Mr Adams said in an affidavit about the case he had organised 12 of the "one off" groups outside the regular syndicate - a group the court has heard were "hard core" contributors.
However, under cross-examination by Mr King's barrister Lachlan Gyles SC on Tuesday morning he conceded that wasn't accurate.
Mr Gyles put it to Mr Adams he had "specifically asked about the one off syndicates" and suggested he had "sought to wrongly emphasis" the number he had run in 2016.
"In fact, there could have been one or two."
Mr Adams answered: "There could have been seven" - to which Mr Gyles said, "that's not 12".
Mr Adams then conceded the figure quoted in the affidavit was wrong.
"If I mentioned 12 then it might be wrong."
Mr Gyles put it to him he mentioned the higher figure because it was "good for your case" and it was also "helpful to your case" to draw a line between the syndicates and the regular 12 contributors, of which Mr King was a member.
Mr Adams denied the suggestions.
The court heard on Monday the "one off" group excluded Mr King because Mr Adams hadn't been able to speak to him to see if he wanted to take part.
Instead he was involved in a separate group that also won during the same May 5 draw - but that only entitled Mr King to winnings of A$13.70.
The court heard on Monday Mr King always said "yes" when asked if he wanted to be involved.
Mr King alleges Mr Adams told him to "go and see a f**king lawyer" when he confronted him about being the only one in the regular syndicate to miss out.
Mr Adams denies swearing during the exchange but admits he spoke "more harshly" than he should have.
Mr Gyles said on Monday Mr Kings's colleagues had attempted to put a "ring fence" around the winning syndicate so they didn't lose about $200,000 each from their winnings.
The A$2.7 million has been frozen pending the outcome of the case.
The hearing continues.
