Which odds are better?

500 different sets. Self-picks.

Mediabrat, this is where lots of players make mistakes when running their numbers. See, the lottery machine just doesn't bias or discriminate and this, once again, due to the pre-draws. All of the numbers in the containment are high probability in their own right, okay. Don't be mislead by so called "hot" or "cold" numbers becasue just when you think it's time to play, or, not to play that (those) numbers, they simply show up on the roster. This can cause a big win or a big loss. Also, matching several numbers on different lines isn't doing much good either, right? Man, I can put together enough lines to get at least one number on each line, you know?

Then, I've also spent $5 on QP's two different times while matching (4) numbers once, and, coming within 1-2 numbers of all of them the other time. So, to me, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to put so much effort into these bigger games which contain soooo many numbers. On the little games, it pays off to do it because there are substantially less numbers (combinations) involved. Go take a good look at the MM & PB results and you'll see where the same number can still repeat in the same position just like on the little games. Know why? Pre-draws...and missing one number after spending several hundred throws everything else off unless you get that Mega or Powerball. What are the odds here?

Try not to change your numbers if possible...let the numbers hit or miss you. What's the difference if you lose on your numbers or their's? It's still a loss in the end, and, the machine surely doesn't know what your numbers are and you don't know what QP's it'll give you. It's a wash, buddy. If I'm not mistaken, more people have definitely won on QP's in the end, too. Hope this helps.

L.L.

Comparisions is a good idea because it is a fact that a bell curve shows what lines will come in 75% of the time. I got reamed out in a thread because I assumed 50% of the bell curve meant 50% of the lines. Even if only 20% are low probability lines, you are talking about wasting 35,000 lines of your 175,000. (my math could be wrong)

Of course the machine doesn't know the differance, but the balls are NUMBERED. saying any 5 numbers have an equal chance of any other 5 is like saying you can shuffle a deck of cards and get 4 kings off the top just as easily as 4 random cards. That is pure stupidity.

In order to use the "full field" as you suggest, you must start with 1,2,3,4,5, 1,2,3,4,6.... etc. and you are wasting 1000s of lines because those lines will NEVER come in any more than you can get 4 kings off the top of a shuffled deck of cards.   

My guess is you could get the same results and spend $35,000 less per draw. Or get 35k more lines and increase your return AND reduce your jackpot time horizon to about 7.5 years instead of 9.5 years. (just guessing on the actual math, Im sure a math wiz will enjoy reaming me again)

Okay, Ronnie. I'm going to ask you to look into something which I've already covered here. It ties directly with the pre-draws, and odds (probabilities). Now, in Pick 3/4, each position is 0-9 right...(10) numbers. In this particular official draw, for reference and comparison's sake, the numbers are 1-7-4 in a mid-day draw, okay. Now, for the evening draw, the numbers are 0-6-1...after several pre-draws. You still with me? Can you see what's happened here in position (A)? The (1) went to the VERY LAST AND LEAST POSITION IT COULD POSSIBLY GO TO. And, this is after several pre-draws with the SAME (10) other numbers that could've been drawn.

Take a look around at various states and drawings, and you'll see where this type of thing always prevails with the number (1) as well as the number (8)...which often goes to (9)...the highest on the scale. So, to say that one number has a lesser chance of being drawn in this game for any reason, to me, is very, very unreasonable. Listen, when they turn those machines on and begin to select balls over and over, it becomes anybody's game, buddy. The pre-draws bacially bet against what you've taken out, as this is a game of removing numbers and combinations, and essentially put those possibilities right back into the game. I'm definitely not a know it all, but I've studying and playing this game for a very, very long time...and I rule out nothing while accommodating MOST what is considered least likely to happen. You don't win by taking it for granted.

L.L.

Line totals are one option for filtering out low probililty lines. Its my understanding that 70% of all jackpot winning line totals on the 5/56 MM game fall between 106-179.

If the entire universe of lines were divided into 2 pools, the one pool with a 70% chance of holding the next jackpot winner and the other pool with a 30% chance of holding the next jackpot winner, which pool would you bet on?

Which pool to pick is clear. What I would like to know is how many lines are in each of the 2 pools?

"saying any 5 numbers have an equal chance of any other 5 is like saying you can shuffle a deck of cards and get 4 kings off the top just as easily as 4 random cards. That is pure stupidity."

What's pure stupidity and extremely dim-witted is thinking that 4 kings have any more significance in a random event than any other 4 cards. Four kings, when not deliberately selected, are 4 random cards.

Your kidding right KY?? The cards themselves are NOT random, they are individually identified and NUMBERED 1-52. Lottery balls are in the same manor ordered and NUMBERED 1-56 in the instance of MM.

When a person with a brain put a number "1" on a ball it was no longer a random ball, it was the fisrt in a ORDERED sequence of 56 in the case of MM.

For you to think that 1,2,3,4,5 are random balls is more like insane. Or your living in an alternate universe where reality is whatever you want it to be. Have you tried flapping your arms like a bird or jumping from a high place lately because who knows, in your universe maybe you can fly like a bird??

For the machine to pick consecutive numbered balls, it has to put them back in man made ORDERED position. Of course it is possible for it to happen but the probabilities are so astronomical that it would require a dim-witted moron functioning outside the realm of reality to spend a dollar on 1,2,3,4,5. 

Which brings me back to mediabrats project. He can draw from the entire universe of lines because he is not spending money. I guarantee if money were being spent a lot more consideration would be given as to which lines to play or not play. A person who invests actual money will distinguish between 70% odds and 30% odds.

Interestingly enough the powerball on Sunday drew 3 consecutive numbers and had a line total well below the mean What are the odds?

If what Im saying is not true than why do 70% of drawing lines totals fall within a certain mean? And more importatly, what persentage of all lines in a given game fall within that mean.

In other words, if it requires playing 70% of all lines to have a 70% chance of winning its not an advantage. But if I can play 30% of all lines and win 70% of the time it is a big advantage.

Seems like some simple back testing can prove me right or wrong.

Okay, here is some unscientific evidents while Im waiting for someone to do the backtesting and prove me wrong. I have been able to find ONE account of 5 consecutive numbers being drawn. In Florida last year it was reported "Crazy rare consecutive lottery numbers" were 14,15,16,17,18 and then the goofball "lottery guy" goes on to say these 5 are just as likely as any other 5. EXCUSE ME, then why are they so crazy rare??

Odds for 5 out of 5 are only 1 in 4million for the MM game.  Even if the total draws all over the world for all the history of the lottery were ony 4 million draws we should have seen some 52 sets of consecutive number sets as in.

1,2,3,4,5

2,3,4,5,6

3,4,5,6,7

4,5,6,7,8

5,6,7,8,9

6,7,8,9,10

7,8,9,10,11

8,9,10,11,12

9,10,111213

101112,13,14

11,12,13,14,15

12,13,14,15,16

13,14,15,16,17

14,15,16,17,18

15,16,17,18,19

16,17,18,19,20

17,18,19,20,21

18,19,20,21,22

19,20,21,22,23

20,21,22,23,24

21,22,23,24,25

22,23,24,25,26

23,24,25,26,27

24,25,26,27,28

25,26,27,28,39

26,27,28,20,30

27,28,29,30,31

28,29,30,31,32

29,30,31,32,33

30,31,32,33,34

31,32,33,34,35

32,33,34,35,36

33,34,35,36,37

34,35,36,37,38

35,36,37,38,39

36,37,38,39,40

37,38,39,40,41

38,39,40,41,42

39,40,41,42,43

40,41,42,43,44

41,42,43,44,45

42,43,44,45,46

43,44,45,46,47

44,45,46,47,48,

45,46,47,48,49

46,47,48,49,50

47,48,49,50,51

48,49,50,51,52

49,50,51,52,53

50,51,52,53,54

51,52,53,54,55

52,53,54,55,56

Play those lines on a simulator and let me know how that works out.

Okay, here is some unscientific evidents while Im waiting for someone to do the backtesting and prove me wrong.

You may be waiting a long time because most people believe unscientific evidences or a good hunch is proof enough.

I'll try again, here's someone who "live tested" throwing almost $500 at a drawing:

bigboy90000 started a thread:

Got my Check from the GA Lottery Corp today.Only $52

This was from buying 483 MM tickets for the $650 millon dollar drawing.Takes the pain away somewhat.

 http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/245083

As dr65 said, during that drawing people spent 5X $500 on one drawing.  Maybe it's time for you to stop being in love with your theory and put the $500 in live action and see what happens.

Or, you can just send the MUSL a check for $500 with a note that says you'll skip the formality of playing and can't stand having the $500.

One "I did", win or lose, beats any number of "gonnas".

Im sure that's true for the average person by mediabrat is here playing 175,000 lines and looking for return on investment. If my approach is provable he will double the return he is now getting AND hit the jackpot within 2-5 years in instead of 10 years.

Me.... Im looking at a 38,461 year time horizon playing 1 line on each drawing.

That's not stupidty.  That's math.  The odds of getting four kings in 4 cards is 1[(4/52)(3/51)(2/50)(1/49)/24] or 1 in 6,497,400.  The odds of drawing a 7 of clubs, 10 of diamonds, Ace of Spades and 4 of hearts is also 1 in 6,497,400.

Of course, if you're saying that the odds of drawing the specific hand of 4 kings is less likely than a hand that looks random and has no value, then yes you're right.  But what's the point in that statement?  It's like saying that if you buy 50 lottery tickets that only use 10 numbers, you're not likely to win the Jackpot.  It's true, but you're not likely to win the Jackpot no matter what you do, and you didn't make it any less likely no matter how you played (unless you bought repeat tickets).

The only way you can conjure up "high frequency" sets of lotto numbers, is by including more numbers in those sets.  Therefore, the individual combos within those sets have no higher probability of coming up as any other combo.  Of course 1-2-3-4-5/6 is not likely to hit, but since when have you bought a lottery ticket and thought "those numbers look like winners, so I think I'm gonna win"?

That's a logical fallacy, because 1-2-3-4-5/6 is just as likely as 2-14-19-33-42/17, and they are both exetremely unlikely.

nice try CT, however I have already changed my plan for spending the $500. thanks to all the thoughtful and concerned posterboy junkies here in this wonderful forum. Im now using the "shotgun" appoach which gives me a 50/50 chance of winning the jsckpot and only requires buying one ticket. The downside is my time horizon for hitting the jackpot is now 38,600 years instead of the original 38,500 years.

The probabilities of getting a cross section of random numbers is higher than getting consecutive numbers. take a sampling of past draws and see for yourself. the same is true of high and low numbers. The probability of drawing a cross section of high and low numbers is higher than getting all low or all high. It is easily measured by the mean number of 146 on the MM game. Friday April, 13 line total on MM 118, 28 away from the mean. Why? because a cross section of balls occurs 70% of the time. Why? because the numerically ordered balls are all mixed up when each ball is drawn.