Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited June 22, 2017, 2:18 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Vt. Lottery computer glitch creates extra winners

Topic closed. 19 replies. Last post 7 years ago by truecritic.

Page 2 of 2
Jordans121's avatar - nw bookeep.jpg

United States
Member #69169
January 5, 2009
2122 Posts
Posted: August 29, 2010, 8:44 pm - IP Logged

What exactly does "Computer GLITCH creates extra winners" mean? 


I hope this is a typo by todd cause this really exposes the game

"Many Strategies|One Game"

    Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
    Chief Bottle Washer
    New Jersey
    United States
    Member #1
    May 31, 2000
    23700 Posts
    Posted: August 29, 2010, 10:20 pm - IP Logged

    What exactly does "Computer GLITCH creates extra winners" mean? 


    I hope this is a typo by todd cause this really exposes the game

    A computer glitch is an error.  No typo.


    Check the State Lottery Report Card
    What grade did your lottery earn?


    Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
    Help eliminate computerized drawings!

      United States
      Member #23835
      October 16, 2005
      3574 Posts
      Posted: August 31, 2010, 2:30 pm - IP Logged


      A test of the terminal could be any kind of thing printed and is likely not in a form of a playable ticket, especially the barcode info.. Any kind of printed pattern is a binary response. The tickets were printed on demand, just like a report. A bigger question is the correlation between the “error” and the Winning set drawn.  A very unique event.


      There are no retractions on the article that a lottery official was misquoted. The man was quoted and it stands. I say the idea that the terminals are all independent RNG’S is a myth. Here in an article the information that indicates the sets come from the CO is quoted and documented. You can’t have it both ways; either the man was misquoted by a ‘beat’ reporter (get that man his hat) or the RNG’S are local. I am more inclined to believe a quoted lottery professional than the urban local RNG myth. The article implies the RNG source is at the CO.

      Full disclosure on this topic will benefit all. The only ones who have a dog in this fight that can lose are the ones who support one of two ideas. I don’t mind being corrected but the information has to include the manufacture’s the states each use for the terminals. What states disclose this information? I want to see it in print from the owners of the equipment and the makers. I cannot find that information. It is never discussed. The RNG exists but we are not fully informed, rather we are misinformed and misled with a term loosely applied. With no documentation we can say whatever we want on how things work and some will believe it.

      Another thing to consider is the security and possible breaches where the terminals are not isolated from the RNG computer for the draw. Do the two RNG’s have the same qualities? Are they one? The theft of a terminal could provide an insight to the mainframe’s RNG and that would be disastrous. All the security is on the mainframe and there is no way to breech it. It sources and it sinks. There is no reason to put all the smarts in the terminals. They are relatively dumb terminals. They read, log, print and communicate to the mainframe and local cash register. There has to be isolation from the field computers and those that pick the digits for the draw. The firewall is total isolation. The RNG that produces the winning numbers is only an output- unless there is more we should know. It should have no feedback to the digits in play for the draw.

      Why is this an uncomfortable topic and to be dismissed? The players think they are getting random numbers in QP’s and that is okay, but why all the repeats? Multiple winners? I know, blame the terminals- it’s all their fault. It makes perfect sense that there can be multiple winners from QP’s if the terminals are all independent RNG’s-are they? For the big games with many combinations the players think they have an equaled chance to win because their QP is THOUGHT to be unique. They are not. Multiple winners means multiple losers with identical numbers. Why sell the same ticket twice or more? Who benefits from that? Is that a fair game to enter? It is not. The biggest dog in this fight are the manufacturers and the state’s coffers.

      One last point and that is if the terminals are independent RNG’s it is possible that there can be two identical sets printed independent of another at the same terminal in sequence. Not probable but possible. Why challenge that? Also at the same time, it can happen elsewhere. Why challenge that and call it a malfunction? It supports the myth real good. BUT, the lottery says (no myth!) the terminals get the sets from them and they PROVIDE them TO the terminals. You can’t have it both ways and blame the terminals for what they do not do or give them credit for what they do not do.

      I’m a lottery expert too. I played, I won. As for computers, well you won’t have to look far to see a piece of equipment that has a CPU in it that was modeled on a bigger computer than you can imagine. I worked in team support of delivering the technology you have today and had years ago. You can’t walk one block and not be going past something I had a part in. How’s that for a claim to fame and credentials?

      Floyd your oversimplification about what you don’t know and browbeating is a real combination. Have you worked out that math problem I gave you? Why not make your proofs from a mathematic standpoint and not just talk about it? Oh, and you were wrong about the tickets sold, they were quick picks. No Floyd, I don’t buy into the terminals everywhere are independent RNG’s. It would lock up a network today with traffic and how long have they been around? Why spend all that extra money on a network system that requires the utmost of security first for function? Read the odds info and ask yourself if the odds include that the QP pool sold is larger than what is required to win. The odds are 1:n not 1: 1/n+1/n+1/n repeating at each terminal. To guarantee the odds do not change or are corrupted, the pool of combinations sold has to be constant, not overlapping. That is what people think they are buying: 1:n. That is not what is sold when isolated RNG’s are pumping out sets with no control. The odds go up dramatically with local RNG’s. What a scam! Why the myth?

      My state has MM and PB. What kind of quality control is there if all across the State and country local terminals are puking out the same sets? If you played the games, would you want the odds to be in reality greater than advertised???? If you’re a mathematician, then work it out with a pencil. Multiple RNG’s means compound and overlapping QP’s are sold for the same draw. That’s not what is advertised in the odds. Terminals do not upload QP sets to the mainframe for documentation and if a terminal goes dark there is no problem having to send someone to retrieve the information on the tickets sold so winners/sales can be verified. Washignton's 15 minute downtime before a draw is not enough time to collect all the QP's/SP's local RNG's can sell when the clock is ticking and there is no time for problems. Verification happens before each ticket is printed. The QC control of the QP's is at the CO just as it is presented in the article.


      "test of the terminal could be any kind of thing printed and is likely not in a form of a playable ticket"

      A test mode that won't print tickets wouldn't allow for a proper test. Of course it would be good idea if such tickets were clearly labeled.

      "A bigger question is the correlation between the “error” and the Winning set drawn."

      There's that reading problem. The was no winning set "drawn". The tickets are printed with two sets of numbers, and the problem resulted in all of the numbers in both sets being the same number.

      "The man was quoted and it stands."

      I'll assume the quote was accurate, but the quote was from a spokeperson and not from a technical expert, and none of us knows exactly why they used the words and phrasing they did. In saying the numbers weren't passed to the terminal, it's entirely possible that they meant that the internal RNG module didn't pass on any numbers and therefore another module generated the 01's by default.

      "the urban local RNG myth"

      RNG's that are local to the terminal are a well established fact. It takes far more than your own personal ignorance to give something the status of urban myth, so your incorrect  idea that QP's come from some central computer falls far short of being an urban myth.

      "What states disclose this information?"

      If you spent half as much time actually trying to find out as you spend building up your delusion you'd probably already know. Here's clue #1: there's this big collection of tubes called the internet. It lets you find out near everything.

      "The theft of a terminal could provide an insight to the mainframe’s RNG and that would be disastrous."

      How RNG's work is readily available information, but even if you know exactly how the seed is generated the only way to duplicte the numbers that are selected is to produce a set under conditions that are absolutely identical, and that isn't going to happen even if the terminal used the same RNG. See clue #1.

      "why all the repeats? Multiple winners?"

      It's called probability. I don't have the time to fix your substantial math deficit, but you do know that if you flip a coin you don't get a regular and rigid alternation of H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T, right? You know that sometimes you get multiple head or multiple tails repeating? If you roll a die it doesn't come up 1,2,3,4,5,6 1,2,3,4,5,61,2,3,4,5,61,2,3,4,5,6.  It works exactly the same way with everything else that happens randomly. It's a law of the universe, not some conspiracy to lie to you about where the RNG is and whether or not it can pick any of the possible combinations.

      "their QP is THOUGHT to be unique"

      Only by some of the people who don't understand the math. The rest of us understand that probability demands that some of the combinations will be repeated.

      "Multiple winners means multiple losers with identical numbers."

      Sometimes winning combinations are repeated. There are far more losing combinations, so some of the losers are always repeated.

      "I’m a lottery expert too. I played, I won. "

      Sure you are, and I'm an expert at astronomy. Last night I looked up at the sky and it was full of stars.

      "I worked in team support, yada, yada"

      You might have plugged a lot of electronic pegs into their holes, but it obviously didn't give you any useful insight into how RNG's and probability work.  You can show us any diplomas, certificates and awards you might have, but it's what you post tells us what we really need to know about your expertise.

      "Have you worked out that math problem I gave you? Why not make your proofs from a mathematic standpoint and not just talk about it?"

      The math simply explains why local RNG's produce repeated combinations, and as I said earlier, it's not even complicated math. I didn't work out the math problem, because the problem is only in your head. Once again, for the 3rd of 4th time, the glitch didn't cause tickets to be printed that then matched some set of winning numbers that was chosen independently. The tickets were printed with two sets of numbers. Every single number on both sets was the same, and the numbers printed on every single ticket was the same. The only question about the probability of that happening is what the glitch was.  Every day millions of computers that are completely independent of each other suffer  malfunctions that may be similar, but certainly aren't identical, and they all  suffer the same result. It's called the blue screen of death. All those independent machines have the same result because that's what the progran does when any of numerous malfunctions occur.  The  lottery terminals could have  just shut down or  put up a pretty blue screen, but they're not running Windows and their response to malfunctions is different. When there's a malfunction something has to happen. Why would printing all 1's be any more surprising than any other result?

      "you were wrong about the tickets sold, they were quick picks"

      There's another claim you can't substantiate. The article says they were computer generated, but so was the docment I just printed. That doesn't make them the same thing as a QP. I don't know all of the details about the game, but assuming the numbers are from 00 to 99 (or 01 to 100) the odds of matches between a set of 10 and set of 20 random numbers are fairly high. It's possible that the game is designed to work with the odds that would come with the probability of matches between completely random sets, but I'm guessing that these are exactly like scrathers except for being printed on demand. Scratchers aren't printed randomly, because it's far easier to control the odds by printing lots of losers and a controlled number of winners at each prize level. It's only the distribution after the tickets are printed that's random. I'm guessing that this game does the same and that the winners are electronically "printed" ahead of time and then distributed randomly. I would think the simple way to do that is by sending the ticket info from a central computer. I've never said that  might not be true for this game. It's only your reading comprehension issues that make you think otherwise. My comments have mostly applied to your diatribe against QP's in general, and how independent machines could produce identical results.

      "The odds go up dramatically with local RNG’s."

      Yet another case of your mathematical ignorance resulting in a complete misunderstanding of how thing work. If I have you draw a card from a complete deck and then I draw a card from a different complete deck the chances that you'll match the card I draw is 1 in 52. Imagine I let all 6 billion people on the planet draw one card each, always from a  full deck, and by sheer coincidence every single one of them draws the ace of spades. Then I draw a single card from a full deck. The odds that you will win are still 1 in 52, because those are the odds that I'll draw the ace of spades. The only thing that changes is the number of winners. The odds that any particular person will win don't change.

      "Multiple RNG’s means compound and overlapping QP’s are sold for the same draw. That’s not what is advertised in the odds."

      As above, repeated combinations or multiple winners don't change the odds. The lotteries are generally very good about providing information on whether multiple winners will share a prize or if they each get a prize of fixed value regardless of the number of winners. Whatever faulty interpretation you come up with is a result of your own ignorance, not what the lotteries are telling you.

        United States
        Member #81843
        October 31, 2009
        856 Posts
        Posted: September 1, 2010, 6:41 am - IP Logged

        Wow! You sure are a math expert! How you can take something and redefine it is amazing. The more you write the more I see you don’t have a clue or think people with objectionable minds should go down your goat trail.

          I’ll ask again: Show me the links to back up the Local RNG myth. That should suffice if they are from the states. You can’t do it because it’s a myth. You can’t read the article and where the lottery Professional said the numbers come from them. You talk good smack about a stacked deck of cards but the stack has only 52 cards. With local RNG’s each doing it’s own thing how does your math explain that and stay with in the pool of combinations without repeats? Show me the mathematic proof! You can’t. You don’t know how. Browbeating me like I am one of the many unwashed masses that don’t know squat sounds real   good, but I don’t  see your homework. You really think people cannot understand what you don’t know?

        The deck has 52 cards. There are only 20 players buying a chance for the draw. Players hope to match one card in 52 in the winning draw. If two separate local RNG’s are doing their own thing, I and someone else could have the same card,   same suit and both could be losers when only 20 people are taking cards. For it to be fair, and   the odds to be as 1:52, the 52 cards are distributed  from one point, one dealer- not many dealers TO the terminals- the points of distribution . Each time you distribute the whole deck from a local RNG, you multiply the decks (how many points of distribution?)   and increase the odds by the number of points of distribution.  If you really knew what you claim to in mathematics you would not touch this topic with a ten foot pole ( but you got an F so I consider the source). You should try to explain it from a multiple shoe deck and the winner is the ace of spades. People playing a lottery expect the odds to be as published and want the 1:n chance, not 1:n+ chance from a multiple pool deck that is unlikely to be delt in full.

          Yes we should all listen to you and ignore the facts. In fact why don’t you just rewrite the article for everyone ? Let’s edit out the quotes that DOCUMENT the sets come from the Central Office. That they are sent TO the terminals. That will support the myth. You got a toothless dog in this fight if you can’t do the math, in fact your ignorance on the topic of math has already been put to the test. You got an F on the test.

        I have seen your other posts. You are an expert, in fact way above board on lottery topics. But you don’t know the math and won’t document the myth of Local RNG’s even after a published article does not indicate or align with local RNG BS.

        What is at stake? Somehow there are many examples of multiple winners from QP’s when the sales do not indicate a full set of combinations could have been sold. You don’t understand 1:n but for those who can read, if there are two tickets from among the combinations that are identical without a sale of all combinations first, the odds published are not true. Now when there are multiple losers it is harder to notice, but it has been- and the published odds are not true. This is being sold as local RNG randomness and like you say is beyond understanding so don’t try. When a limited pool of sets are passed to the terminals and identical sets to terminals, there can be multiple winners and multiple losers. This event should not happen in the published odds and the game is fixed for multiple winners, multiple losers and big jackpot mania that sells even more QP’s for the next draw.

        Floy you are either dumber than a mud fence post or work for the lotteries. A website to check for duplicates is needed and when there are multiple losers (duplicates) without the required sales for repeats,   it will be a class action suit. Now certainly out there is a hungry lawyer looking for a cash cow and this one is worth more than a jackpot. The BS you claim is mathematics that ignorant people don’t know is a smokescreen to dismiss what has been witnessed and documented. The deck is stacked with losers and a six deck shoe only hits a winner more/less   1:6 because there are not enough players to clear one deck in a fair deal. In reality the odds are much higher and the players relatively less than my example. The lotteries want that jackpot up there fast to get more fringe players in the game: lottery mania.

        Each state should have an on-line network of registered participants to submit their QP’s to cross reference for a dupe loser. If the sales do not indicate a second pool (all the combinations were sold once) and there is a dupe- Bingo! They are busted.

        From the book 1984:

        "They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality...and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.  … All that was required of them was primitive patriotism "


        "As above, repeated combinations or multiple winners don't change the odds." Floyd

              "BS" DD

          truecritic's avatar - PirateTreasure
          United States
          Member #22395
          September 24, 2005
          1583 Posts
          Posted: September 2, 2010, 12:14 am - IP Logged

          Just to keep the facts straight here is what the article said:

          "Linda Hebert says she didn't think twice when she purchased two nearly identical computer-generated   "Fast Play"tickets..."

          According to the VT lottery website, this is a Fast Play. 

          Vermont Lottery -- It's good clean fun!:

          Vermont Lottery Fast Play Games 

          "Fast Play" games are generated by the lottery machine but play like an instant game. 

          Every few months the Vermont Lottery features a new fast play game to keep them fresh and exciting.

          To play ask your local lottery agent for the latest Fast Play ticket. 

          The cost for each ticket is $1. 

          Fast Play games are easy and fun to play! 

          Just follow the directions on the ticket to see if you’ve won.

          Fast Play Tickets:

            • Can be purchased without needing to purchase another Tri-State Game.
            • Costs $1 per play.
            • Prizes may be claimed at any authorized Vermont Lottery Agent location or the Vermont Lottery headquarters in Berlin, Vermont.
            • Overall Odds of winning a prize vary with each new game.
            • Remaining prizes, including top prizes, are subject to the number of tickets distributed, sold and redeemed.
            • ~ Fast Play TICKETS CANNOT BE CANCELED ~ 

          Our Current Fast play feature is: Red Hot Numbers


          Fast Play