Maryland Lottery a case study in the science of random numbers

Comment #37

Rip Snorter — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:45:54 GMT

That TN scratcher alert thread on the Lottery Forum seems to say just about anything that needs to be said about the security of lotteries, potential for insider knowledge of algorythms, human weakness, and the chances of anyone coming out to explode things in the courts if they have hard evidence of corruption.We just buys our tickets, makes our best guesses, and hopes.All anyone can do, come the end of the day.Jack

Comment #36

Rip Snorter — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:41:17 GMT

Or suddenly decide to off himself in a park in DC.Might be interesting to know just how many of the algorithm creaters have offed themselves, one way or another, or died in plane crashes, car wrecks, etc, before the lotteries felt comfy using their creations.To the exact algorithm thing, usually they handle it like other contests where vendors, their relatives, advertisers, their relatives, etc. are not allowed to participate, lest someone get what our Canadian friend got - minus the payout.Thos... [ More ]

Comment #35

time*treat — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:04:56 GMT

from that link...(thanks, atlasshrugged) The authorities arrested him for fraud. I know you glass-half-full types say but they let him go . I'm sure he could have found a more enjoyable use for his time than spending even a minute in the clink.To the exact algorithm thing, usually they handle it like other contests where vendors, their relatives, advertisers, their relatives, etc. are not allowed to participate, lest someone get what our Canadian friend got - minus the payout. Or worse, a huma... [ More ]

Comment #34

atlasshrugged — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:17:55 GMT

Ok, sorry I wasn't on last night. Mouse problems. Computer mouse problems. Anyway several people have wondered about the little thing I mentioned about the mathematician who cracked the algorithm in Canada. It was actually part of a larger article about randomness. Here is the link:http://wetzel.psych.rhodes.edu/Scroll down until you see a link which says, Student excecise: Can you act randomly? Click that then scroll down to the outline. Click I, B, definition problems, chaos and beating the l... [ More ]

Comment #33

Rip Snorter — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:36:38 GMT

There's at least one human being floating around, maybe a lot more, who knows their exact one. The guy who created or developed it. How many people, do you suppose, know who he is, how much he gets paid, which kind of recreational drug he prefers? What particular kind of kinky things he likes to do in the bedroom that he wouldn't want anyone to know about?Tight security is an illusion in a world where human beings think they have secrets. Jack

Comment #32

time*treat — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:09:16 GMT

The exact algorithm isn't necessary. You could do quite well on a few 5-of-6 or 4-of-5 matches every week or so. Probably better for you if you don't have the their exact one anyway. The straight path crosses the wavy road in many places.

Comment #31

Rip Snorter — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:22:42 GMT

Plenty of states are already using computers to generate numbers. Why wait for Massachusetts if you have the capability of doing that? Massachusetts uses the same currency as we use here in the United States. If you can make big bucks breaking the NY lottery algorithm they'll spend in Massachusetts as well as they would if they came from the Massachusetts lottery.Jack

Comment #30

NewClub — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:03:15 GMT

As I said before, if I knew the algorithm they used in generating random number, no matter how complicated it would seems to be, a predicatable subset of numbers could be generated. Here I mean pure algorithm. If quantum events are used as seeds, that would be a different story. But even that would depends on how they digitize the quantum events. If they digitize a clock into 60 different seconds, that is really a piece of cake.If massachusetts starts to use computer to generate numbers, I will

Comment #29

Rip Snorter — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:08:14 GMT

You might be right overall, but they didn't pay voluntarily. They took him to court, or they made him take them to court, for payment. Any number of ways they might have caught him, but one of those ways involves pride of achievement and bragging rights.Seems to me they'd have had a lot of difficulties getting a grand jury to indict him on fraud if all they had was the evidence of two wins. Or five. Or sixteen.Fraud involves a number of fairly specific holes that have to be filled with fairl... [ More ]

Comment #28

time*treat — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:58:39 GMT

I'd like a link to that story.I think we already know that a person who wins more often that they should will be investigated, etc. My guess would be that the guy had a choice of the carrot of telling his method in exchange for payment vs. the stick of being charged with fraud,etc. and spending all manner of his own $$$ to fight the charges.

Comment #27

Rip Snorter — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:44:15 GMT

Worth noting that the comp whiz who figured out the artificial randomness generation whizbang they were using got himself into a pickle by telling them too much about what they didn't need to know.... how he beat them twice.He won, but it cost him time and a court case.... as well as a chance to go for the third jackpot.Something in all that we all ought to be able to learn from, should we get lucky.Jack

Comment #26

Todd — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:51:25 GMT

You are correct, and this is the crux of the problem. When using computers for lottery drawings, as players, we simply don't know (a) what is going on inside the computer to generate the numbers, (b) if the numbers are truly random or are really following a pattern of some type, and, (c) if there is any fairness to the whole thing.Eliminating computers and getting back to real lottery drawings is the only satisfactory answer, and instantly and totally eliminates all those issues. Reverting bac... [ More ]

Comment #25

Rip Snorter — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:48:21 GMT

aye:I'd sort of hoped the guy intended that sentence you have in red as a joke.... a dry one, but a bellylaugh starter.I noticed once that a good source of random numbers comes from grading math tests and using the answers to any given problem by budding young intellects.Jack

Comment #24

ayenowitall — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:32:54 GMT

That (scientific) genre peaked in 1955, when the RAND Corp. unveiled what is still considered the magnum opus of randomness reference books: A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates.RAND researchers, who required nearly a decade to ensure the numbers in the book passed statistical randomness tests, did confess to cutting one corner.'Because of the very nature of the tables, it did not seem necessary to proofread every page of the final manuscript in order to catch random errors,' the... [ More ]

Comment #23

Rip Snorter — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:29:27 GMT

I agree. Studying the histories and stats easily available on this site it doesn't take a lot of looking to see the six number draws are behaving about the same whether they're comp or ball draws. And they're rhyming, not just with themselves, but right across the board, both ball and comp... Been doing it for a long time.Jack

Comment #22

Badger — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:22:04 GMT

Rip Snorter wrote>> Streaks ain't gonna happen in a universe where random things are actually random.Jack <<< And yet states that use computers (that are supposedly random) continuously have streaks of different kinds....like 4 being in the same position for several days among other things.....So maybe RNGs are so random after all....

Comment #21

Badger — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:18:11 GMT

I guess I found it confusing, since in the article they mentioned that the guy pressed a button and a window popped up on the PC that said Pick 3 2-8-3 or something like that. That seemed to make it look like the computer was all set up to pop out RNDs for the drawings....

Comment #20

Todd — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:12:27 GMT

He's asking for the source of the Canada story mentioned by atlasshrugged, not the article itself (which is attributed on the Source line). I, too, would be interested in seeing the source atlasshrugged's story.

Comment #19

Rip Snorter — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:59:10 GMT

Hi aye..I agree with you. Randomness is a fairly weird concept. Maybe nobody knows exactly what they mean when they say it. I'd assert it doesn't merely mean, unpredictability. Life's full of things that aren't predictable, but also aren't random by any definition of the word.For instance, what could be more random than a Roulette wheel? But anyone who's spent any time in a casino knows that sometimes people get on runs that are dependable enough to allow anyone with enough savvy to head ov... [ More ]

Comment #18

JimmySand9 — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 07:32:32 GMT

It must've been BC. They've actually used RNGs since the late 80's, and like other computers at that time, RNGs were not that sophisticated. Now they've refined RNG's so no one can crack them. Of course that comes at the price of not having actual random numbers. It's programmed to appear random.

Comment #17

four4me — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 07:30:38 GMT

LotteryBuddy the source for the article came from the Source: Baltimore Sun paper The science of chance

Comment #16

Todd — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:51:22 GMT

Interesting about Ontario being lottery balls, because it and Western Canada are the last two lotteries I have been totally unable to get confirmation about for the Lottery Report Card.If you can absolutely confirm by witnessing that all of the drawings are by lottery balls (not computer), then I can move them into the good category.Unfortunately, not all of Canada's drawings are held with true drawings. British Columbia uses a computer for all of its drawings (except national 6/49 and Super... [ More ]

Comment #15

LotteryBuddy — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:33:29 GMT

Do you have a link or source for that story? I have never heard of such a story here in Canada. I have witnessed the live lottery drawings in Ontario, and they were all ball draws.

Comment #14

visiondude — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:29:02 GMT

as i am making my way thru the article with all the dna, physicists, random this and random that, the worlds most brilliant minds blah blah blah (lol), ........i just know that they are going to say it ......( but visiondude has the best explanation thus far; a $1 quick pick + you were meant to ) ...but they never say it.i was a bit let down after that one. i so crave the adulation of the scientific community by nailing this one so my name will be immortalized in one of these tomes about th... [ More ]

Comment #13

four4me — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 04:32:21 GMT

Maryland uses a computer to pick the cabnet the balls are locked up in and the machines that will be used to run the ball drawings. Other than that the only time computer is used is for keno. I was trying to explain in my post the problem with computers use in drawing numbers.Maryland has all ball drawings except KENO

Comment #12

time*treat — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 03:50:18 GMT

Logic circuits are not good sources of spontaneity. If a math chip inside a computer does something unpredictable, we call it broken, -- I thought we had called it the Pentium I.

Comment #11

Badger — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:37:46 GMT

WHat did I miss? If MD is using ball machines to draw their numbers, then why the computer all set up to spit out RNDs

Comment #10

Maverick — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:49:23 GMT

COMPAQ? Right there is a reason to go with balls.Hehe, just kidding Compaq users

Comment #9

RJOh — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:27:21 GMT

What is that saying? I may no be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. Maybe that's how randomness works and if you know it when you see it then you can pick a good spot to be in when it happens again.RJOh

Comment #8

MADDOG10 — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:55:45 GMT

And here I thought everyone lived in the state of unpredictability ..~ Hmmmmm i'm waiting for someone to push the right button...

Comment #7

four4me — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:00:49 GMT

Randomness and predictibility. it would seem that the two words fit the sentence very well but not really. If one could predict a random event every time it wouldn't be random. because the logic would come into play.I'd say that it one was to somehow be able to place a camera and link it to a pc for a keno game that uses a computer chip. That the numbers being drawn run in cycles if you had a program that could decipher the numbers and keep track, at some point it would find the numbers that are... [ More ]

Comment #6

orangeman — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:44:25 GMT

Thanks!!This is a useful article that I will save for my Pick 3 resource files.Orangeman

Comment #5

paulsandy — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:08:03 GMT

I have been playing maryland lotters , from the time it started, and i have always, throught it was fair a the right way to draw numbers . I also have been a wittness, at WJZ DRAWING they do as the say. i havwe been there to watch the drawing

Comment #4

LOTTOMIKE — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:49:39 GMT

Comment #3

atlasshrugged — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:58:11 GMT

four4me, if I am not mistaken the Georgia lottery uses a system very similar to this with their balls. They have 4 sets of balls for each game and these sets are rotated in some manner for each draw. Periodically the sets are replaced. This is why I have to roll my eyes a bit when I hear folks say that it is fixed. aye, I read a story recently about a mathmetician who had figured out the algorithm used for a particular computerized lottery in Canada. He used the algorithm to win two jackpots in... [ More ]

Comment #2

ayenowitall — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:28:45 GMT

If randomness equates to unpredictability by definition, is any type of RNG used for lottery drawings proven defective if someone manages to predict draw numbers? The notion of randomness seems rather subjective. Do we want randomness, or do we even know what it is?aye

Comment #1

four4me — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 06:45:44 GMT

Today when i read this article i learned something new about Maryland's lottery. They way they select the balls and machines for the games is different than i was told by and employee whom worked there years ago. So they must have changed things since then. Buddy Roogow meets with lots of other lottery directors so maybe this technic to pick machines and balls will filter down to other states if they aren't already using this idea.Hopefully states that use computers to pick lottery numbers will... [ More ]

Maryland Lottery a case study in the science of random numbers

Lottery Post — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 06:29:44 GMT

The Maryland Lottery provides a good example of why true lottery ball machines are much better than a computerized drawing for choosing lottery numbers. This is the super-secret lottery vault. It's 90 minutes before Tuesday's lunchtime picks, and Patrick Morton, the 35-year-old drawing manager for the Maryland State Lottery Agency, is only half joking as he hovers over a small keypad deep inside the studios of WJZ-TV.Beside the keypad is a large metal door - locked, alarmed, monitored by camera.... [ More ]