You last visited January 9, 2009, 2:45 am
|
Wisconsin couple win in lottery -- again!
Norway Member #9692 December 10, 2004 737 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 28, 2008, 6:29 am - IP Logged |
|
I won't believe them unless they can return with a first prize again within 6 months.
|
|
|
CT United States Member #61881 May 21, 2008 630 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 28, 2008, 2:59 pm - IP Logged |
|
More food for thought:
- Nothing in nature is purely random, just so complicated that it can be difficult or impossible to predict.
- Let's say you have a Powerball system that provides a 1% edge. It's not much, but it's better than QP and if you win with numbers you picked you feel more like you "earned it" and deserve more recognition. You'll have quite a few new friends even w/o even giving them actual money!
- The matrix of SuperCash did seem to change Oct. 23, 2005, because they announced a bigger jackpot and introduced the Doubler feature, and the higher numbers began appearing soon after. My question is, did this person's algorithm span across this matrix change, which would have disfavored some higher numbers, since the winning set was low numbers, that's what helped him? If he was doing this penci/paper then it's not likely he went that far back unless it was a very simple freq. analysis but that type only seems to give 3 of 6 at most.
- A thorough backtest will prove or disprove if an algorithm has merit. It can show either that it has no effect, or a slight advantage not enough to overcome the takeout, or so good that it makes profit. I have never seen the third type, but some of mine hover around breakeven.
- I still wonder if he used some kind of computer program or pencil/paper, and if any of it was partly randomized, like filtering out bad #s then QPing the good ones. Or how many he played.
- My suggestion to you if you are worried about pre-draws clouding the stats, use the History QP method. Generate a random X number the width of the drawing (6 for SuperCash) and a random Y number however far back you want to use the history. Do this enough times to get 6 or whatever unique numbers, and play those. You are thus emulating how the drawings are done and also more likely to be the only one winner.
In meantime though I will as soon as I can try to determine what was so special about that set of numbers. I'm thinking maybe hot/cold/due, but since he liked math puzzles he could have been using math instead. I threw the WI history in my app here for sh*ts and giggles, and checked a few basic methods.
With a pool size of 1025 drawings (back to the matrix change), we get these statistics.
ACTUAL RESULT: 1,5,8,13,24,26
If we look at the HOT numbers ranked from HOT to COLD, 5 were decently close to the top.
| 29,35,20,8,24,13,26,18,2,5,23,38,4,25,19,15,21,9,28,14,27,6,10,33,1,3,30,12,37,32,34,16,17,11,36,39,7,22,31 |
HOT number ranks that hit were: Rank # 4,5,6,7,10,25
If we look at the DUE numbers with a pool size of 1025, this is the ranking.
| 32,8,25,24,4,7,34,28,15,2,14,20,1,30,35,26,21,17,6,36,16,9,5,3,33,19,22,38,27,12,10,18,11,13,39,31,29,37,23 |
DUE ranks that hit were: Rank # 2,4,13,16,23,34
Note: My 'DUE' calculation is based on the (total hits/hit count) = avg hits, then number of draws out compared to the avg. (i.e., a ball that averages once per 9 draws and was drawn 8 drawings ago is 'due').
If we look at the COLD numbers (longest since they hit), this is the ranking:
| 37,23,13,29,11,18,33,19,1,7,14,34,20,32,25,4,24,8,28,15,2,36,17,30,26,21,6,22,35,16,3,9,5,31,39,38,12,27,10 |
COLD ranks were: Rank # 3,9,17,18,25,33
Interesting spread on those COLD numbers, eh? Almost symmetrical.
Those should be the basic stats using the maximum pool size before the matrix change. Of course, even if he was using the same basic methods his pool size could be completely different.
|
|
|
United States Member #10921 January 23, 2005 773 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 31, 2008, 5:55 pm - IP Logged |
|
I wonder if you scan past the matrix change? Or less? Also 1000-something drawings would require either a computer program or a very simple algorithm. A simple "hot/cold/due" tally can be done by rewriting the frequencies each drawing. It's possible he QP'd the top however-many but the "1" is weird. Maybe his due calc. is different OR maybe there is a bug in his system as I have sometimes in mine. He wants to patent his system which sounds like it's compex and/or a program because you probably can't patent "frequency count" method or "hot-cold-due" because those are used by a lot of people. I strongly doubt his method is as simple as frequency; there'd have been many other winners.
|
|
|
United States Member #381 June 5, 2002 2006 Posts Offline |
| Posted: September 1, 2008, 12:45 am - IP Logged |
|
What we know is 4 winning tickets were turned in purchased from different locations.
The Wisc SuperCash 6/39 game pays up to 20 fixed jackpots of $350,000. each. After that a pool of $7 million is divided among winners.
Tickets are 2 for a dollar.
The game is computer drawn.
Just because 4 winning tickets were presented to the lottery, there may have also been lower tier prizes paid in cash if a wheel was used.
The winners may have had the experience of winning multiple 4 and 5 number prizes on one ticket they had to turn in and pay taxes on, hence the desire to break up the plays.
Or, they may have wanted to make sure the plays were viewed as totally independent of each other, by the lottery. It is impossible to judge the thinking of people who may be guessing what the optimal strategy of dealing with planning to present the lottery with four winning tickets.
There may not be any such thing as a winning formula, but there certainly are traps that can be laid for the lottery to fall into if you're willing to wait long enough, like playing $10. on 5-5-5-5 every day.
BobP
|
|
|
United States Member #10921 January 23, 2005 773 Posts Offline |
| Posted: September 5, 2008, 11:47 pm - IP Logged |
|
Really, it's computer-drawn?
A game that is computerized has to be approached much differently than a ball-drawing. Computerized games are purely numeric-based. They said he is a fan of math puzzles. It would mean his system is probably limited to computerized games then, but I'd still want to look at it. Think of it, if the system is good then it can foil those pesky computerized games...maybe now the Lotteries would have to ditch them! Isn't that what we want? Also with computerized, it doesn't much matter about pre-tests. This encourages me to develop some math-based algorithms for computerized games like PA Treasure Hunt and Hot Lotto.
Why Quad 5? Why not 7-8-9-0 or something? It would be costing $140 a week just for that one play, and when it did win they take taxes so I'd hope the 5555 comes out four times as often as any other 4-digit. Unless that # is special you'll wait an average 15 or 30 years before you win.
|
|
|
|
