Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
The time is now 9:52 pm
You last visited October 31, 2014, 9:31 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Powerball Power Play Number Almost Always 2 ?

Topic closed. 73 replies. Last post 6 months ago by JADELottery.

Page 5 of 5
54
PrintE-mailLink
JADELottery's avatar - EyePhnoeyReality6
The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
2823 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 20, 2014, 1:45 pm - IP Logged

I've never seen a lottery that had a number frequency matching its odds of appearance exactly. Randomness keeps this from happening. As such anything is game for the short run.....streaks, skips, whatever.

There's only been 26 draws of Power Play and you already believe it's rigged/bogus/biased....despite me providing statistical evidence to the contrary. Honestly I don't think there have been enough draws to reach this conclusion. Last night Power Play number 5 came up.

On an unrelated note, yesterday I heard via recording of a panelist in November that they are going to change Powerball again. Apparently an average of 14 jackpots per year is too many, so they will probably raise the bonus ball pool from 35 to 45 but keep the price $2. Don't know when this will take place though, but it came from the horse's mouth.

I've never seen a lottery that had a number frequency matching its odds of appearance exactly. Randomness keeps this from happening. As such anything is game for the short run.....streaks, skips, whatever.

We did not say the frequency would match exactly. If we did, show it by quote.

 

The rest of this is just fluff to confuse the issue of odds.

There's only been 26 draws of Power Play and you already believe it's rigged/bogus/biased....despite me providing statistical evidence to the contrary. Honestly I don't think there have been enough draws to reach this conclusion. Last night Power Play number 5 came up.

On an unrelated note, yesterday I heard via recording of a panelist in November that they are going to change Powerball again. Apparently an average of 14 jackpots per year is too many, so they will probably raise the bonus ball pool from 35 to 45 but keep the price $2. Don't know when this will take place though, but it came from the horse's mouth.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
Use at your own risk.

Order is a Subset of Chaos.
Knowledge is Beyond Belief.
Wisdom is Not Censored.

The Name Anagram
name - Douglas Paul Smallish
amen - US God plus Islam Allah
mean - Jehocifer

JADE Quintrains
JADE at planet.infowars.com

    LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
    Happyland
    United States
    Member #146350
    September 1, 2013
    652 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 20, 2014, 5:10 pm - IP Logged

    JADE,

    I think the discrepancy you're seeing is just due to the fundamental problem with the lottery industry referring to probability as odds.

    I posted about this many times before, eg:
    http://www.lotterypost.com/news/267366/3307806

    Basically:

    probability = chances for / total chances (or x in y)
    odds = chances for : chances against (or x to y)

    So for Powerplay, what the lottery calls "odds" is really the probability:
    2x - 1 in 2 (or 5 in 10)
    3x - 1 in 3.33 (or 3 in 10)
    4x - 1 in 10
    5x - 1 in 10

    The equivalent *actual* odds for Powerplay:
    2x - 5 to 5 (or 1:1, aka "50:50")
    3x - 3 to 7 (or 1:2.33)
    4x - 1 to 9
    5x - 1 to 9
    Which you have confirmed, and your assessment is technically correct based on proper terminology.

    Have a Happy Easter! Sun Smiley


    P.S. Don't mind LottoMetro's arrogant condescending remark from above:
    "There's only been 26 draws of Power Play and you already believe it's rigged/bogus/biased....despite me providing statistical evidence to the contrary."
    LottoMetro can't help acting like a jerk if anyone dares question him. He has even admitted this himself in a previous post: I admit my social skills are lacking.
    But since LottoMetro lacks that sensitivity chip, he's the last one to be evaluating wherther or not he's being offensive. Wink

    P.S. Don't mind LottoMetro's arrogant condescending remark from above: 
    "There's only been 26 draws of Power Play and you already believe it's rigged/bogus/biased....despite me providing statistical evidence to the contrary."
    LottoMetro can't help acting like a jerk if anyone dares question him. He has even admitted this himself in a previous post:  I admit my social skills are lacking
    But since LottoMetro lacks that sensitivity chip, he's the last one to be evaluating wherther or not he's being offensive.  Wink

    Look, you're an ass. We all know this. But you continously posting your belief that my statements are condescending, relinking old posts or sarcastic statements I've made in jest, or responding directly or indirectly to every post I make or respond to, is pretty obsessive. Get over it.

    I was simply pointing out that there have only been 26 draws- quite a small sample- and the statistical evidence shows that the drawings are in fact not rigged. None of this was my (in your mind "condescending") opinion, just facts. If facts are belittling to you, well I don't know what to say to that. Ponder

    If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the payoff does.

    If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?

    2013: -35.14% (158 tickets) || 2014: +43.40% (14 tickets)

      LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
      Happyland
      United States
      Member #146350
      September 1, 2013
      652 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 20, 2014, 5:12 pm - IP Logged

      I've never seen a lottery that had a number frequency matching its odds of appearance exactly. Randomness keeps this from happening. As such anything is game for the short run.....streaks, skips, whatever.

      We did not say the frequency would match exactly. If we did, show it by quote.

       

      The rest of this is just fluff to confuse the issue of odds.

      There's only been 26 draws of Power Play and you already believe it's rigged/bogus/biased....despite me providing statistical evidence to the contrary. Honestly I don't think there have been enough draws to reach this conclusion. Last night Power Play number 5 came up.

      On an unrelated note, yesterday I heard via recording of a panelist in November that they are going to change Powerball again. Apparently an average of 14 jackpots per year is too many, so they will probably raise the bonus ball pool from 35 to 45 but keep the price $2. Don't know when this will take place though, but it came from the horse's mouth.

      You did not use the term "frequency" in the original statement but instead expressed a form of odds that used frequency as its basis. Close enough.

      I do not understand your confusion, but your perspective of the lottery is different, so I can see how confusion is possible. My recommendation is simply call the lottery and talk to them about this issue. They can probably clear this up better than anyone

      If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the payoff does.

      If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?

      2013: -35.14% (158 tickets) || 2014: +43.40% (14 tickets)

        Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
        Los Angeles, California
        United States
        Member #103816
        January 5, 2011
        1530 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 20, 2014, 6:24 pm - IP Logged

        P.S. Don't mind LottoMetro's arrogant condescending remark from above: 
        "There's only been 26 draws of Power Play and you already believe it's rigged/bogus/biased....despite me providing statistical evidence to the contrary."
        LottoMetro can't help acting like a jerk if anyone dares question him. He has even admitted this himself in a previous post:  I admit my social skills are lacking
        But since LottoMetro lacks that sensitivity chip, he's the last one to be evaluating wherther or not he's being offensive.  Wink

        Look, you're an ass. We all know this. But you continously posting your belief that my statements are condescending, relinking old posts or sarcastic statements I've made in jest, or responding directly or indirectly to every post I make or respond to, is pretty obsessive. Get over it.

        I was simply pointing out that there have only been 26 draws- quite a small sample- and the statistical evidence shows that the drawings are in fact not rigged. None of this was my (in your mind "condescending") opinion, just facts. If facts are belittling to you, well I don't know what to say to that. Ponder

        No No Such foulmouthed namecalling. Shame on you LottoMetro.

        I think everyone can see and decide for themselves, and your posts just continue to confirm your malady. And I only respond to you when you are making false statements, misinforming the LP populace, or just being a bully to other LP members. Frankly any interaction with you is quite nauseating, so I keep it to a minimum, but someone has to do it. No Nod

        Why don't you come clean and stop being a deceitful snake in the grass LottoMetro? You can't seem to stop this desperate drawing attention to yourself. You're pretending to be a lottery player, but you actually work in the lottery industry. So just come clean and admit it. You know it's both unprofessional and unethical for you to be lurking around and pouncing on players in a lottery forum. You don't have to be specific, just say you work for a major lottery vendor, or you are associated with ____ state lottery. That's why LP members don't like you or trust you LottoMetro, because they can tell something about you stinks. Dead

        As I said before, other people from the lottery industry have visited this forum, but they were respectful and didn't make a spectacle of themselves and antagonize LP members as you do LottoMetro.

          Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
          Los Angeles, California
          United States
          Member #103816
          January 5, 2011
          1530 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 21, 2014, 4:22 am - IP Logged

          I've never seen a lottery that had a number frequency matching its odds of appearance exactly. Randomness keeps this from happening. As such anything is game for the short run.....streaks, skips, whatever.

          We did not say the frequency would match exactly. If we did, show it by quote.

           

          The rest of this is just fluff to confuse the issue of odds.

          There's only been 26 draws of Power Play and you already believe it's rigged/bogus/biased....despite me providing statistical evidence to the contrary. Honestly I don't think there have been enough draws to reach this conclusion. Last night Power Play number 5 came up.

          On an unrelated note, yesterday I heard via recording of a panelist in November that they are going to change Powerball again. Apparently an average of 14 jackpots per year is too many, so they will probably raise the bonus ball pool from 35 to 45 but keep the price $2. Don't know when this will take place though, but it came from the horse's mouth.

          JADELottery: The rest of this is just fluff to confuse the issue of odds.

          Yep, LottoMetro does a lot "fluff" as you so nicely put it. LOL (BS could also be used)

          LottoMetro: There's only been 26 draws of Power Play and you already believe it's rigged/bogus/biased

          Yep, this is typical LottoMetro tactics. I've dealt with this guy many times before, and he's always got the arrogance and condescending knobs turned up to 10 all the time, whether he's right or wrong. And like above, he'll make insults, falsely accuse you of some beliefs, and put words in your mouth you never said. He'll take the thread off topic, name drop or info drop some information nobody asked for to try and impress people. That's just the way he is, the despicable one. I think it's just creepy the way he keeps hanging around here if you ask me.

            mypiemaster's avatar - peace
            He who dies with the most toys WINS!!!.

            United States
            Member #141039
            April 2, 2013
            722 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 27, 2014, 1:15 am - IP Logged

            I would like to see a constant 5X powerplay especially for the 2nd{RIPOFF} prize. Unfortunately, it does not work that way.

            Seekand ye shall find -Matt. 7:7 ...Ask and ye shall receive -John 16:24 ...Give and it shall be given unto you -Luke 6:38 ...Be careful what you ask for!!! -Mypiemaster 1:1

            Having Money Solves Problems That Not Having Money Creates Yes Nod ****John Carlton****

              JADELottery's avatar - EyePhnoeyReality6
              The Quantum Master
              West Concord, MN
              United States
              Member #21
              December 7, 2001
              2823 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 30, 2014, 10:57 am - IP Logged

              We get it now.

              They're just ahead of the times.

              They are using Common Core to calculate these Odds.

              Our take on it is based on the ol' gubment standard: Say one thing, Do another.

              Red Eyes

              Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
              Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
              Use at your own risk.

              Order is a Subset of Chaos.
              Knowledge is Beyond Belief.
              Wisdom is Not Censored.

              The Name Anagram
              name - Douglas Paul Smallish
              amen - US God plus Islam Allah
              mean - Jehocifer

              JADE Quintrains
              JADE at planet.infowars.com

                jimmy4164's avatar - andy warhol.jpg
                State of Mind
                United States
                Member #93949
                July 10, 2010
                2175 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 1, 2014, 11:25 pm - IP Logged

                You did not use the term "frequency" in the original statement but instead expressed a form of odds that used frequency as its basis. Close enough.

                I do not understand your confusion, but your perspective of the lottery is different, so I can see how confusion is possible. My recommendation is simply call the lottery and talk to them about this issue. They can probably clear this up better than anyone

                LottoMetro,

                "My recommendation is simply call the lottery and talk to them about this issue. They can probably clear this up better than anyone."

                Alternatively, you could calculate the required Sample Size to be Confident to whatever degree you desire that your observations have validity.  Since our sample size is number of draws, the Population Size would be the total possible outcomes of the matrix in question.  Plugging this into the calculator at this site, you should be able to convince yourself that 26 Draws is a TAD small!!

                By the way, researchers typically look for a 95% Confidence Level and a 4% Confidence Interval
                .

                http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

                People evaluating their lottery systems really should study this page well, and use the calculator.  The error I see being made over and over at LP is being shortsighted and consequently accepting systems after testing them over ridiculously short time periods.

                --Jimmy4164

                "Betting systems votaries are spiritually akin to the proponents of perpetual motion
                machines, butting their heads against the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
                The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic by Richard Arnold Epstein

                  LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
                  Happyland
                  United States
                  Member #146350
                  September 1, 2013
                  652 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 2, 2014, 12:13 am - IP Logged

                  LottoMetro,

                  "My recommendation is simply call the lottery and talk to them about this issue. They can probably clear this up better than anyone."

                  Alternatively, you could calculate the required Sample Size to be Confident to whatever degree you desire that your observations have validity.  Since our sample size is number of draws, the Population Size would be the total possible outcomes of the matrix in question.  Plugging this into the calculator at this site, you should be able to convince yourself that 26 Draws is a TAD small!!

                  By the way, researchers typically look for a 95% Confidence Level and a 4% Confidence Interval
                  .

                  http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

                  People evaluating their lottery systems really should study this page well, and use the calculator.  The error I see being made over and over at LP is being shortsighted and consequently accepting systems after testing them over ridiculously short time periods.

                  --Jimmy4164

                  Yes, good points. My original posts were concerning tests for independence, which does not require a sample size in proportion to the population size. It only requires that the sample be greater than or equal to expected frequency of 5 (according to Handbook of Biological Statistics); I prefer 30. If a game proves signficantly non-independent, then would you consider testing the hypothesis of a system. I have run across non-independent games a few times, but the advantage was not sufficient enough to overcome the lottery's edge (regardless of system).

                  IMO if no bias exists (aka 100% independent), no "system" will work. The only way to profit from complete randomness is if you have an infinite bankroll.

                  If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the payoff does.

                  If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?

                  2013: -35.14% (158 tickets) || 2014: +43.40% (14 tickets)

                    jimmy4164's avatar - andy warhol.jpg
                    State of Mind
                    United States
                    Member #93949
                    July 10, 2010
                    2175 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 2, 2014, 3:28 pm - IP Logged

                    Yes, good points. My original posts were concerning tests for independence, which does not require a sample size in proportion to the population size. It only requires that the sample be greater than or equal to expected frequency of 5 (according to Handbook of Biological Statistics); I prefer 30. If a game proves signficantly non-independent, then would you consider testing the hypothesis of a system. I have run across non-independent games a few times, but the advantage was not sufficient enough to overcome the lottery's edge (regardless of system).

                    IMO if no bias exists (aka 100% independent), no "system" will work. The only way to profit from complete randomness is if you have an infinite bankroll.

                    LottoMetro,

                    "If a game proves signficantly non-independent, then would you consider testing the hypothesis of a system."

                    Of course.  But opportunities like the Cash WinFall game in Massachusetts don't appear very often.  And if you were a larcenous programmer in a lottery IT department, would you engineer draw output in a computerized game that would be useful to anyone but yourself and possibly those who were required to get it installed? 


                    "IMO if no bias exists (aka 100% independent), no 'system' will work. The only way to profit from complete randomness is if you have an infinite bankroll."

                    An infinite bankroll would definitely help with the Martingale, but in general, a Crystal Ball would be most helpful.  Smile

                    Since most lottery draws are fraud free and the randomness of the selection methods is sufficient for the game dimensions, people whose business is [ultimately] the sale of software and/or books will work very hard to maintain doubt in their potential customers' minds.  Doubts about the issues that people like you and I debate with people like you know who.  One of the most popular, and apparently effective ways they do this is by relying on small sample sizes to "prove" efficacy of their systems.

                    --Jimmy4164

                    p.s. Check out my Pick-5 entries on the Prediction Boards for this year and compare the stats to others who concentrate on those games.  Clearly not the picks of digit or lexie people!

                    "Betting systems votaries are spiritually akin to the proponents of perpetual motion
                    machines, butting their heads against the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
                    The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic by Richard Arnold Epstein

                      LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
                      Happyland
                      United States
                      Member #146350
                      September 1, 2013
                      652 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 2, 2014, 3:58 pm - IP Logged

                      LottoMetro,

                      "If a game proves signficantly non-independent, then would you consider testing the hypothesis of a system."

                      Of course.  But opportunities like the Cash WinFall game in Massachusetts don't appear very often.  And if you were a larcenous programmer in a lottery IT department, would you engineer draw output in a computerized game that would be useful to anyone but yourself and possibly those who were required to get it installed? 


                      "IMO if no bias exists (aka 100% independent), no 'system' will work. The only way to profit from complete randomness is if you have an infinite bankroll."

                      An infinite bankroll would definitely help with the Martingale, but in general, a Crystal Ball would be most helpful.  Smile

                      Since most lottery draws are fraud free and the randomness of the selection methods is sufficient for the game dimensions, people whose business is [ultimately] the sale of software and/or books will work very hard to maintain doubt in their potential customers' minds.  Doubts about the issues that people like you and I debate with people like you know who.  One of the most popular, and apparently effective ways they do this is by relying on small sample sizes to "prove" efficacy of their systems.

                      --Jimmy4164

                      p.s. Check out my Pick-5 entries on the Prediction Boards for this year and compare the stats to others who concentrate on those games.  Clearly not the picks of digit or lexie people!

                      Well, to my understanding the Cash WinFall exploit had nothing to do with a system of playing numbers but rather the actual game prize structure. This wouldn't show up in any independence test, which is likely how they got away with it for awhile. Draw game structure exploits are extremely rare situations (I can think of only 1 since the WinFall scenario, and it was eliminated last year). Even when available these usually require large bankrolls. I tend to avoid draw games simply because they are most scrutinized and frequently tested. Other types of games, like scratch-offs, are easier to exploit.

                      I agree with your second statement; if someone is going to rig/bias the drawings, they are going to do so in their own favor and the general public likely would not be able to knowingly take advantage of it. Like the Pennsylvania rigging, only those that did it had knowledge of it so only they could purchase the tickets required to profit from it. There may have been a few random players who ended up winning too, but for them those wins would be ordinary. Someone who rigs/programs a drawing knows that they are audited, so unless they are completely moronic they will not continue to rig a drawing.

                      I also agree that system bakers use short-term results or selective-bias to "confirm" that their creation works. This is also prevalent in the investment industry. Unfortunately, once someone has developed a strong and specific belief about their system, they will only filter new information to conform to this belief. Studies have shown that lottery players focus more on wins than losses, and players tend to believe that they spend/play less than they actually do.

                      If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the payoff does.

                      If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?

                      2013: -35.14% (158 tickets) || 2014: +43.40% (14 tickets)

                        JADELottery's avatar - EyePhnoeyReality6
                        The Quantum Master
                        West Concord, MN
                        United States
                        Member #21
                        December 7, 2001
                        2823 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 8, 2014, 8:57 am - IP Logged

                        the terrible 2's on a roll again.

                        maybe it'll go twice as long.

                        Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
                        Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
                        Use at your own risk.

                        Order is a Subset of Chaos.
                        Knowledge is Beyond Belief.
                        Wisdom is Not Censored.

                        The Name Anagram
                        name - Douglas Paul Smallish
                        amen - US God plus Islam Allah
                        mean - Jehocifer

                        JADE Quintrains
                        JADE at planet.infowars.com

                          rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                          Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                          United States
                          Member #73904
                          April 28, 2009
                          14903 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 8, 2014, 12:24 pm - IP Logged

                          No more Powerplay for me.

                          They can jam it.

                            JADELottery's avatar - EyePhnoeyReality6
                            The Quantum Master
                            West Concord, MN
                            United States
                            Member #21
                            December 7, 2001
                            2823 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 12, 2014, 2:05 pm - IP Logged

                            Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
                            Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
                            Use at your own risk.

                            Order is a Subset of Chaos.
                            Knowledge is Beyond Belief.
                            Wisdom is Not Censored.

                            The Name Anagram
                            name - Douglas Paul Smallish
                            amen - US God plus Islam Allah
                            mean - Jehocifer

                            JADE Quintrains
                            JADE at planet.infowars.com