"The gamming industry counts on randomness and without it they could not survive."
And they seem to be surviving quite well, don't they?
"Blackjack is a random game but by counting cards you can improve your play, why, because with each card that has been played the randomness of the next card drawn becomes less and less. While it is true that all the numbers are returned to the hopper for ecah drawing one can still gain some useful information about how random works in a closed system."
"I don't pretend to have figured it all out but I have made some progress. Want to solve the lottery or a part of it then study random."
You're way ahead of Stack47, RL! Some of your thinking here is quite innovative and rational. However, before investing a lot of valuable time on this, revisit my post of almost a year ago, and think long and hard about what the Stanford authors had to say about the difference between what might be theoretically possible and what is reasonably plausible in practise. Remember, by the time the balls are flying, the lottery terminals are closed!
The reason they do so well is that most players rely on chance. It goes back to the 10 marbles and the
paper bag experiment which is all one needs to understand chance, odds and probability. It is almost
mechanical in nature and just like the lottery the results will follow the rules +/- some small deviation given
time. You may select the correct marble 3 thime in a row but it was still a product of chance. As you know I
don't think about the current draw in terms of numbers being drawn but as a pre existing set which contains
a number of different elements.
I also never look at the actual numbers until I fill in the playslips. The gamming industry knows that
although some will win they know that many more will loose just like the selecting one marble from the
bag, they could expect one to loose 9 out of 10 attempts. Here is what I think, mathematics is a product
of the conscious mind. We have a need to make things fit togeather so that they make since. We mow
the lawn so that all the grass is the same hight, WHY? When we play the lottery we try to make random
events fit into some sort of pattern that can be explained. Probability is like a adjustable wrench that can
be adjusted to explain the outcome as chance because it does not rule out anything. If someone hit 10
jackpots in a row it could still be said to be a product of chance. Probability is great at providing information
about what one can expect overall but it has no predictive qualities. Certainty does not exist where random
is involved but in pseudorandom events such as the lottery there are a few common rules that seem to hold
up that take some of the uncertainty out. I agree that every set has the same exact odds of being drawn for
any one drawing but over time each set falls victim to the matrix. If the matrix has a million sets then each set
has a one in a million chance of being drawn. The combinations of varibles within a pseudorandom event can
out number the possible outcomes so some sets would have more than one set of variables which would give
them a greater chance of hitting then sets with fewer combinations of variables from which the same set could
be generated. Lets say that you have 10 filters which all have a range of 0 to 5. This would give you 60466176
possible ways to set the 10 filters. Lets say that you are playing a 5-39 matrix which has 575757 sets. this would
mean that 59890419 of the 10 filter setups would not produce any sets for obvious reasons however the drawing
process could produce a set for each which would mean there are many ways the balls could bounce around and
still produce the same set. However given the almost unlimited variable values within a hopper full of balls being
bounced around would the odds for each set still be the same as the odds given for the matrix. This may seem a
little foolish because there are only so many sets in the matrix from which one set will be drawn regardless of the
total of variable values inside the hopper. Random gets a little weird at this level because it seems that there is
more than one set of variables for each set and if each set does not require the same variables to be drawn then
would this give some sets either a greater or lesser chance than others. I am not saying this would help someone
pick the next 5 winning numbers, just put it out there to chew on. Maybe someday I will post some of what I call
the good stuff but not at this time because I can't defend my point of view. Random vs Random kind of like folding
space to get from point A to point B without having to put in the miles.
Working on my Ph.D. "University of hard Knocks"
I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider
they are not.