- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 10:46 am
You last visited
April 25, 2024, 4:54 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Statistics around the balance of even/odd and small/big numbersPrev TopicNext Topic
-
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 26, 2011
Stack47,
Whew! Couldn't you make your point[s] in a sentence or two? Don't bother, however; you've said this all before, and I've replied to it.
Try dr san's approach:
https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1930632
Perhaps you can pick up the ball for RL-RANDOMLOGIC and tell us why you thinkdr san is wrong.
--Jimmy4164
Nice to see you're sticking to providing on site links instead of that boring and useless info from the 18th century.
I'm hoping one of these days you'll actually point me into the direction of a post that says something positive about your statistical findings, but I suspect my beard will turn whiter and whiter waiting for that to happen.
-
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 26, 2011
Stack47,
Whew! Couldn't you make your point[s] in a sentence or two? Don't bother, however; you've said this all before, and I've replied to it.
Try dr san's approach:
https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1930632
Perhaps you can pick up the ball for RL-RANDOMLOGIC and tell us why you thinkdr san is wrong.
--Jimmy4164
???
-
Jimmy
I did not reply to dr san because I did not fully understand his point of reference to the concept of
the link he posted. He seems to agree and disagree many times on the same subject matter. I often
have trouble understanding his post and to avoid giving a incorrect responce I don't respond at all.
I like much of what I believe he has posted but many times cannot tell for sure just what he is saying.
What you don't understand is that the lottery is not about MATH..... I know the odds. Your world
seems to be turned upside down when I say a win more then I lose because you cannot find any math
to support my claims. You don't understand my point of view at all, I am not the best best person at
explaining things but I try. If I use the same math as you I could prove myself incorrect while on the
other hand my methods would prove the math incorrect, hmmmmm. Playing a smarter set does not
guarantee a win and I think most people understand this concept. The previous post concerning the
clusters was just an observation and an attempt to explain it. You took this as some sort of expression
or self acknowledgement that I had been guilty of the gamblers fallacy all along. You are like a robot
that has limited functions. The math is correct in general but I refuse to believe that it defines the whole
lottery universe. You can bet the gamming industry uses the stats like a bible thumper uses the bible.
I still read the bible time to time but you would have trouble trying to convince me the earth is 6000 years
old. Is the bible to be rejected because of this, I say no but it's only my opinion. This same logic can
be applied to my view of math and the lottery. There are many tricks to picking numbers that give a
great advantage over a simple QP. If someone wants to believe in luck, chance, dreams, angles, diet
or the a so called fallacy of looking to past draws to pick their numbers, I have no problem with that.
I think that my 5-39 game accounts for less then 3% of sales with scratchers accounting for around 65%
The lotteries seem to be moving away from the jackpot games in general and for reasons I can only guess.
Maybe they figured out that painting a piece of cardboard with flashly colors and pictures of big wads of
cash will draw more attention, or maybe it's as simple as being able to slow down the process and thus
giving the player more bang for the buck. It's all a Game. Most people hate RNG's because it must take
a few milliseconds to pick the numbers vs watching the tumbler toss the balls around waiting for there
numbers to fall out. Why and how people play and who if anyone they share there methods with should
not matter or be an issue to anyone. When selecting SP's the fewer choices that one has to make and
the fewer choices that one has to choose from even if selected at random will always be better then
making a few choices from thousands or millions. A system that can allow for several mistakes and not
remove the second, third and so on lower prizes is key.
RL
-
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Jan 27, 2011
Jimmy
I did not reply to dr san because I did not fully understand his point of reference to the concept of
the link he posted. He seems to agree and disagree many times on the same subject matter. I often
have trouble understanding his post and to avoid giving a incorrect responce I don't respond at all.
I like much of what I believe he has posted but many times cannot tell for sure just what he is saying.
What you don't understand is that the lottery is not about MATH..... I know the odds. Your world
seems to be turned upside down when I say a win more then I lose because you cannot find any math
to support my claims. You don't understand my point of view at all, I am not the best best person at
explaining things but I try. If I use the same math as you I could prove myself incorrect while on the
other hand my methods would prove the math incorrect, hmmmmm. Playing a smarter set does not
guarantee a win and I think most people understand this concept. The previous post concerning the
clusters was just an observation and an attempt to explain it. You took this as some sort of expression
or self acknowledgement that I had been guilty of the gamblers fallacy all along. You are like a robot
that has limited functions. The math is correct in general but I refuse to believe that it defines the whole
lottery universe. You can bet the gamming industry uses the stats like a bible thumper uses the bible.
I still read the bible time to time but you would have trouble trying to convince me the earth is 6000 years
old. Is the bible to be rejected because of this, I say no but it's only my opinion. This same logic can
be applied to my view of math and the lottery. There are many tricks to picking numbers that give a
great advantage over a simple QP. If someone wants to believe in luck, chance, dreams, angles, diet
or the a so called fallacy of looking to past draws to pick their numbers, I have no problem with that.
I think that my 5-39 game accounts for less then 3% of sales with scratchers accounting for around 65%
The lotteries seem to be moving away from the jackpot games in general and for reasons I can only guess.
Maybe they figured out that painting a piece of cardboard with flashly colors and pictures of big wads of
cash will draw more attention, or maybe it's as simple as being able to slow down the process and thus
giving the player more bang for the buck. It's all a Game. Most people hate RNG's because it must take
a few milliseconds to pick the numbers vs watching the tumbler toss the balls around waiting for there
numbers to fall out. Why and how people play and who if anyone they share there methods with should
not matter or be an issue to anyone. When selecting SP's the fewer choices that one has to make and
the fewer choices that one has to choose from even if selected at random will always be better then
making a few choices from thousands or millions. A system that can allow for several mistakes and not
remove the second, third and so on lower prizes is key.
RL
RL-RANDOM-LOGIC,
You may not realize it, but when you said, "I did not reply to dr san because I did not fully understand his point of reference to the concept of the link he posted," you SPOKE VOLUMES!
Thanks for being honest.
For anyone else interested, dr san's recent post gets at the crux of the problem:
https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1930632
Perhaps you can pick up the ball for RL-RANDOMLOGIC and tell us why you think dr san is wrong. If you agree with him, as I do, your input is also welcome. Please don't be shy.
--Jimmy4164
-
Quote: Originally posted by dr san on Jan 25, 2011
Let's define various events:
Event H: "The combination (1,2,3,4,5,6) will come."
Event B: "The combination (1,9,20,29,42,49) will come."
Event C: "The combination (1,2,3,47,48,49) will come."
Event D: "Either B or C will happen."
Event E: "The sum will be 10."
Event F: "The sum will be 21."
Event G: "The sum will be 150."(I use H instead of "A" because the translation software understands
letter "A" wrongly)What I say is: "Events H, B and C are equally probable."
I don't say: "Event D is equally probable as H." Of course, it's twice
more probable, if it has two ways to occur.
If D = (B or C), then P(D)=P(B)+P(C)=2*P(B)=2*P(H)Event E has zero probability, because it has 0 ways to occur.
Event F has equal probability as H, because H=F, the combination H is
the only way for the sum to be 21.
Event G has much bigger probability than B, C or D, because G = (B or C
or ...) , so P(G)=P(B)+P(C)+... (many ways to occur)
So, if P(G)>P(B) and P(B)=P(H)=P(F), then of course P(G)>P(F).Of course, you are right, the sum 150 is more probable than 21.
You say: P(G)>P(F).
I say: P(H)=P(B)=P(C).These two statements are in no conflict. And they are both correct. You
just need to be methodic and not confuse these things.
By the way, RL, I hope that you understand at least a little
English. I just noticed that Google Translate turned your Portuguese
sentence: "Cada combinação de seis números não têm chance igual de
ocorrência." into English: "Each combination of six numbers have an
equal chance of occurrence.". (please see my original text here).dr san
Sorry, I somehow skipped over or missed reading this post. I have stopped replying to you post
because of the translation errors. It seems that you have picked up a new friend named jimmy and
I must warn you that if he reads many of your post that he will turn on you and accused you of being
a victim of the gamblers fallacy. As for your probability statements above I must agree. Every set in
the entire matrix has the same chance of being drawn and lumping several sets that share some
commonality such as the sum of all numbers within a set will have a greater probability then any
single set or smaller like group. I do not see a question here but I could be missing something. Let's
do a mind experiment for a moment.
Think of the lottery as sets of numbers and not as single numbers being drawn 1 at a time. Next imagine
all the sets are placed into a large container and mixed very well so that very few groups of similar sets are
in the same general area within the container. Now lets say that you reach in and select one of these sets
without looking. What is the (p) that the set will contain the digit 1 and what is the (p) that it will contain
the digit 7? Use a 5-39 matrix.
Before you can answer this question you must know the exact sums of both digits. 1's = 509979 or 88.57%
and 7's =251125 or 43.6%. 33649 or .06% (ROUNDED UP) sets have no 1's and 7's.
Results for the last 750 drawings for my 5-39 game
1's = 656 or 87.5% 88.57 * 750 = 664 difference of -8 over 750 drawings from the expected
7's = 330 or 44% 43.6 * 750 = 327 difference of +3 over 750 drawing from the expected
The more so called random a drawing is the better I like it. If however you were to look at the numbers
for these same digits you will find very different results. Digits Rule the draw and the matrix
rules the digits and the more random the draw the better. It is very true that any set can be drawn
but I count on this when I play. If looking at the numbers that make up the sets you will find a jumbled
mess of skips, repeats, odd's, even's hi-low sums with no reason or pattern in my opinion but with digits
it is a different story. If what I post lacks in methodical steps it is because I intended it as such. I
will never post the a to z's and this has caused a few to attack my methods and I guess that is par for
the course.
PS. I thought that jimmy was referring to another post made a while back, so as usual his assumptions
are wrong again.
RL
-
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Jan 28, 2011
dr san
Sorry, I somehow skipped over or missed reading this post. I have stopped replying to you post
because of the translation errors. It seems that you have picked up a new friend named jimmy and
I must warn you that if he reads many of your post that he will turn on you and accused you of being
a victim of the gamblers fallacy. As for your probability statements above I must agree. Every set in
the entire matrix has the same chance of being drawn and lumping several sets that share some
commonality such as the sum of all numbers within a set will have a greater probability then any
single set or smaller like group. I do not see a question here but I could be missing something. Let's
do a mind experiment for a moment.
Think of the lottery as sets of numbers and not as single numbers being drawn 1 at a time. Next imagine
all the sets are placed into a large container and mixed very well so that very few groups of similar sets are
in the same general area within the container. Now lets say that you reach in and select one of these sets
without looking. What is the (p) that the set will contain the digit 1 and what is the (p) that it will contain
the digit 7? Use a 5-39 matrix.
Before you can answer this question you must know the exact sums of both digits. 1's = 509979 or 88.57%
and 7's =251125 or 43.6%. 33649 or .06% (ROUNDED UP) sets have no 1's and 7's.
Results for the last 750 drawings for my 5-39 game
1's = 656 or 87.5% 88.57 * 750 = 664 difference of -8 over 750 drawings from the expected
7's = 330 or 44% 43.6 * 750 = 327 difference of +3 over 750 drawing from the expected
The more so called random a drawing is the better I like it. If however you were to look at the numbers
for these same digits you will find very different results. Digits Rule the draw and the matrix
rules the digits and the more random the draw the better. It is very true that any set can be drawn
but I count on this when I play. If looking at the numbers that make up the sets you will find a jumbled
mess of skips, repeats, odd's, even's hi-low sums with no reason or pattern in my opinion but with digits
it is a different story. If what I post lacks in methodical steps it is because I intended it as such. I
will never post the a to z's and this has caused a few to attack my methods and I guess that is par for
the course.
PS. I thought that jimmy was referring to another post made a while back, so as usual his assumptions
are wrong again.
RL
"I do not see a question here but I could be missing something."
Unbelievable!
Your "mind experiment" once again documents your lack of understanding of probability as it relates to intersections of sets, which is what dr san is trying to explain to you.
Perhaps someone else can make a dent...
-
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 28, 2011
"I do not see a question here but I could be missing something."
Unbelievable!
Your "mind experiment" once again documents your lack of understanding of probability as it relates to intersections of sets, which is what dr san is trying to explain to you.
Perhaps someone else can make a dent...
Jimmy
I think you have a big enought dent for us all. I understand what he says I just don't see a question.
Maybe you could be kind enough to ask this unseen question, I read the post and took it at face value.
He is using the same lame probability which really has little if any value to me and my methods of picking
my numbers.
dr San I am not confused at all, I am fully aware of the math behind this and must say that if you are
picking your numbers based this you should buy QP's.
The mind experiment was to open your eyes and I hope that it has. I don't think that you or jimmy
can look beyond the stuff he preaches. How hard is it to say that since no set can have a lower sum
then 21 that a set with a sum of 10 cannot be drawn, and that only one set has a sum of 21 then it's
probability of being drawn is far smaller then sets which have sums of 150 of which there are many.
However the sum 21 set has the same chance of being drawn as any one of the sets with sums of
150. The mind experiment was to show that digits are much more predictible the numbers which they
form. They will hug the expected far closer then the numbers ever will. If I break this down as I have
done in my systems post and proven that there are just as many sets using digits as there are using
numbers, which must have gone unread then so be it. Pick your numbers and I hope you are very
succesful but I think it a false hope. The only way to pick a winning set beyond sheer chance is to
have a method of selection that proves better then chance would account for. If I had to pick numbers
to play then I would not play at all. You will never, ever find this using probability because in probability
it does not exist, you can't get apples from carrots no matter how you slice them. And by the way
JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly, I just don't know how to say I don't care other
then I don't care.
RL
-
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Jan 28, 2011
Jimmy
I think you have a big enought dent for us all. I understand what he says I just don't see a question.
Maybe you could be kind enough to ask this unseen question, I read the post and took it at face value.
He is using the same lame probability which really has little if any value to me and my methods of picking
my numbers.
dr San I am not confused at all, I am fully aware of the math behind this and must say that if you are
picking your numbers based this you should buy QP's.
The mind experiment was to open your eyes and I hope that it has. I don't think that you or jimmy
can look beyond the stuff he preaches. How hard is it to say that since no set can have a lower sum
then 21 that a set with a sum of 10 cannot be drawn, and that only one set has a sum of 21 then it's
probability of being drawn is far smaller then sets which have sums of 150 of which there are many.
However the sum 21 set has the same chance of being drawn as any one of the sets with sums of
150. The mind experiment was to show that digits are much more predictible the numbers which they
form. They will hug the expected far closer then the numbers ever will. If I break this down as I have
done in my systems post and proven that there are just as many sets using digits as there are using
numbers, which must have gone unread then so be it. Pick your numbers and I hope you are very
succesful but I think it a false hope. The only way to pick a winning set beyond sheer chance is to
have a method of selection that proves better then chance would account for. If I had to pick numbers
to play then I would not play at all. You will never, ever find this using probability because in probability
it does not exist, you can't get apples from carrots no matter how you slice them. And by the way
JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly, I just don't know how to say I don't care other
then I don't care.
RL
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
You said, "And by the way JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly..."
Sorry RL-RANDOMLOGIC, but you DO NOT understand [ALL OF] what dr san said, and I refuse to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Perhaps dr san will try again.
I had a great vacation in Las Vegas a few months ago with one of my sons that I don't get to see very often. He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop. After a while, he looked at me and said, "Dad, why are you wasting your time on this?" I told him that although there are only a dozen or so active posters challenging everything I write, there are thousands of viewers, and maybe some of them are learning something. He wasn't convinced. I wish I had listened to him; my other projects would be further advanced by now, and I would have enjoyed more quality time with him.
I will continue to post here at LP, but most likely in the Gaming Forum. The posts over there look interesting and the people are in possession of abstract reasoning ability, something in short supply among the most vocal here.
I hope you're keeping a detailed record of your equity line as you play your MO-5 and collect your winnings because as I'm sure you must be aware, WITHOUT A JACKPOT, to stay ahead of that game, you must win MORE than 4X or 5X what you would expect by Chance. Good luck!
When you say, "..., I just don't know how to say I don't care other then I don't care." ...I realize that I've not only wasted a lot of time on you, but I haven't learned anything from you! Maybe I should take consolation in the fact that I HAVE learned one thing, and that is a much better understanding of the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss!"
--Jimmy4164
-
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 29, 2011
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
You said, "And by the way JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly..."
Sorry RL-RANDOMLOGIC, but you DO NOT understand [ALL OF] what dr san said, and I refuse to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Perhaps dr san will try again.
I had a great vacation in Las Vegas a few months ago with one of my sons that I don't get to see very often. He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop. After a while, he looked at me and said, "Dad, why are you wasting your time on this?" I told him that although there are only a dozen or so active posters challenging everything I write, there are thousands of viewers, and maybe some of them are learning something. He wasn't convinced. I wish I had listened to him; my other projects would be further advanced by now, and I would have enjoyed more quality time with him.
I will continue to post here at LP, but most likely in the Gaming Forum. The posts over there look interesting and the people are in possession of abstract reasoning ability, something in short supply among the most vocal here.
I hope you're keeping a detailed record of your equity line as you play your MO-5 and collect your winnings because as I'm sure you must be aware, WITHOUT A JACKPOT, to stay ahead of that game, you must win MORE than 4X or 5X what you would expect by Chance. Good luck!
When you say, "..., I just don't know how to say I don't care other then I don't care." ...I realize that I've not only wasted a lot of time on you, but I haven't learned anything from you! Maybe I should take consolation in the fact that I HAVE learned one thing, and that is a much better understanding of the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss!"
--Jimmy4164
Jimbo
I do understand exactly what dr san said. you cannon get it through your head that
there are other methods then probability. I see you raised your son in your own image,
poor kid. I have a predictor based very loosely on bayes that does use some probability
but other then that N-O P-R-O-B-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y. Tell me here, for all the world to see just
how you invision dr san's post as providing me with any information that will help me win
the lottery. He, like yourself somehow assumes that I am confused, that I am grouping the
digits from many different numbers or sets and then applying a larger probability instead of
using the probability for each. This is your fallacy not mine. I have no problem with the fact
that every set has the same odds in a single draw. Your continued harping on this is like
someone insisting that water is wet when I am talking about grains of sand in the desert.
This is your shoe box approach that I detest. First both you and dr san are incorrect in your
assumptions. While it could be easy to assume this you have missed the point by a lightyear.
You are so fixated on being right that you have never even considerded what I am saying
about the digit system. Your total lack of depth in this area still leads me to think that the
only knowledge you possess comes from the web. I disdain your megar attemps to explain
away something you don't understand while using your webpage knowledge in an attemp
to make you look smart while all the while looking more and more like the village idoit. Let
me say it loud and clear, probability is given no place in my digit selection and your assumption
that I am using probability incorrectly is absurd. Maybe someday you will understand how
simple this really is but I doubt it as it would require thinking instead of your one approach
fits all. Your concern about the world seeing this may be the reason that you dare not make
an attempt to understand it but rest assured that I would say that not more then a few
hundred people have or will ever see this, and I also think that if they were looking for math
instruction they would not come here to learn. This is just another cop-out on your behalf.
RL
-
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 29, 2011
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
You said, "And by the way JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly..."
Sorry RL-RANDOMLOGIC, but you DO NOT understand [ALL OF] what dr san said, and I refuse to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Perhaps dr san will try again.
I had a great vacation in Las Vegas a few months ago with one of my sons that I don't get to see very often. He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop. After a while, he looked at me and said, "Dad, why are you wasting your time on this?" I told him that although there are only a dozen or so active posters challenging everything I write, there are thousands of viewers, and maybe some of them are learning something. He wasn't convinced. I wish I had listened to him; my other projects would be further advanced by now, and I would have enjoyed more quality time with him.
I will continue to post here at LP, but most likely in the Gaming Forum. The posts over there look interesting and the people are in possession of abstract reasoning ability, something in short supply among the most vocal here.
I hope you're keeping a detailed record of your equity line as you play your MO-5 and collect your winnings because as I'm sure you must be aware, WITHOUT A JACKPOT, to stay ahead of that game, you must win MORE than 4X or 5X what you would expect by Chance. Good luck!
When you say, "..., I just don't know how to say I don't care other then I don't care." ...I realize that I've not only wasted a lot of time on you, but I haven't learned anything from you! Maybe I should take consolation in the fact that I HAVE learned one thing, and that is a much better understanding of the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss!"
--Jimmy4164
Jim
PS
I think you would be correct in moving to the Gaming Forum if it's any consolation because
there your probability could help improve ones play for many games. The lottery is static
in nature and one only needs to calculate these values once. They will never change unless
the game changes.
RL
-
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 29, 2011
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
You said, "And by the way JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly..."
Sorry RL-RANDOMLOGIC, but you DO NOT understand [ALL OF] what dr san said, and I refuse to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Perhaps dr san will try again.
I had a great vacation in Las Vegas a few months ago with one of my sons that I don't get to see very often. He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop. After a while, he looked at me and said, "Dad, why are you wasting your time on this?" I told him that although there are only a dozen or so active posters challenging everything I write, there are thousands of viewers, and maybe some of them are learning something. He wasn't convinced. I wish I had listened to him; my other projects would be further advanced by now, and I would have enjoyed more quality time with him.
I will continue to post here at LP, but most likely in the Gaming Forum. The posts over there look interesting and the people are in possession of abstract reasoning ability, something in short supply among the most vocal here.
I hope you're keeping a detailed record of your equity line as you play your MO-5 and collect your winnings because as I'm sure you must be aware, WITHOUT A JACKPOT, to stay ahead of that game, you must win MORE than 4X or 5X what you would expect by Chance. Good luck!
When you say, "..., I just don't know how to say I don't care other then I don't care." ...I realize that I've not only wasted a lot of time on you, but I haven't learned anything from you! Maybe I should take consolation in the fact that I HAVE learned one thing, and that is a much better understanding of the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss!"
--Jimmy4164
"He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop."
You were on vacation in a city that's open 24 hours with thousands of things you could be doing with your son you seldom see yet you choose to spend your time posting useless information.
That really says it all!
-
Quote: Originally posted by stef on Dec 28, 2010
I am sure that all of you realise that lotto numbers often come out with a balance of even/odd numbers (e.g. 2-4,3-3,4-2) about 75% of the time. The same thing for small/big numbers. I was wondering if there was a statistical/probabilty explanation to this. For any ball drawn, isn't the probabilty of it being even or odd the same? Is this tendency explained by the small probabilty increase that the next ball will be odd if previous balls drawn are even?
Yeah the statistical and probability reason for it is that it's completely random. All you're doing is rephrasing conditions and then you're wondering why it's 75%. It's like flipping two coins and wondering why 75% of the flips are not both heads up. The reason why is that it's random and you would only expect 25% of the flips to be both heads up. It's the same issue with the even odd balance crap, it only seems to be more than would be justified by randomness but is in fact perfectly justified by randomness. If you worked through all the attempts to exploit what people perceive as a pattern, you'll find that they've really haven't found any advantage at all but of course you'll never convince anybody of that.
-
Quote: Originally posted by jwhou on Jan 31, 2011
Yeah the statistical and probability reason for it is that it's completely random. All you're doing is rephrasing conditions and then you're wondering why it's 75%. It's like flipping two coins and wondering why 75% of the flips are not both heads up. The reason why is that it's random and you would only expect 25% of the flips to be both heads up. It's the same issue with the even odd balance crap, it only seems to be more than would be justified by randomness but is in fact perfectly justified by randomness. If you worked through all the attempts to exploit what people perceive as a pattern, you'll find that they've really haven't found any advantage at all but of course you'll never convince anybody of that.
"If you worked through all the attempts to exploit what people perceive as a pattern, you'll find that they've really haven't found any advantage at all but of course you'll never convince anybody of that."
Truer words were never spoken!
-
olá RL-randomlogic=
so you have the probabilities, I checked the calculations.
509977 with 1's or 88,58%
251125 with 7's or 43,62%
33649 without any 1 or 7, or 6%,So what? What benefit does this bring to you? You can't bet on digits.
Just like you can't bet on the sums, central trios and so on.
You can only bet on numbers.I'm not talking about 100% guarantee here, I'm saying that you can not
make any difference at all. Not 80%, not anything. -
Quote: Originally posted by dr san on Jan 31, 2011
olá RL-randomlogic=
so you have the probabilities, I checked the calculations.
509977 with 1's or 88,58%
251125 with 7's or 43,62%
33649 without any 1 or 7, or 6%,So what? What benefit does this bring to you? You can't bet on digits.
Just like you can't bet on the sums, central trios and so on.
You can only bet on numbers.I'm not talking about 100% guarantee here, I'm saying that you can not
make any difference at all. Not 80%, not anything.dr san
I know the odds for each digit hitting in any one drawing and most of the remarks made by the staticians
are a insult. There continued repetitious comparisons to probability shows a complete lack of any attemp
to understand what I have said. I say that I am able to predict the digits with a greater then expected
average when I play. I receive in return is the same old song and dance which is getting really old. Picking
from a list of 10 is much easier then picking from a list of 39 or more.
My software can easily assemble the winning set if the digits selected are correct. Give me the correct
digits to play and I can produce the winning set 100% of the time. The very fact that I have copies of
tickets which show I beat the odds far more then chance can account for should be enough. Others here
have seen these tickets and so when you tell me I can't do this then I have to laugh. You are asking me
to deny what I can see with my own eyes, How absurd.........