Mathematics and the Lottery

Nope, I'm not as RL is yet. I get it down to about 2000 lines. The nice thing about how I go about it is that I can keep adding filters with 0% error and continue getting reductions.

Hi,

  Give me a some time to do the follow up. There is alot on my plate this month. *S*

"The RB28 hasn't hit in the 270 PB drawings since its last matrix change and yet there are players who still believe the chances of RB28 coming up in the next drawing are 1/39 and is simply over due so they continue to lose money betting on RB28 in spite of the obvious."

Some people are calling future probability random and some are looking at past results which are the true lottery definition of random. RB28 had a 1 in 39 chance of being drawn in 270 drawings but was a no show. In the last 50 PB drawings 10 bonus were not drawn and that's probably about the same number of no shows you'll see in the last five 50 drawing periods. If the probability of any bonus number is a 1 in 39 chance of being drawn in the next drawing, why do the results of last 39 random drawings prove that some bonus numbers had zero chance of being drawn?

"Sometimes even an obvious pattern does effect how lottery players pick their numbers."

PB had 29 bonus numbers drawn at least 1 time in the last 50 drawings compared to 10 numbers not drawn so the odds against a no show of being drawn tonight are almost 3 to 1. Not very much PB players can do with just that info because betting all 10 no shows won't give them a 3 to 1 return.

If only 74% of all 39 PB bonus numbers will be drawn in the next 50 drawings, then it's impossible for for each number to have a 1 in 39 chance of being drawn but there will always be someone saying "each number has 1 in 39 chance in every drawing".

"These kinds of observations lend support to what I've been repeatedly saying, and that is that you CAN affect the DISTRIBUTION of your winnings through your selections"

Which avatar were you using when you repeatedly told RL his betting strategies couldn't beat your QPs and had no affect his winnings?

"By the way, RB28 will ALWAYS have a 1/39 chance of coming up.  (Unless it's weighted down!)"

If that's true it should be easy enough for you to explain why RB28 was drawn zero times in the last 270 drawings and 28.5% of the bonus numbers were not drawn in the last 50 drawings.

"perhaps you'll begin to see what Michael Bluejay and I are trying to explain."

Lloyd and Harry?

Stack47,

I'm sorry you're having so much difficulty with these concepts.

"Which avatar were you using when you repeatedly told RL his betting strategies couldn't beat your QPs and had no affect his winnings?"

What I told RL was that his betting strategies could effect the DISTRIBUTION of his winnings, but NOT THE LONG TERM AMOUNT of his winnings.  His winnings were the result of the randomness of the draws.

I have spent many hours over the last year, many of them responding directly to you, in an effort to help people understand how the randomness of the lottery can result in drawing histories like those you point to here...

"If that's true it should be easy enough for you to explain why RB28 was drawn zero times in the last 270 drawings and 28.5% of the bonus numbers were not drawn in the last 50 drawings."

The implication of your statement/question here is that there is some REASON or CAUSE that resulted in these data.  Since I don't think there is ANY reason or cause responsible, and YOU FERVENTLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS...

...THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PLEASE TELL US JUST WHAT THESE CAUSES ARE.

I'm all ears!

--Jimmy4164

Does PB conduct pre-draw tests?

"The implication of your statement/question here is that there is some REASON or CAUSE that resulted in these data.  Since I don't think there is ANY reason or cause responsible, and YOU FERVENTLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS..."

You said "RB28 always has a 1 in 39 chance of being drawn" and now you're ignoring the statistic that proves RB28 had zero chance of being drawn in the last 270 drawings. For someone tauting the gambler's fallacy, it sure looks like by that statement you're trying to convince people all the bonus numbers should be drawn once every 39 drawings.

"THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PLEASE TELL US JUST WHAT THESE CAUSES ARE."

It sure is strange that a guy who lives and breaths the words of three so called mathematics wizards at Casino City Times can't find one article explaining why all 38 Roulette numbers probably won't hit in the next 38 outcomes.

"I'm all ears!"

Then I have the perfect avatars just for you.

PB does test the equipment before each drawing because they don't want show ping pong balls flying all over the studio during a live national drawing.

Basic probability explains why we shouldn't expect to see all 39 bonus numbers drawn in the next 39 drawings. Jimmy gave the reason but he had it backward as usual. He should have said "RB28 will always have a 38 to 1 chance against being drawn".

Come on you guys, jking has a nice post going here and many would benefit from his methods.

I think he is taking a logical approach to systematic play and most systems don't follow this

sort of logic.  What he is doing in a nutshell is reducing the pool step by step using filters that

he can predict with some certainty.  This is the same thing in theory that I was doing with the 

digit system.  By selecting a few digits and blocking a few others and setting limits on a few of

those that are predicted to hit I am able to trap the winners within a very small pool of sets.

From this small sample then I use a number of other filters to reduce,  If jking follows his current

logic then he will have a very good system.  What I found is that there is a point where it seems 

that no more can be done and one must then leave the rest to chance.  However his chances

will be much better then the overall odds for the game.  Here's the catch-22 to system  play,

while for any single game the odds never change,  consider the 2/3 odd-even paradox, While

the the totals of  odd/even numbers can be any value for any one game many more will draws

will fall within this range for a pick-5.  This has nothing to do with how the numbers are drawn

or what was drawn in the past.  It is a product of the universe of sets.   My odds are the same 

as any other person playing a single game but not for a string of draws.   Before we can move

foward we must forget the randomness of the selection method and focus on the most probable 

over a period of time.  The analysis of the history of past draws can confirm that certain events

will follow a set of rules governed by the matrix.   The lottery will always involve a element of

chance and the system player tries to reduce this as much as he/she belives possible.  The problem

here is not who is right and who is wrong.   I think jimmy is correct in the confines of the math he

uses but his entire stance is based on the randomness of the selection.  System players believe

they have found some element of events that are  less then random which if correct then both could

be correct because they are based on different rules.  If there is indeed an area that can be exploited

then it should withstand a serious backtest to prove it and here lies the divide.  A few months ago I

decided to prove to jimmy my claims of success using math based processes.  I thought this would be

a simple task but after a couple weeks I had to abandon the task as I was unable to do it.  As a result

of working with statical analysis at that level I found that my play suffered to the point of failure.  It took

me weeks to regain the ground I had lost and this also confirmed my belief that using stats to play lottery

is a recipe for disaster.   Maybe all systems should be moved out of the Math forum and moved to a

Pseudo-Pseudomathematics forum.  I think that the human brain is able to decode information that is beyond

the realm of mathematics.   I can't prove it using math, I just have to accept the outcome as it comes and no

longer care if it's impossible or not and don't feel the need to prove it.   Base your selections on math and

you will suffer the odds.   While math is a very good tool you must not tether yourself to probability.  Use the

outher side of your brain, you know, the one that is creative.

RL

(RL - You're getting closer to reality, but your hopes and dreams are still controlling your thinking.)

Stack47,

You said,"You said 'RB28 always has a 1 in 39 chance of being drawn' and now you're ignoring the statistic that proves RB28 had zero chance of being drawn in the last 270 drawings. For someone tauting the gambler's fallacy, it sure looks like by that statement you're trying to convince people all the bonus numbers should be drawn once every 39 drawings."

The fact that RB28 failed to emerge from the machine in 270 public drawings PROVES NOTHING other than the fact that RB28 failed to emerge in 270 drawings.  BTW, these observations do not constitute a "statistic."

I'm amazed that you are willing to publicize to the world that you clearly believe that the prior behaviour of that ball somehow provides evidence for decision making in the future.  Again, I must ask:

PLEASE TELL US WHAT FORCE OR FORCES YOU BELIEVE HAVE BEEN ACTING ON THAT BALL.

If you can't respond to this question with anything other than foolish and childish mutterings like the above, please try to grit your teeth and go away.  You are wasting everyone's time.

--Jimmy4164

P.S. Does anyone reading this understand and agree with what I'm trying to teach this man?  If so, feel free to join in.

Jimmy

My beliefs have not changed at all, I am just making a concession that probability is not good for the

player.  What you would like me to do is ignore my success and chalk it up to chance which is something

I will never be able to do until someone playing QP's has the same success.   As I have said many times

I judge my system on my ability to select the correct settings which is now reaching the 95% and up

level.  The problem with mathematical confirmation of my system is that every bit of information changes

the selection of many others which are not math based but more of a guess.  If you want to call me a good

guesser then that is fine with me.  I look at the data I have chosen to view and using a visual analysis I

make the decission.  I am always looking for other better information that I am able to guess more correctly

and though it is getting harder and harded to find better replacements I will never give up.  All the math that

is needed is performed by the software and this frees up the need to make calculations at the time of selection.

I could paint the data and use colors because the values are meaningless.  Everything I use at this stage is

visual.   Some who have my software email me from time to time and tell me this thing "software" is amazing. 

I like to think it's not so much the software but how they have changed the way they make selections.  The

software just gives them information that they are not use to looking at.   The thing that takes me the longest

when doing a setup is putting myself in a frame of mind where I have no preconceived notions what is about

to hit.   Once that is out of the way I have my sets within 5 minutes.   I know longer keep track of my winnings

as I am only looking for the 100% setup which means 100% JP. 

RL

RL,

Do you have any advice regarding how to convince Stack47 that RB28 doesn't have any special characterists differentiating it from the other 38?  He doesn't seem able to give us any insight into just what he believes could account for the last 270 draws.

--Jimmy4164

P.S. Did you notice that the 22 people in Ohio who won the $99M Jackpot used Ohio's "Auto Lotto" selection system to choose their winning numbers?

RL,

On another thread in this forum a new member outlined a MM method and three long time members responded positive. A fourth member, Jimmy said "The results of your strategy will probably be proportional to what is summarized here" and gave a link to a simulation he ran using a 20 year-old program. Jimmy gave some details hoping nobody would notice his simulation was 50,000 players each playing in 50,000 different drawings. While most system players are looking for methods to use in the 100 to 200 drawings, Jimmy tries to distract them by claiming his 250,000,000 drawings are some how comparable.

I've never seen one post by him encouraging anyone attempting to create a system and most of his posts are useless links and distractions like the one I just mentioned. Maybe it is time for the system players to just ignore his posts.

"I am just making a concession that probability is not good for the player."

Most of the filters are probability and the past results can easily be tested against probable results. But you don't need the past results to determine the even/odd, high/low, consecutive numbers, last digit, or decades probability because it's easy enough to get the percentage of distribution. Math can be used to find the probability of any number repeating or how many different numbers will or will not be drawn in the next 25 drawings. The actually drawing results may vary but the average will be very close to what is expected.

What is the probability of 25 different numbers being drawn in the next five 5/39 drawings, all 10 digits in one digit position, or all 10 being drawn in all three digit positions in the next 10 pick-3 drawings?

"The problem with mathematical confirmation of my system is that every bit of information changes the selection of many others which are not math based but more of a guess."

Poker players make their decisions to bet, call, raise, or fold base on their chances of making the best hand. When they win, some will say they made a lucky guess while others more knowledgeable will saw it was because the percentages and probabilities or even the pot odds favored them.

"Maybe all systems should be moved out of the Math forum and moved to a Pseudo-Pseudomathematics forum."

I've already reached my "waste of time" limit trying to explain to Jimmy why it's common to see only 27 to 30 PB bonus numbers drawn in 50 drawings because he doesn't understand cause and effect. Besides we can only get $3 for $1 odds picking bonus numbers so it makes no sense betting on 10 of them to guarantee a minimum loss of $7.

Stack / Jimmy

You guys have to work this out by your selves.   

RL

Stack47 says, "I've already reached my 'waste of time' limit trying to explain to Jimmy why it's common to see only 27 to 30 PB bonus numbers drawn in 50 drawings because he doesn't understand cause and effect. Besides we can only get $3 for $1 odds picking bonus numbers so it makes no sense betting on 10 of them to guarantee a minimum loss of $7."

If only he understood the probabilities in lottery draws where the balls are replaced after each draw as well as he understands the probabilities of poker where the cards are not returned until the end of a deal.

When he can't explain the CAUSE he alludes to in his statement highlighted in red here, he claims I don't understand cause and effect and that he's been trying to explain it to me.  Unbelievable!

Either Stack47 is one of the most innumerate people posting here or he has a vested money interest in one of the software scams being touted recently, scams that require people to believe the ridiculous fallacies he pours forth.

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/234355/2164812

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  Thanks for nothing RL.