POLL 1 of 3: Computerized drawings vs. ball drawingsPrevious TopicNext Topic

I know there have been many polls like this before, but let's do a fresh poll, to find out what the current feelings of lottery players are.  I'd appreciate as much participation as possible, no matter what your viewpoint is.

Please indicate your preference as to what type of lottery drawings your prefer —

• Computerized drawings, which use a computer system to generate random numbers.  Some computerized states show the results in an animated cartoon sequence, and other computerized states have dropped television productions.
• Mechanical ball drawings, which use a bin or tub to mix numbered ping pong balls or hard rubber balls, and from which the winning numbers are drawn.  Most ball drawings are broadcast on television live or taped and shown later.

Enter one choice or the other, even if you are swayed ever so slightly one way or the other.

You may enter a comment as well, but it is optional.

Also, please participate in the other two polls posted.

POLL 1 of 3: Computerized drawings vs. ball drawings
You are currently viewing this poll

POLL 2 of 3: Switching to computerized drawings
http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/161744

POLL 3 of 3: Switching to mechanical ball drawings
http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/161743

There's no doubt in my mind about this!!!  Even tho, I believe that test draws distorts the stats, like Fla does.

                                                  Balls

IMHO if a state wants to run a lottery that is fair & random, it should have the balls to do it!

lol ! Yes!!!

Ball machine.

I moved from Texas to Louisiana two years ago.  Texas uses balls.  LA is computerized.  None of the systems I used in Texas work in LA.  Wins here are few and far between.  None of  the systems I used in Texas work here - they don't even come close.  I play much less.

  I think I've made my position very clear on this subject. Aside from the very valid argument that they're more easily and undetectably compromised, using computers to draw lottery numbers removes an essential element from all of the games. We enjoy the excitement of watching the balls blow around inside the hoppers, watching our numbers roll out one by one and, most of all, anticipating that final number while our hearts pound so hard we think we'll pass out or die.

  Now, that's exciting; that's a real lottery drawing.

   I've watched tens of thousands of true lottery drawings over the years, and I don't remember thinking, even once, "Gee, I wish these drawings were more technologically advanced." Funny thing is, I've never seen even ONE drawing made by a computer. I've seen animated images of computer drawings that were made to look like they were drawn using balls, but I've never seen the actual drawing in real time.

  I wish someone would apply this wonderful technology to a game that would cause the general public to see what we've seen. I wish some sports team owner would wake up and realize that he could save hundreds of millions of dollars per year just by creating and organizing virtual football or basketball teams. No more injuries; no more scandals and no more multi-million dollar player contracts. My God; why NOT do it? NASCAR sponsors and owners could also save scads of money by turning live races into video games, as they've done with these virtual lottery drawings. 

  Just because new technology is available for a given application does not necessarily indicate that it can or should be adopted. We have the technology to enable our government to know, at any given moment, what ANYONE in the country is doing, even while they're inside their own homes. Does this mean we should allow them to do it? We have the technology and means to decimate every other country in the world. Why isn't this technology being utilized? These are extreme examples, to be sure, but here's one more: We have the technology to grow staple crops in pure desert sand. I don't have to ask why this technology isn't being employed, because I already know the answer. It costs 27% more to grow corn or soybeans in hot sand than it does to grow it in soil in a less-hostile climate, thus negating any potential profit (wheat costs 18% more to grow in the desert but, for some reason, sand-grown wheat yields 6% more grain per acre).

  So far, with the lone exception of the very first state to convert to using an RNG (I think it was Connecticut, but I wouldn't swear to it), every other state lottery that has embraced these machines has made the same comment: "Other states are already using this technology, and it's important that we keep up with industry trends."

  I'm waiting for the day when a lottery public relations spokesman says, "Well, other state lottery directors were jumping off bridges, so ..."

i've got a very interesting question for everyone here....

who started this computerized nonsense?  what state had the first RNG?  Whoever started this trend of RNG should be hung with no chance of being pardoned for this terrible mistake that threatens lotteries like a bad uncurable cancer.

i voted for BALLS. bring tennessee back our BALLS.

Had to vote for the BALL's on this WON>>>>>justxploring::::::::::::

BUTtttttttttttttt & yes there is alway's a BUTT out there somewhere,

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

how do we factor in the women who "R".....RUINING D LOTTERY?

?????????.."RING "

Excellent commentary and analogies.

It doesn't matter to me, i like each one either way...I've said before that it doesn't matter if you are using RNG or Balls machine is how high you set the odds that matter...I wish they put the lottery machines in a squared  or cylindrical candy machine or machine that looks like a blender  (all of them with the same dimensions) and perhaps mix some bigger balls with a lot of smaller balls...I'll be so happy the day they ever do that....If they change to RNG i wouldn't care...The day they make pick3 and give you money for matching 1 or 2 numbers of pick3 and the day they set pick4 just like Massachussetts' Number game  in EVERY STATE then i'll be happy...

"The Truth is Out There"......                    from movie "The X-Files"

Okay, don't flog me here, but I chose Computerized drawings because that would open up possibilities that maybe it would be possible to create a system that could get hits more often than trying to guess the machine ball outcome.

Seems I've heard that it's pretty tough to actually write a true RNG program and maybe players could spot a rythmn or glitch and take advantage of it.

The outcome of a Mechanical ball machine is pretty tough to unravel in my opinion. Maybe I'd have better luck with RNG's.

I'm not flogging you Steve, let's take this example. What if, 5 or 10 minutes from draw time. They do a check, find the the number with the least sales, then generate that number with a few lines of code change. Do you think that could happen or how many times has it really happen and the public will never know. When a lottery official starts using the word "integrity", beware.

i think some of these computerized states do this.they check and see the number bet on least and like rebecca paul hargrove said 'maximize profit'.i just realized something thanks to carbob.i should've thought about it sooner.think about it everyone.rebecca hargrove said tennessee was trying to 'maximize profit' which means the winning number every night in tennessee is the one bet on the least and therefore they maximize their profit because they are paying out on the least bet number.hell they aren't even trying to hide it in tennessee they are admiting it.i'm done with tennessee except for powerball for now.