By the way, Chuck, good to have you on board.  Too many in the industry treat the players in a very disconnected manner, and you are always very open and communicative - and sensitive to the feelings of the players.  I'm sure others here would agree.

I'm sure this issue will not go away for a long time - if ever.  There will always be players who do not like computerized drawings.  There is also a large block of players who don't care either way.

I guess my main sticking points boil down to:

• 
  
• I perceive that there are far fewer players who dislike mechanical drawing machines than those who dislike computerized drawings.  There is something real and comforting about seeing those ping pong balls come out of a real machine.
• 
  
• There is no way for a person to actually witness a computerized drawing - which will breed suspicion (which is like poison to a lottery)
• 
  
• I have not seen any budget which makes an overwhelming case to go to computerized drawings.  A savings of $200k per year is nothing compared to $1 billion in revenues - and the $200k could easily be lost in player erosion.

The bottom line is that I really don't see the burning need to go to computerized drawings - even if some people think it's "technically" better.  Other people feel the same way.  Therefore, the logical extension of this thought is that if there is no burning need to transition, then why are the lotteries really doing it?  Does it give them room to hide something?

Again, I am not someone prone to conspiracy theories (as any regular visitor here would tell you), but this is what runs through players' minds.

Giving a human response (rather than the corporate response) can sometimes get you into trouble - though not as much as I might have thought.  I can think of only a few times that players ended up threatening me or sending a note of complaint to a governor somewhere.  And I did get several hate mails (from all over the world) following my recent criticsim of the moralists in Idaho who are teaching children about the sin of the lottery.  But, generally, people do respond better to a "real" response.  We did have someone else writing for a while - using the standard corporate response ("Thanks for writing and for taking the time to ask a question.  If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.") - but it just wasn't working (though we never had one complaint).

Your point that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a good one.  You would be surprised, though how important these "little dollars" can be.  A lottery can bring in hundreds of millions for a state and still have a legislature or governor cut a few hundred dollars for a trip to pick up a new idea.  Especially in these times, lotteries see their budgets cut all the time.  A $100k here and and there, as they say, can add up to real money.  Remember that last year, one state dropped lottery ad dollars to $0.  Another state prohibits any lottery action that encourages people to play.  And, of course, lotteries frequently run up against legislators who believe that all you have to do to increase profits is to cut the prize payout percentage.

You also make a good point about players being able to "observe" a mechanical drawing.  They can go in and watch the RNG being operated too, but I agree that people have a perception that they are able to judge a mechanical drawing as fair.  Of course, only .00000001% of the players actually attend a drawing (I just looked that number up!).

I'm glad that players feel comfortable with mechanical draws.  I can understand that perception, but , of course, the real security issues are no different.  With just a little more conspiracy theory paranoia <G>, one can pretty quickly dismiss a mechanical drawing too.  In the end, as you say, the players will ultimately control what a lottery will do. 

Whew!  Am I ever verbose.  Time to get back to work.

I've heard it said by someone before that the balls have no memory and you can't predicted what will occur. Now that computers are picking the numbers, they do now.

If there are any lottery program developers out there reading in on this, you need to revise your probability theory, statistical analysis, and calculated predictions. Computers can only simulate real world conditions; for this, there is a possibility that trends that once exsisted in the natural world may now be enhanced by the narrow view of the virtual world. Also, it has now become the players responsibility to audit the randomness of the lottery draw dvent. Developers should exploit this fact to whatever ends and means they see fit.

Quote: Originally posted by JADELottery on November 12, 2004

---

I've heard it said by someone before that the balls have no memory and you can't predicted what will occur. Now that computers are picking the numbers, they do now.

If there are any lottery program developers out there reading in on this, you need to revise your probability theory, statistical analysis, and calculated predictions. Computers can only simulate real world conditions; for this, there is a possibility that trends that once exsisted in the natural world may now be enhanced by the narrow view of the virtual world. Also, it has now become the players responsibility to audit the randomness of the lottery draw dvent. Developers should exploit this fact to whatever ends and means they see fit.

---

Jade,

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If a computer program is developed to pick lottery combos, how could any trends even exist?  To make it as simple as possible, say there are a thousand possible combinations. The computer could simply generate a whole number from 1 to 1,000...then count down the list of all combinations, and voila ; it spits out the combination that is "x" number of combinations down the list.

The next day it does the same thing, but with a different generated whole number from 1 to 1,000. It could be ANY generated whole number; there is nothing at all to tie it to a previous "drawing" at all...it is just a completely random generated whole number ; unrelated to anything else.

How can there even BE any trends?

BTW-- since lotteries are now more and more using computers, they should stop calling them "drawings". There is nothing being "drawn".  They should call them something ese that more accurately reflects what they are really doing.

Badger

Quoting Badger:

"Ever notice when you put the words "The IRS" together, it spells THEIRS ?"



No I have not, but it is pretty funny though.

I'll bring it up again. Approximately 1987-1989 The Connecticut Lottery ran into a little trouble with their Pick3 drawing. Appearantly, everyone in the State and surrounding States played "555" or "513" on a May 5th or on a Friday the 13th. (Criscross) and Connecticut had to borrow an additional $80 Million+ Dollars to compensate those winners. I clearly remember the Director of the Lottery (About that time.) Stating: That will never happen again in a Hartford Current Newspaper. I knew then that a change was in the mix. If I could only recover that article or the column heading of that article, you would see that it said a lot because, it stood out like dust on a white glove. 

Mr Chuck32. Would it be fair to say that, there is a strong possibility, out of 1000 pick3 combinations, (Keeping in mind that the lotteries are about generating revenue regardless of what that revenus is supporting.) the combination with the least amounts wagered (Meaning you are simply buying 3 numbers for an anticipated drawing.) along with being, insinct with the running numbers for the week are likely to draw?

I am asking that due to, some of the States posting their counts of winners on their top payout (Pick3 & Pick4 prizes.) such as, California, New York and Pennsylvania. Also, I am asking based on past political scams in the past regarding the lotteries. It has always been my belief that there are a lot of electronic and magnectic micro devices that can be attached to balls though that issue has never arrived in that past. This is no personal attack on you, it is just a matter of inquiring minds would like to know.

lottoscorp ...

Lottoscorp: As far as Wisconsin is concerned, weather you are for or against computerized drawings, the very idea of keeping the drawing out of the publics view, should warrant a boycott of the games by the public. A one week boycott should get the message across. Think of your money not spent on the lottery as a saving for Christmas presents for the family.

pegleg

My objection to computer drawings is the possibility that the computers will have a network card buried in the software. Using wireless technology, the computer could, during the 30 minutes between the time sales are halted and the drawing, scan a nearby lottery computer and come up with winning numbers that would minimize lottery losses.

Despite multiple shielding, almost all electronic devices have unwanted and sometimes compromising radiation, even when the device is operated within a screen room.

No such problems exists with mechanical drawing machines.

A question for chuck32: How can lottery players know with confidence that a computer RNG has no means whatever of consulting with other computers via wireless connection?

Also, do the RNGs you speak of have a memory? My understanding is that RNGs used to issue Quick Picks don't have memories. These devices are known to issue the same set of numbers to more than one player.

Finally, I hope you aren't one of the computer companies trying to make an extra buck by selling computer RNGs to the Texas Lottery.

Ms. Fluff and Mr. Confusion have taken up residence here at 888 Lottery Post Way. They have been throwing some well funded parties and creating alot of noise. Their objective is to upset and create doubt in the minds of the other residence. However, there are other tenants living here that see through their plan, Ms. Truth and Mr. Fact. Although there may be no eviction by managment, there will be a 'virtual' eviction in the minds of the other residence.

I think a player can "know with confidence" (as opposed to knowing absolutely) by understanding the process.  Though not exactly the same, both mechanical and RNG's have similar issues.  Most players can feel comfortable knowing that the RNG is designed and built by one company, then torn apart and reviewed by highly skilled independent testing firms and is then evaluated again by the lottery and/or audit firm.  All components are examined to ensure that no wireless capability exists.

RNG drawings are open to the public so that they can observe the process.  One might argue that it is hard to determine what is going on inside a computer, but without X-ray vision a player can't really tell what might be inserted into drawing balls either (or one of a hundred other methods of compromising a system). 

In the end, confidence can only reasonbly be had by understanding the process and knowing that multiple skilled persons are involved in checking the systems.  For mechanical draws, the equipment is built, then examined and tested by lottery staff and an accounting firm.  For RNG's - because the system is more complicated - the system is also examined and tested by a firm skilled in evaluating electronic systems before being examined and tested again by the lottery and audit firm.  The auditors are present for every drawing (under both systems) and with an RNG, our system adds a security feature to allow yet another independent entity to audit every set of numbers drawn.  Other RNG systems have slightly different methods of auditing the results but they all have the same goal.

We have not worked with TX.  I know they were out for bid, but I'm not sure where they stand now.

The RNG's do not remember past numbers selected.  The RNG's in the lottery terminals are pseudo-RNG's but they also do not remember past numbers selected.  I have known of problems with terminal RNG's.  While they are generally designed (at least today) to produce results that cannot be shown to be non-random (there is no test to prove randomness), they are not at the same level as a drawing RNG.  In the case of a quick pick, there are TWO random dvents occuring (the ticket buy and the drawing).  As long as one side is fair, then the game is fair.