324 10 - - - 325 to 360 - - - - 361 to 396 20 - - - 397 to 432 10 - - - 433 to 468 20 - - - 469 to 504 30 - - - 505 to 540 10 - - - 541 to 576 36 6 - - 577 to 612 20 - - - 613 to 648 - - - - 649 to 684 - - - - 685 to 720 10 - - - There are 4 trials of 36 draws with no matches. The trial average for match Threes is approx 18. Total plays: 20160 Using standard UK costs and payouts of £2, £25 and £100 Cost Total: 28x36x2x20=£40320 Prize Total: £9500 Yield or Percentage Return: 23.56% To nullify any accusations of rigging I use the record coverage 6/49 Partial Cover for 28 lines at - John Rawson's site exactly as provided by Adolf Muehl with no duplicate CombThrees. (nb I do not endorse all these partiial Covers as after 73 lines they have duplicate CombThrees.) Analysing this 28 line Partial Cover set by testing against the 13,983,816 possible combinations of six integers in a 6/49 Lotto game and then multiplying the probability by 36 for a good approximation of 1000 plays or 36 draws we get 36 most likely occurrences - 6 5 4 3 Total Probability Most Likely- - - - 7571012 0.5414124 20 - - - 1 5225888 0.3737097 13 - - - 2 759408 0.0543062 2 - - - 3 39728 0.0028410 - - - - 4 1268 0.0000907 - - - 1 0-1 379260 0.0271214 1 - 1 - - 7224 0.0051660 - 1 - - - 28 0.0000020 - In a trial over 36 draws we are expecting 13x1=13 + 2x2=4 ie 17 match Threes and 1 match 4. The results below apply the Partial Cover over 36 draws using the UK Lotto results starting from draw 1 for 20 trials. Draw Range 3 4 5 61 to 36 17 1 - - 37 to 72 18 1 - - 73 to 108 17 2 - - 109 to 144 19 3 - - 145 to 180 18 3 - - 181 to 216 17 1 - - 217 to 252 19 1 - - 253 to 288 21 1 - - 289 to 324 20 2 - - 325 to 360 14 2 - - 361 to 396 15 - - - 397 to 432 13 - - - 433 to 468 17 2 1 - 469 to 504 15 1 - - 505 to 540 19 3 - - 541 to 576 15 1 - - 577 to 612 21 - - - 613 to 648 18 1 - - 649 to 684 5 1 1 - 685 to 720 23 1 - - All trials of 36 draws have matches. The trials average for match Threes is approx 17 as estimated. The trials average for match Fours is approx 1 as estimated Total plays: 20160 Using standard UK costs and payouts of £2, £25 and £100 Cost Total: 28x36x2x20=£40320 Prize Total: £13225 Yield or Percentage Return: 32.80% Difference between Wheel and Partial Cover results: 9.24% Note: If the two match Fives were treated as match Fours the difference would still be 4.78% in favour of the Partial Cover. Bluskov would have us believe that he and his cohorts promote lesser Pool Covers or Wheels with irrelevant guarantees so that users will have the sheer joy of using their favoured numbers in inferior sets for the actual Lotto game they are playing. I never thought I'd read a Professor of Mathematics with a Doctorate casting doubt on the randomness of the draws because of ball imperfections. The truth is Bluskov is a fellow traveller and apologist for the fruit cake brigade in Lotto analysis as debunked by me in: - Analysis of Lotto Draw History - the Final Word Will their Lotto System work in the simplest case? Six articles under heading of Lotto Filters Simply Do Not Work As I have pointed out before the seed for deception can be traced back to Bluskov's thesis New Designs and Coverings where he trots out the line on Page 9 that a guarantee for a C(14,6,4,4)=80 in a hypothetical 6/14 Lotto game with only 3003 combinations of six integers somehow carries over beneficially to a 6/49 Lotto game with some 14 million. It doesn't - for the easiest to get prize 3if6 only 3,051,048 CombThrees are covered or 21.82% whereas the first 80 draws or Random Selections from the UK Lotto gives a 3if6 Coverage of 78%. Here is the crunch- Bluskov disparages Random Selections as having no guarantee despite there being three and a half times more 3if 6 Coverage and that doesn't vary more than 1% for any other contiguous set of 80. On the same page Bluskov insults the intelligence of the reader by stating with my capitals, "However, if any 4 of the numbers drawn are among the 14 numbers chosen by the syndicate, then the 80 tickets of a (14,6,4) covering guarantee at least one 4-win while 80 random tickets (ON THE SAME 14 NUMBERS) guarantee nothing!" This is a thesis. HE IS REFERRING TO A 6/49 LOTTO GAME; SURELY 80 RANDOM TICKETS FROM A POOL OF 49 IS MORE RELEVANT! WHERE WOULD YOUR AVERAGE PLAYER GET 80 RANDOM TICKETS FROM 14 NUMBERS AND MORE TO THE POINT WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ooo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above article was posted as the final Coup de Gras and deciding message in a debate between myself and Professor Iliya Bluskov at rec.gambling.lottery in January, 2014.By reading my last message above and then looking at previous messages in the thread a mockery is made of all the pretence, lies, innuendo and just plain stupidity of Dr Iliya Bluskov, Professor of Mathematics, University of Northern British Columbia. A reasonable question is, "Having already the information in your last post why didn't you post it first?" The short answer is I was playing with him - I wanted to draw him out and he obliged me beyond all of my expectations. Bluskov's intellectual arrogence and desperation to try and justify just plain nonsense got the better of him. Some notable gaps in his knowledge base became evident: **not recognising that theoretical calculations in Lotto accept**Bluskov makes the enormous error of assuming he Random Selections as being a suitable reference base and definitely rule out distorted sets with excessive repetition of the subsets. can do a formula calculation which is based on all the possibilities for the Pool and Pick and all the subsets, which is simply not applicable in the short or medium term. This is not the first time that learned people have under-estimated Random Selections and withdrawn papers or scurried to amend them.- any statistical calculation relies on having a suitable sampling and this
does not have to be the full population. - Random Selection Sets in Lotto have a remarkable consistency in
Coverage which over say 56 draws may not vary much beyond 1%. **Bluskov categorically states, ignoring all the evidence to the** contrary, that no matter how distorted is a set of numbers played in Lotto it will give the same return short or long term as a non-distorted set.
You will notice when reading the thread a favourite ploy of Dr Iliya Bluskov is to deliberately talk cross purposes. It appears on a perusal reading that he is addressing the issues but in fact he is actually inventing others and addressing those. Let's be clear - I am talking in the main about the results for playing a lesser Pool Cover in a Lotto game for say, 1000 plays and up to about 35,000 plays. I am not talking about an unrealistic 14,000,000 plays which you will see Bluscov do, in the detail, when addressing my results. This is deliberately devious - in a court of law it would not be accepted and he would be directed by the magistrate or judge to address the relevant issue.Also reading the thread you will find Bluskov harping on Return on Investment (ROI) as if I knew nothing about it - this to a person who has actually been in business for nearly 40 years and is able to do accounts up to P/L and Balance Sheet etc. I never use "Investment" in relation to Lotto if only because your principle is lost from the time you buy tickets. Making an exception and considering the UK Lotto the contribution of 1st Prize to the return is the same whatever the set as long as the lines are unique. Multiplying the 1st prize payout, say an average £4 million by the probability 0.0000000715112 gives £0.286. For 2nd Prize we have £50,000 x 0.0000004 giving £0.022 contribution. For all intents and purposes the overwhelming majority of Lotto players paying £2.00 per ticket will not see a penny of this 31p for 1st and 2nd
prizes.The rest of the return is 44p for a match 3, 10p for a match 4, 2p for a match 5 and 1p for the raffle payouts. The odds or cycle for a match 5 are 1 in 55,492 so unless around that number of plays are being considered rather than 1,000 plays, then it doesn't come into consideration. For the UK 6/49 Lotto there are to 1/2/2014 1890 draws since 1994 with 4516 first prize single or shared winners. Currently, the average number of players per draw is - 3,125,000 with each player buying an average of 4 lines or tickets ie average 12,500,000 plays per draw The average number of 1st and 2nd prize winners per draw is 10It is not unreasonable in terms of expected return to most players to leave out 1st and 2nd tier prizes as the overwhelming 99.99968% of players per draw do not receive any benefit from them. - In a separate thread I poured scorn on Iliya Bluskov for not ruling out a lower bound of first 54 then 87 for C(49,6,3,6) in a post at rec.gambling.lottery in January 1996. At the time the lowest bound was 174 which became 168 in June 1996 due to Uenal Mutlu lowering the C(27,6,3,4) to 91, which was subsequently lowered by D Stojiljkovic and Rade Belic to 86 in 1998 to give 163.
A rudimentary look at graph lines substituting values as known in January 1996 and illustrated at**CORRELATION BETWEEN LOTTO COVER OR WHEEL GUARANTEES FOR VARIOUS POOL SIZES**shows such unrealistic values to be simply impossible. . - In the link above I pour scorn on the tenuous comparison made by Iliya Bluskov in trying to promote a C(14,6,4,4)=80 Cover with a guarantee for a hypothetical 6/14 Lotto game to play in a 6/49 one in his 1997 thesis titled
. Of course the guarantee does not apply to the 6/49 game but Bluskov still applauds his non applicable guarantee by stating that a Random Selection on the same 14 numbers does not have a guarantee.*New Designs and Coverings* Begs two questions - "**Why confine the Random Selections to a Pool of 14 in a 6/49 Lotto game?"****"What is the relevance of a 80 line non-applicable Cover guarantee for a Pool of 14 in a 6/49 Lotto game to a****Random Selection of 80 CombSixes****with a non-guarantee from the same 14 integers? Why not from 49 to give a partial Cover with undoubtedly a better Coverage?"** . **You can view or download the thesis here: New Designs and Coverings.** The pdf file is 98 pages - unless you're a mathematician the first 30 pages are all that is needed to confirm my quotes.
The reality is people play Lotto for the miniscule chance of winning or sharing first prize. They should be happy to know the set they are playing will give them the best chance of winning as many as possible of the minor prizes and not be duped by someone touting their academic qualification and University position to flog inferior Lotto sets.Lies, Lies And More Lies - Just look at these quotes from Dr Iliya BluskovSources: (for Pick 6) (UBL)THE ULTIMATE BOOK ON LOTTO SYSTEMS (CSG)COMBINATORIAL SYSTEMS (WHEELS) WITH GUARANTEED WINS FOR PICK 5 LOTTERIESPROFESSOR ILIYA BLUSKOV PROMOTES DECEITFUL CLAIMS FOR LOTTO COVERS OR WHEELS (RGL)Thread (click here) started November 15, 2012 in the unmoderated newsgroup Rec.Gambling.Lottery in which Iliya Bluskov debated with me until the final coup de gras message as at the top of this page but first posted here. RGL 8/1/2014 I stand behind every word and sentence in these books.The title alone as in COMBINATORIAL SYSTEMS (WHEELS) WITH GUARANTEED WINS FOR PICK 5 LOTTERIES
is a lie as the minimum Pool for a Pick 5 Lotto game is 28 as in Mexico
and for Pick 6, 25 as in West Virginia. All the Covers or Wheels (the
majority) that have a Pool less than these relevant Pools do not have a
GUARANTEE as no such Lotto games exist.RGL 8/1/2013"The
book I had written would give you a better chance of winning, but not
necessarily winning big. For example, just picking favorites and random
numbers you might win one every 400 times or less. With my method you
might win one every 150 times. You're winning more often but you're
still losing money. Unless by chance you get a jackpot which my method
does not guarantee."Wishful
thinking - the complete opposite is true. With less repeat paying
subsets Random Selections or my Partial Covers give you more wins and
more often as shown in hundreds of trials and a Prize Category Analysis.RGL 9/1/2014 ""My books do not contain deceitful claims.A lie on top of a lie.RGL 11/1/2014 "SYSTEM # 88: GUARANTEED TWO 4-WINS IF 4 OF THE NUMBERS DRAWN ARE IN YOUR SET OF 10 NUMBERS""This system has 30 combinations; the title is an "if" statement, and putting such information there is not exactly "hiding it", is it?" But is it a Lotto System or rather a Lotto Observation? Look at the top of this article DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV for a definition by Dr Iliya Bluscov which gives a guaranteed
match before the draw - not an enormous MAYBE after it. Bluskov is
playing with words and delivering nothing beneficial.RGL 11/1/2014 ""I
do not advocate, I do not imply, I try to be perfectly clear about what
I am saying, and I am universally understood; there is nothing between
the lines in my books.Like "guarantees" that are not guarantees - and are in fact just observations after the Lotto game is drawn.You need look further than the definition of what a
Lotto System is as elaborated on at the beginning of my article titled: -DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV Basically Iliya Bluskov is trying to pass off Lotto Systems with a valid guarantee for the Pool used as being beneficially applicable to Lotto games where the Pool is much greater, which it isn't and in other words pandering to the Lotto predictionists and occultists, without admitting it. Consider one line, say 44 45 46 47 48 49 where the Pool is 49. If the winning draw is 01 02 03 47 48 49 then from the 260,624 combinations of six covered by this line we have a match with 47 48 49. But for a Cover or Wheel you don't need to know the draw result before it is applicable. The whole notion is absurd but makes sense once you take into account the occult side where some people think they can narrow down the Pool in the next draw - and that basically is what Iliya Bluskov is addressing while trying to pass it off as having some credibility in mathematics. Now, consider the line 01 02 03 04 05 06. By itself we don't know what Pool it is being applied against and it therefor needs to be specified. It is a 1st Prize winner for a hypothetical Pool 6 Lotto game as it is the only Pick of 6 integers possible and in the syntax is C(6,6,6,6)=1. It is also a 5if6 Cover for a Pool of 7, 4if6 Cover for a Pool of 8 and a 3if6 Cover for a Pool of 9. It is not a Cover for a Pool greater than 9. Notice you don't need to know the draw before it is valid; there are no "ifs". RGL 11/1/2014 "You have a funny way of computing the yield. Can you explain why you chose only 50 draws? Why not 50,000, or better, all of the 13,983,816 possible draws (a complete experiment, as I explained previously)? You know, if you knew, you should have probably explained it right there; or if you wanted people to know; but I guess you did not, so let me explain it for you and for the readers; very simple, actually: You did not want to factor the more rare but richer winning opportunities of the system, such as 3 match x 5 or 4 match x 2, 3, 5, 7 or 15 and on and on with many other possible winning opportunities in the 5 match and 6 match area that the system has and "your" 20 lines do not have. That is exactly where the difference of 5% will completely be erased (and the totals should be used, not the percentages, as the percentages are rounded, insignificantly, but still)." "At the end, 20 lines perform just like 20 lines. If that is too complicated, a single ticket performs as any other single ticket if you run all possible draws on it; then multiply by twenty to complete the argument."If this reply came from someone other than a Professor of Mathematics specialising in Combinatorics and in particular Covers then it could be forgiven. Dr Iliya Bluskov does not dispute the accuracy of the Prize Table as given below. For just one draw or 20 plays we see for the Cover C(10,6,4,4)=20 when played in a 6/49 Lotto game, that for the probabilities of the 20 categories the most likely result with probability 0.9097294 is no prizes. Contrast this with the table for a Partial Cover where the probability of No Prizes is significantly less at 0.656182. Despite this conclusive evidence Dr Iliya Bluskov maintains "At the end, 20 lines perform just like 20 lines".The monstrous gaps in Dr Iliya Bluskov's knowledge about the characteristics of this subject and his naive understanding defy the imagination. He simply surmises erroneously without doing the necessary work to check things out. For 50 draws or 1,000 plays we need 50 results and by simply multiplying the probability for each category by 50 we calculate the 50 results that are most likely. For 3,200 draws or 64,000 plays we have 11 of the categories into play, including a match 5; no need to multiply by some 700,000 draws or 14,000,000 plays or 13,446 years if playing once per week. GENUINE PRIZE TABLE FOR A C(10,6,4,4)=20, PARTIAL POOL COVER, WHEN PLAYED IN A 6/49 LOTTO GAME WITH 3IF6 COVERAGE OF 1,262,328 COMBS OR 9.02706%
GENUINE PRIZE TABLE FOR 20 LINE FULL POOL PARTIAL COVER FOR A 6/49 LOTTO GAME WITH3if6 COVERAGE OF 9,175,924 COMBS OR 34.38183%
Colin Fairbrother |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Forum Jump |
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum |

This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.