Do some number combinations have better odds?

Seriously, I can't imagine a world without the "IF" statement.  Ronnie316 is using

conditional odds. For example IF he is able to trap the 5 correct numbers in a pool

of 29 numbers he has improved his chances of winning regardless of the odds for

the game.   

Are his methods of selection giving him an edge in the game, I could say yes or I could

say no but regardless of what one believes chance plays a role. 

The only way to change the odds is to change the matrix of the game,  Ronnie316 is

not really doing this because regardless of which numbers he removes the balls are not

removed from the hopper, RNG etc..... 

Jimboozoo in the last couple years has stumbled upon statistics and it changed his life

in such a way that he now views himself as an enlightened being.  Around 20 years ago

I wrote my first lottery program which was math based.  One of very first things I noticed

was that math was limited as far as helping me win.

Some believe they can better there chances of winning and some do not.  Is a winning

streak just a chance occurrence or is it something more.  It can't be proven one way or

the other regardless of what one believes.  Will a winning streak last forever or will it end

the next drawing?  Most if not all winning methods are based on short term patterns that

render back testing useless.  Find something that can be defined within the randomness 

of the draw and make a few calculations for it's next expected show and wait until it's in

a prime position to show and then jump in, kind of like card counting. 

Anyone interested in trying to predict something like the next lottery number set should 

do a little study into random sampling and CLT "central limit theorem."   Forget the balls

bouncing around inside a hopper and view the draw as an assortment of biased variables.

Find a bias for one variable and you have a starting point then keep adding more and more

as you find them. 

The surest way to loose is to play every game.

RL

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

Since you seem to think it matters how early someone used statistics and computers, I thought I would clarify an allusion you made in your last post.

If you were truthful in a PM over a year ago when you alluded to your age, I was programming large room-size computers in the military before you entered high school.

--Jimmy4164

Were those the computers that set in an air conditioned room that required changing the wiring on big circuit boards to program them? 

I've read today's laptop computers have more computing power than a room of those relics and are easier to program using the higher level computer languages available now days.

Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?

Were those the computers that set in an air conditioned room that required changing the wiring on big circuit boards to program them? 

I've read today's laptop computers have more computing power than a room of those relics and are easier to program using the higher level computer languages available now days.

Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?

RJOh,

When you say, "Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?" you disappoint me.  Just when I think you're a true seeker of knowledge, you join with those intent on discrediting my remarks.  The MILS equipment I worked on early in my computing career was mentioned merely to bring RL-RANDOMLOGIC up to date.  Please note that the days of my programming started with that period and include today.

Your friends here like to dwell on the fact that >IF< they correctly select a subset of the total field of balls in [EG] a Powerball game, >THEN<, their probability of winning is greater than those of us who don't know which subset is the correct one.  You would really impress me if you would use the knowledge I'm pretty sure you have to point out to them that when they calculate their probability of selecting the correct subset, and multiply it by the one they tout, they will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us. 

--Jimmy4164

RJOh,

When you say, "Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?" you disappoint me.  Just when I think you're a true seeker of knowledge, you join with those intent on discrediting my remarks.  The MILS equipment I worked on early in my computing career was mentioned merely to bring RL-RANDOMLOGIC up to date.  Please note that the days of my programming started with that period and include today.

Your friends here like to dwell on the fact that >IF< they correctly select a subset of the total field of balls in [EG] a Powerball game, >THEN<, their probability of winning is greater than those of us who don't know which subset is the correct one.  You would really impress me if you would use the knowledge I'm pretty sure you have to point out to them that when they calculate their probability of selecting the correct subset, and multiply it by the one they tout, they will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us. 

--Jimmy4164

Good point RJ.  Maybe boney is still using his Commodore 64 to try and win the lottery, and thats why he has no luck.

Weren't those the same computers NORAD uses to track alien spacecraft for NASA?

It all makes sense.

Boney IS one of those reptilian chitauri interdimensional aliens that love to drink human blood, (and jimmy might be a hybrid with one of those grey aliens and his role is sidekick or vice versa) or he is from the planet X.

There is no other logical explanation for this illogical stance on the virtues of logic.

These guys are worse than that alien Rush Limbaugh.  Its like trying to debate with Judge Judy.

I think the only intention boney and jimmy have is to be so annoying so an arguement ensues whereby then Todd locks this thread.

Luckily though Ridge has withdrawn his troops.

They should go away so we can go on with our goal of winning.

These guys are worse than the cops during prohibition.

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

Since you seem to think it matters how early someone used statistics and computers, I thought I would clarify an allusion you made in your last post.

If you were truthful in a PM over a year ago when you alluded to your age, I was programming large room-size computers in the military before you entered high school.

--Jimmy4164

I love how libs, who all hate the military, always claim to have been in it when seeking credibility.

Fail.

RJOh,

When you say, "Don't you think that the increase in computing power have allowed the individual to think about theories that no one dared dream about back in the days you were programming?" you disappoint me.  Just when I think you're a true seeker of knowledge, you join with those intent on discrediting my remarks.  The MILS equipment I worked on early in my computing career was mentioned merely to bring RL-RANDOMLOGIC up to date.  Please note that the days of my programming started with that period and include today.

Your friends here like to dwell on the fact that >IF< they correctly select a subset of the total field of balls in [EG] a Powerball game, >THEN<, their probability of winning is greater than those of us who don't know which subset is the correct one.  You would really impress me if you would use the knowledge I'm pretty sure you have to point out to them that when they calculate their probability of selecting the correct subset, and multiply it by the one they tout, they will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us. 

--Jimmy4164

Discrediting yours or anybody else's remarks isn't part of my agenda and neither is supporting them.

I come to LP to read and consider what other players are doing to improve their odds of winning and occasionally make a comment, not to rehash the logic that some have been preaching for years as good reasons to not play the lotteries.

Lottery players know the odds of winning but that isn't going to change their minds about playing.

Plenty of >if< and >then< in the logic of the members in this thread don't make their ideas less worthy than yours, they just have to find a way to apply their logic to their games and I think that's possible with the computing power of their home computer.

Stack47,

Read your post above again.  I used the construction, Either / Or.  I don't KNOW what category you fall into.  However, I seem to recall you said you were a former casino worker, which, for me, supports the idea that you are a believer.  On the other hand, your posting content, patterns, and your longevity here, might suggest the fee for service alternative. 

--Jimmy4164