Vt. Lottery computer glitch creates extra winners

Comment #19

truecritic — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 04:14:49 GMT

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!:

http://www.vtlottery.com/allgames/fastplay.aspx

Vermont Lottery Fast Play Games

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

Every few months the Verm... [ More ]

Comment #18

Delta Draw — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:41:21 GMT

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 stack... [ More ]

Comment #17

KY Floyd — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:30:24 GMT

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... [ More ]

Comment #16

Todd — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:20:51 GMT

A computer glitch is an error. No typo.

Comment #15

Jordans121 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:44:19 GMT

What exactly does Computer GLITCH creates extra winners mean?

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

Comment #14

Delta Draw — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:36:59 GMT

TRUECRITIC:

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 th... [ More ]

Comment #13

truecritic — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:36:32 GMT

Just a thought that I had...isn't possible that the central computer was issuing some kind of test mode to the terminals and still running in that mode when the numbers were drawn? Especially since all ones seems to indicate a binary response.

I would assume the central office can check (and probably does so on schedule), with all the terminals to assure they are running correctly. A hand full of terminals may have malfunctioned and procduced the odd tickets. The central computer seeing that... [ More ]

Comment #12

KY Floyd — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:43:36 GMT

the article clearly states the event was SYSTEM WIDE.

In a system that was running the same program on lots of identical terminals. I'm hardly an expert on programming, but the basic concept is really simple: a very stupid machine follows a lot of short, simple instructions very rapidly. The machine doesn't make any decisons of its own, but only does exactly what the instruction tell it to do. Independent machines executing identical instructions will produce identical results. Perhaps you'r... [ More ]

Comment #11

Todd — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:22:16 GMT

It is first-hand info, not something on a web page. I've posted this information previously on lottery post, so I suppose I could track down a link to my previous post(s).

Comment #10

Delta Draw — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:01:12 GMT

Then give me a link to this information.

DD

Comment #9

Todd — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:57:28 GMT

You are dissecting the language of the article too closely. It is not written by a lottery expert, it's just a beat reporter at a local newspaper.

My information, however, is collected first-hand by me, directly from the sources of information. I would consider myself both a lottery expert and a computer expert, so I'm not sure who else will be more qualified to give you a solid answer on this.

The information is not proprietary. Anyone can get answers if they are determined and dogged.... [ More ]

Comment #8

Delta Draw — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:40:41 GMT

No disrespect Todd and I do count you as a credible source of information, but I will believe otherwise when the information is common knowledge and is published in each state. I do not understand how you can know this if the information is proprietary and protected as such.

Floyd sez:

As for rereading the article, if you try that yourself you may notice that there's nothing that says thee tickets for this pareticualr (SP) game were QP's or that they're generated by the local termina... [ More ]

Comment #7

Todd — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:20:50 GMT

@DD: I have confirmed in the past with the manufacturers of the equipment, as well as with several state lotteries, that the quick picks are indeed generated on the lottery terminal itself, with absolutely no bias or conditions being placed on it from a central computer or anything else. I'm not saying that the lottery terminal uses a particularly good random number generator, but I am saying that the numbers are generated on the machine itself, with no biases, and then those numbers generated o... [ More ]

Comment #6

Delta Draw — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:08:46 GMT

Floyd that is the worst explanation from an expert I ever heard. You re saying the software is the same on the terminals and that is true within a state. The terminals are flexible where they can be upgraded on line and be compatible for new games like Powerball or new state-wide games. No need for a technician to do it onsite. They are too cheap to pay that many people to do a cut-over state-wide. The terminals can be upgraded on-line.

You conclude that the terminals having the same software... [ More ]

Comment #5

KY Floyd — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:47:27 GMT

Can you explain why ALL the supposed ISOLATED LOCAL RNG's produced the same Quick Picks SYSTEM WIDE?

I'm going to go way out on a limb and speculate that each independent terminal runs the same software. When identical software has identical malfunctions the results tend to be, well, identical. The article says As no numbers were being passed to the terminals, the system defaulted to all ones. That sounds pretty straighforward to me. As for rereading the article, if you try that yourself you... [ More ]

Comment #4

Delta Draw — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:14:10 GMT

Well I am one of them that is willing to see where the urban myth of LOCAL TERMINAL RNG's is documented and in print. Can you explain why ALL the supposed ISOLATED LOCAL RNG's produced the same Quick Picks SYSTEM WIDE? What don't you understand about the words SYSTEM WIDE? Reread the article.

Talk about cluelessness. What kind of cliche' of stupid is that? What does a knowledge of math have to do with how man-made randomness works or applies to buying a Quick-Pick? What don't you get and wher... [ More ]

Comment #3

KY Floyd — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:02:32 GMT

The terminals are pre-loaded with QP s from the central office. There is only the idea that when the QP s are sold there are no repeats of sets until the entire pool of combinations is exhausted.

The terminals have their own RNGs and generate QP's randomly as they're sold. That's why they're called random number generators instead of pre-loaded number printers . Any idea that a set of numbers can't be repeated until all combinations have been used once is just the cluelessness of people who... [ More ]

Comment #2

RollChris76 — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:45:14 GMT

This just goes to show the obvious problem I've always had with computerized drawings and how they can be biased. The irony is, when the system works and nobody wins because of it the lottery folks don't raise an eyebrow--they're perfectly happy to just take everyone's money. Yet when the computerized system malfunctions creating too many winners, all of the lottery officials are scrambling trying to figure out what happened and of course, nobody wants to pay out. Well, maybe that's what's wrong... [ More ]

Comment #1

Delta Draw — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:45:01 GMT

Quick Picks are bogus!

I know of examples where identical tickets were sold in other states and they were losers. The system-wide error is built into the distribution and when you can have multiple winners, you can have multiple losers with identical sets of numbers in play for the same drawing. The terminals are pre-loaded with QP s from the central office. There is only the idea that when the QP s are sold there are no repeats of sets until the entire pool of combinations is exhausted. That... [ More ]

Vt. Lottery computer glitch creates extra winners

Lottery Post — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:48:48 GMT

Linda Hebert says she didn't think twice when she purchased two nearly identical computer-generated Fast Play tickets at North End Deli Mart earlier this month.

They looked like winners to me, Hebert says of the twin Red Hot Numbers tickets that she has been patiently waiting for the Vermont Lottery Commission to honor since she bought them on her way to work Aug. 4.

Turns out Hebert's double win was not due to lady luck but a computer malfunction and she wasn't alone in winning that day.... [ More ]