Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
The time is now 6:50 am
You last visited November 27, 2014, 6:27 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

What Does It Take To Win (Mathematically Speaking?)

Topic closed. 134 replies. Last post 4 years ago by Stack47.

Page 1 of 9
51
PrintE-mailLink
jimmy4164's avatar - andy warhol.jpg
State of Mind
United States
Member #93949
July 10, 2010
2177 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 30, 2011, 4:25 pm - IP Logged

Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

"When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control  probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss1/art2/

    time*treat's avatar - radar

    United States
    Member #13130
    March 30, 2005
    2171 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 30, 2011, 5:53 pm - IP Logged

    It takes ... buying a ticket. Big Grin

    In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
    Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      18032 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 30, 2011, 6:53 pm - IP Logged

      Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

      "When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control  probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

      http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss1/art2/

      When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control

      Fact is people generally respect their own opinions more than those of others who they consider no more intelligent or knowledgeable than themselves.

      The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets.


      Fact is less than 3% of the possible lottery combinations will win anything for any particular drawing and most players if they have to pay for a losing ticket prefer it be one of their choosing however players still value a free QP that some lotteries offer as a promotion, I know I do.   Some clerks have been caught stealing customers free QPs, so they value them too.

      * you don't need more tickets, just the right ticket * 
      * your best chance at winning a lottery jackpot is to buy a ticket * 
           Wink 

        garyo1954's avatar - garyo
        Dallas, Texas
        United States
        Member #4549
        May 2, 2004
        1150 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 30, 2011, 7:15 pm - IP Logged

        Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

        "When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control  probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

        http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss1/art2/

        Nope. Didn't click it. Don't have too. It is an extreme hypothesis written in such a manner as to establish some weird human failure since the experimenters needed something to do and couldn't understand the words "my choice."

        I drink the coffee I like, because I like it.

        I eat the oatmenal I eat because I like it.

        I prepare it the way I want becasue I like it that way.

        I eat it out of my favorite bowl because it is my favorite bowl.

        I use the same spoon because I like it.

        I use the toilet paper I use because I like it.

        I buy the dog food I buy because......the dog likes it. Yes, even animals demonstrate a preference!

        Naturally these experimenters/psychlogists, whomever they were, had to find a problem with the test subjects since they are unable to find fault with their premise. But the study was so scientific it failed to account for the very human element it was 'designed to eliminate.' AMAZING!

        Interestingly enough, the relevance to this study, establishes that you CHOOSE to use the links you do because they support your way of thinking, not because they have any scientific basis. And it follows that that anyone propose a link not in keeping with your thinking, you dismiss it as "pathetic, unproven, conjecture, childish, without basis, juvenile, etc."

        Yep. I like what I like, I buy what I like, I eat what I like, because I like it. No science involved. No math studies necessary. And like most people, I don't believe everything I read on the internet that claims it is proven.

          jimmy4164's avatar - andy warhol.jpg
          State of Mind
          United States
          Member #93949
          July 10, 2010
          2177 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 30, 2011, 11:30 pm - IP Logged

          Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

          "When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control  probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

          http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss1/art2/

          garyo1954's reply:

           

          "Nope. Didn't click it. Don't have too."

           

          Jimmy4164's rejoinder:

          'nuff said!"

            Avatar

            United States
            Member #83701
            December 13, 2009
            225 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 30, 2011, 11:58 pm - IP Logged

            Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

            "When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control  probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

            http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss1/art2/

            However the study presumed that the quick pick tickets have actually the same probability as the same number  of tickets chosen by the player and that is not entirely true.   Because the quick pick, chooses the number randomly (or as near to random as a computer can be), there is a small but finite probability that multiple quickpicks would be the same numbers or share some of the same numbers, two tickets with exactly the same numbers have half the chance of two tickets with different numbers, two tickets that share three numbers have one less chance at a three number win.   The difference is very very slight but calculable, when purchasing more than one ticket, a player can have better odds over an equal number of quickpicks by ensuring the number combinations are not repeated.

             

            I will give them the point that people over estimate the probability of a positive result.

              jimmy4164's avatar - andy warhol.jpg
              State of Mind
              United States
              Member #93949
              July 10, 2010
              2177 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 31, 2011, 12:26 am - IP Logged

              Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

              "When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control  probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

              http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss1/art2/

              jwhou,

              When you say, "two tickets with exactly the same numbers have half the chance of two tickets with different numbers, two tickets that share three numbers have one less chance at a three number win," you're forgetting that when these tickets do win, the holders are rewarded with multiple payoffs.  Regardless, this doesn't detract from their observation of the effects of the "Illusion of Control."  And I don't think this was an issue in the study.

              --Jimmy4164

                Avatar
                Kentucky
                United States
                Member #32652
                February 14, 2006
                5608 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 31, 2011, 11:36 am - IP Logged

                Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

                "When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control  probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

                http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss1/art2/

                "Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:"

                Is this topic about the math used in determining the odds against winning a particular prize in lotto game because every state lottery website show the odds against matching 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 numbers?

                Is there a difference between knowing why the PB odds are 195 million to 1 than just taking their word for it?

                "The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975)"

                The only lotto type game I recall in 1975 was the Irish Sweepstakes and I don't know if I could have chosen my own numbers because I didn't live in Ireland.

                It's a shame I can't predict lottery numbers as easily as I can predict that Jimmy will offers more useless information.

                  RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - DiscoBallGlowing

                  United States
                  Member #59354
                  March 13, 2008
                  2351 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 31, 2011, 12:16 pm - IP Logged

                  However the study presumed that the quick pick tickets have actually the same probability as the same number  of tickets chosen by the player and that is not entirely true.   Because the quick pick, chooses the number randomly (or as near to random as a computer can be), there is a small but finite probability that multiple quickpicks would be the same numbers or share some of the same numbers, two tickets with exactly the same numbers have half the chance of two tickets with different numbers, two tickets that share three numbers have one less chance at a three number win.   The difference is very very slight but calculable, when purchasing more than one ticket, a player can have better odds over an equal number of quickpicks by ensuring the number combinations are not repeated.

                   

                  I will give them the point that people over estimate the probability of a positive result.

                  jwhou

                  I purchased a $5.00 QP for my 5-39 which only had 13 total numbers in 5 lines.   I have found similar number

                  tickets quite often and is why I don't like QP's.  This is also one of the reason I believe that QP's seem to

                  have clusters of similar numbered sets. 

                  Humans are creatures of habit and most people purchase tickets on there way to or from work which

                  leads to many tickets being purchased within a small window of time.  Since many RNG's use some measure

                  of time I think this would be expected.

                  What I don't understand about the probability / statsicital preacher is this.  In a fixed game such as a

                  numbered lottery the probability is fixed.  No matter how one dices, slices, tumbles, fumbles, stumbles

                  or picks there numbers the probability for the game remains the same.  To some this means that any 

                  amount of analysis regardless of methods used, is a total waste of time.  While the odds can be used

                  to predict the overall expected they often fail for the single player.   You seem to be a very level headed

                  person able to think outside the box so I would like your opinion on my system.  I posted a system that

                  requires selecting digit to play instead of selecting numbers.  This gives no better probability then selecting

                  numbers overall but consider this.  When I first began to work up this system I ran the probs and was

                  unable to come up with any mathematical reason to focus on digits instead of numbers.  However in my

                  many attemps I found something that seemed to stick out regardless of which RNG used or the sets

                  generated for testing.  I found that the overall sets when broken down mimicked in proportion the whole

                  universe of sets.  This was very simple and was one of those things we see but look over.   

                  This lead to an interesting finding that any small random sample mimicked the larger matrix in such detail

                  that something must be happening at a regular and somewhat predictable basis.  If selecting numbers

                  one has to deal with the aspect that some numbers may go many many drawings without showing.  So 

                  while trying to predict which numbers will show in the next draw one has a jumbed mess of skips and hits

                  that in my opinion defy attemps to sort into any reasonable expectation.  However digits do not have this

                  same problem.

                  Most times digits have a skip rate of less then 4 draws on average, with digits 1-2-3 having a skip rate

                  of less then 1 for my 5-39.  This however does not make the process a win/win option.  Selecting lets say

                  5 or 6 digits for a 5 number game hits most because that's where the most sets fall.  However the big-bang

                  came when I found that many simi-related values follow the same tight hit/skip rates which can also be

                  found in the mini and whole matrix with equal proportion.  These values are equaly distributed with hit rates

                  equal to the digits but are not limited to the digits used in most cases.  Fewer choices will always mean

                  fewer mistakes.

                  My system has come under scrutiny from a few well meaning but misinformed people in my opinion.  My

                  method of play is to wait for the most optimun time for many of these simi-related values to fall within a

                  certain range.  Think of it a a series of timming gears that all sink up on a regular basis.  I do not mean

                  that all the values that sink are static as some change with every draw.  It is based on the fact that the

                  mini matrix will mimic the whole matrix, which it does.  This took years to develop and I won't give the

                  formulas I use for timming but should allow you see where I am comming from.   I know the sums for each

                  value for every filter, digit/ digits and everything else from both the matrix and the draw history for all

                  the games I play.  I can then look at values from the last 5, 10, 30, 50 ect... draws and compare each

                  against the entire matrix along with other random samples to track how close the game follows the

                  whole matrix.  Using a few simple rules and simple math I can then make my selection for what I think

                  will happen next.  So I guess you could say that I begin with the assigned probability and bias it with a

                  (game to matrix ratio).  The program then assembles this information into sets to play.     

                   

                  RL     

                       

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    5608 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 31, 2011, 12:34 pm - IP Logged

                    When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control

                    Fact is people generally respect their own opinions more than those of others who they consider no more intelligent or knowledgeable than themselves.

                    The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets.


                    Fact is less than 3% of the possible lottery combinations will win anything for any particular drawing and most players if they have to pay for a losing ticket prefer it be one of their choosing however players still value a free QP that some lotteries offer as a promotion, I know I do.   Some clerks have been caught stealing customers free QPs, so they value them too.

                    "Fact is people generally respect their own opinions more than those of others who they consider no more intelligent or knowledgeable than themselves."

                    It's more realistic to assume if a player has $10 to spend on a lottery game and decides to choose their own numbers, they already made the choice between self picks and quick picks. The only way to compare the value of the two wagers is to purchase a like number of QPs but that suggestion ignores the fact the player only planned on spending $10.

                    I've played QPs with SPs on the same playslip many times and saw many other players doing the same. Never heard anyone say they place more value on either method when buying them together.

                    The only thing interesting about this topic so far is what type of study was conducted in 1975 when there were very few lotto games and only available to a small number of players.

                      ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                      Denver, Co
                      United States
                      Member #103049
                      December 29, 2010
                      546 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 31, 2011, 1:48 pm - IP Logged

                      Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

                      "When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control  probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

                      http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss1/art2/

                      "Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:"

                      For those of us who are not endowed with mathematical skills, why should we think about this before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

                        jimmy4164's avatar - andy warhol.jpg
                        State of Mind
                        United States
                        Member #93949
                        July 10, 2010
                        2177 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 31, 2011, 3:46 pm - IP Logged

                        "Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:"

                        For those of us who are not endowed with mathematical skills, why should we think about this before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

                        ameriken,

                        The beauty of Lotterypost.com is that there is something here for everyone.  Given that fact, it's puzzling to me that someone like yourself, who proclaims they "are not endowed with mathematical skills," would click on the Mathematical Forum, and then proceed to make comments in a Topic which contains "Mathematical" in its Title.  I'm sure you can find a Forum and Topic here that you'll be more comfortable with.  For starters, why not check out one of the most popular Topics at this site:

                        http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/158188

                        This way, those of us who have some training and interest in mathematics could get on with our discussion.

                        --Jimmy4164

                          ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                          Denver, Co
                          United States
                          Member #103049
                          December 29, 2010
                          546 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 31, 2011, 4:52 pm - IP Logged

                          Yes, the beauty of Lotterypost.com is that there is something here for everyone. Another beauty is that there are good people here who are willing to help and share with others who are willing to learn. Unfortunately, there are people like you as well.

                          Third, you obviously lack certain skills as well, otherwise you would easily understand why I would click on the Mathematical Forum. However, since you do find it so puzzling, perhaps you can find the answer in a Forum and Topic that may help you unlock the key to the puzzle: http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/158188

                            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                            mid-Ohio
                            United States
                            Member #9
                            March 24, 2001
                            18032 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 31, 2011, 6:47 pm - IP Logged

                            ameriken,

                            The beauty of Lotterypost.com is that there is something here for everyone.  Given that fact, it's puzzling to me that someone like yourself, who proclaims they "are not endowed with mathematical skills," would click on the Mathematical Forum, and then proceed to make comments in a Topic which contains "Mathematical" in its Title.  I'm sure you can find a Forum and Topic here that you'll be more comfortable with.  For starters, why not check out one of the most popular Topics at this site:

                            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/158188

                            This way, those of us who have some training and interest in mathematics could get on with our discussion.

                            --Jimmy4164

                            This way, those of us who have some training and interest in mathematics could get on with our discussion.

                            What discussion? What?

                            * you don't need more tickets, just the right ticket * 
                            * your best chance at winning a lottery jackpot is to buy a ticket * 
                                 Wink 

                              jimmy4164's avatar - andy warhol.jpg
                              State of Mind
                              United States
                              Member #93949
                              July 10, 2010
                              2177 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 1, 2011, 12:11 am - IP Logged

                              This way, those of us who have some training and interest in mathematics could get on with our discussion.

                              What discussion? What?

                              RJOh,

                              You said, "What discussion?"

                              Good question.

                              Since my opening post, all that's been posted here are inane remarks, and that includes yours.  The attacks on the 1975 study as out of date don't even confirm that the article was read, since it was merely a reference that was mentioned in the paragraph I included as an excerpt.  If you aren't careful, it won't be long before the slowest people here figure out what your real purpose is in these Forums.

                              --Jimmy4164

                              P.S.  No need to bother reminding me you didn't comment on the 1975 study.  I know that.