Mathematics and the Lottery

I agree with you 100%.  Unfortunately, in addition to some pretty bad cases of innumeracy, I believe, based on analyzing their posts, there are a few vocal individuals here who have a vested interest in perpetuating the silly beliefs you refer to.

Hi,

  Well, different views divided the members into seperate camps as it always does when it comes to this topic. I guess I'm just a rebel. Someone saying that it can't be done is motivation in itself. How many things couldn't be done and now are taken for granted as everyday. The math is there somewhere...who is clever enough to find it? *S*

"The math is there somewhere...who is clever enough to find it? *S*"

If it exists, only someone who is looking will ever have a chance of finding it.

JKING

I don't think a math can solve random but that does not mean it can't be done.  Most every attempt I have ever

seen is based on statistics and the study of past drawings which for the most part is fruitless.  We should be looking

at the inner workings of random it's self.   Since the lottery draw is a closed system and the order in which the numbers

are drawn is what we are looking for we need to focus on that aspect which is the random part of the draw.  The numbers

are not the random event the order however is.  If the drawing apperatus was allowed to continue then all the balls would

eventually come out, but if the numbers were random then it would be quite a different story.  This may seem like a no brainer

but most have never thought of the drawing this way.  The statistical buffs will always say that if you do happen to win a

few good prizes it is nothing more than chance and if you continue to play you will eventually loose more then you win but

this is not always true even if you omit the large payoffs.   To attack the lottery draw you must attack the random part else

you will fall victim to the odds.  I keep saying this but don't get much back but until you can take some of the randomness

out of the equation then you are wasting your time.   The odds are based on "random selection"  take some of the random

out of the process and the odds no longer apply.  The gamming industry counts on randomness and without it they could not

survive.  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.

RL

"The statistical buffs will always say that if you do happen to win a few good prizes it is nothing more than chance and if you continue to play you will eventually loose more then you win but this is not always true even if you omit the large payoffs."

It's a mystery to me why our resident statistical buff continues to show us information about betting strategies nobody uses and in some cases, they defy all common sense. If someone says they are playing a group of numbers (regardless of how they arrived at those numbers) because they are consistently getting enough matches to show a nice profit, our critic will say "but my Quick Pick statistics show it's impossible to continue showing a profit for the next 2000 years". It's useless to tell him the strategies are designed for short term play or like with yours, not playing every drawing because he refuses to allow facts and common sense to get in the way of his agenda. 

"Blackjack is a random game but by counting cards you can improve your play"

Edward O. Thorp gets the credit for proving that in certain situations players have an advantage but he wasn't a gambler. It wasn't until many of the real gamblers refined Thorp's methods the casinos began changing the rules of the game.

Now we're suppose to be in really impressed by gaming articles written for Casino City Times when the same odds and house edges are found in millions of other articles and in books. I'm not awe struck because the writers have mathematical backgrounds or consulted with Steve Wynn while sitting next to him in a stall in the men's room.

"To attack the lottery draw you must attack the random part else you will fall victim to the odds."

There is no universal definition of lottery random. Which is more random, Tennessee's RNG or PA's ball machine?

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

"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."

How so?

"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!

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/219401/1808106

--Jimmy4164

P.S.

http://blogs.lotterypost.com/jimmy4164/

Jimmy

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.

RL

"When we play the lottery we try to make random events fit into some sort of pattern that can be explained."

I don't. 

"...but in pseudorandom events such as the lottery..."

Pseudorandom events are sequences that are repeatable (on demand) by re-application of the mathematical algorithm used to produce them.  The lotteries I play which use mechanical ball machines do not produce repeatable sequences.

It appears you didn't take a look back as I suggested.

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/219401/1808106

jimmy

QP's are Pseudorandom. 

Ball droppers are also pseudorandom because if everything could be repeated then the same set would

would be drawn. 

RL

Dr san

The 80/20 rule is a fact of life but concerning the lottery which 20% do you focus on.

While 80% of my settings are easy it's the remaining 20% that make or break the bank.

You won't get any argument from me in general about the 80/20 rule but do you think

this is the best we can do.  I like to think I am running at the 90/10 or 95/5 level because

for most draws If I had changed 2 settings I could of hit a JP or at least a 4of5.  This has

became a wall of sorts which I can't seem to scale but I can't miss by 2 settings forever. 

20% of my plays earn the most while 80% cost the most and I often gauge my play by this.

How do you use this to help you win or are you saying that we must just accept that 20%

will always be random no matter how or what we use to select.

RL

FYI

  I tested the law on one of the lottery games and found it had to be modified to be useful.

  The inital result, using the top 20%, was that there was only 1 win out of 523 games using all top 20% numbers.

  However, when I changed the pecentage to 27% I found 90 wins out of 523.

dr san

I know the 80/20 rule inside and out and understand what you say but what I am saying is that

you still have to pick the last 20%.  It's this last 20 that blocks the way.  Even with my software

80% of the settings are easy to hit but the other 20% are not.  This 20% is responsable for 80%

of my winnings.   Pareto's law is a basic rule and I think most already know or have heard of it. 

What I need is how to select the last 20. 

jking

As a general rule if you are using 27% of the numbers then 27% of the draws will come from those

numbers over time.  Looking at my 5-39 using your results then 90 hits in 523 draws 90/523= 17%. 

The average hits for any group that contains 27% of the 39 numbers should be .27*523=141.

I think to test this one would need to test it draw by draw.  If for my 5-39 I found that 80% of the 

numbers came from the top 30% I would wheel the top 12 numbers every day for a 4of5 which can

be covered in 123 lines using covermaster.   This could provide a nice profit and  allow me to keep

playing until I hit big.  I don't think this is possible and the rule fails for lottery.  I will write a small

program and test the results for a day to day play and see how it does.  I think random will win this

one also.  I do find it a little funny that while I expect the 80/20 rule to fail selecting numbers that it

holds true for my filter settings.  This is why I don't look at numbers, while the numbers seem to have

no order the secondary data does.  Just my thoughts.

RL