very important poll-computer draws

Reply #21

emilyg — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:50:49 GMT

Reply #20

Rip Snorter — Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:20:37 GMT

In hockey the slippery puck,Illusive as Sam Clemens' HuckEvades all pursuersThrough alleys and sewersBut the lottery variable's kuck. As the guy who later starred in Patton commented in his role as a member of the Joint Chiefs in Doctor Strangelove, I wish I had me some of that Kuck! J

Reply #19

Rip Snorter — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:35:47 GMT

I'd have to agree with chewie. Kuck is the only variable. Everything else is invariable.Jack

Reply #18

Just6ntlc — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:17:31 GMT

I don't want to see computerized drawings for states entering the lottery. With computerized drawings, they would see more jackpot winners and fewer people play it with manipulation. I think they should go to ball drawings and eliminate the computerized drawings.

Reply #17

sagan — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:20:34 GMT

so far i have not seen evidence of true randomness in computer drawings, it is my belief that computers are limited to a finite set of numbers to draw from whereas the dropping of balls is infinately more random.

Reply #16

LOTTOMIKE — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:39:03 GMT

.....i agree with four4me what he said is what runs through my head of what happens in all computerized states right before the drawing.this is one way that states can be sly and manipulate it to make more money behind the scenes....

Reply #15

four4me — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:58:37 GMT

Chewie i suggest you read the petition again try and digest what it says open up your mind to all the views on it. Then ask yourself can they manipulate the game in their favor. Even though 10 people might be in the room the computer hermetically sealed. It's locked and chained to the table it's on and the table is bolted to the floor. Now imagine another person sitting in another part of the building transmitting code to the computer. Eliminating all but of few of the numbers that were played f... [ More ]

Reply #14

Todd — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:37:24 GMT

I'm not sure why Kuck is the only variable , as you say, but apparently you have not read, or have not taken seriously, all of the many arguments against computerized drawings.Recently, companies that produce the computers and software for these terrible computerized drawings have started to notice that there is a groundswell against their product. Thus, they have started a concerted effort to post supportive messages about computerized drawings, hoping to make it seem that they're not so bad.... [ More ]

Reply #13

Chewie — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:09:22 GMT

I don't understand why there is such resistance to the computer draw. Is there reliable stats shows they result in fewer winners, and if so, why are there fewer winners? I would think it would be about the luck, not the vehicle. I only look for the numbers the next day, not how they got there. Its like wheter its important if the odds are 200M to 1 or 250M to 1; doesn't impact my bet. I feel it is all about the luck. Numbers are only numbers. Kuck is the only variable.

Reply #12

LOTTOMIKE — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:42:46 GMT

this poll here pretty much exhausts the subject at hand.your right there have been different polls about computerized drawings but at least we know now what the general opinion is on these issues.i think its a pretty good poll to end the subject.i just hate the thought of america ending up getting cheated on the drawings.i hope the petition here puts a dent in those officials future efforts.i feel passionate against computerized drawings.i'll let the issue rest for now.....

Reply #11

four4me — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 02:44:51 GMT

Thank's Todd i tried several times to let them know that posting stuff about it is like advertising for it. Putting up a wet paint sign and so fourth. Implanting the idea in any suspecting lottery personel that might wander in. Then if it happens to their state they'll be crying i don't know why it happened. It's not that any of these threads would cause a state to change but it's like planting a seed though sometimes they sprout sometimes they don't.All i know is if i was so opposed to comp dra... [ More ]

Reply #10

Todd — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 02:29:52 GMT

I almost feel like these constant polls on computerized drawings are setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy.If you don't want computerized drawings, then don't go around like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling.Just be vigilant and firm that it never does happen. Convince people when the issue comes up, but don't keep bringing it up like it's a foregone conclusion.Chill.

Reply #9

MADDOG10 — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:17:40 GMT

I don't really think that everyone involved in lotteries has their eye's totally closed so to speak, to not see whats happening to the state lotteries that have computorized drawings. the people who have played on a daily basis are not doing this since some states have changed. I for one, have played the lottery for a good many years, and if the State of NJ., ever changed I would for a fact stop playing the pick 3 and pick 4 games. I would only play Mega Millions. Computorized drawings are a ne... [ More ]

Reply #8

JimmySand9 — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:26:38 GMT

Yeah, but that's the kind of thing they don't want. And that's the kind of thing we don't want them to know. Besides, I've tried getting patterns with gravity-pick machines, and it's plumb near impossible.

Reply #7

bigdaddy — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:25:07 GMT

good poll i think all states should be ball drawings easier to get a forcast on..a better chance of it having a pattern..

Reply #6

Badger — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:16:02 GMT

Most definitely. They want to do it the cheapest way possible.Another good poll may be Will new lotteries broadcast their drawings? I think this is another thing on the way out.

Reply #5

JimmySand9 — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:54:27 GMT

I think North Carolina will use balls, but Oklahoma's a tough one.

Reply #4

Rip Snorter — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:22:38 GMT

That's a novel idea. I hope you'll expand on it.Jack

Reply #3

Just6ntlc — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:57:06 GMT

It would be a tradegy that all lotto draws are computerized. I wished that almost all the draws are going to a ball machine random draw because computerized drawings means fewer winners and bigger jackpots.

Reply #2

LottoVantage — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:13:34 GMT

Here's to keeping ball/machine drawings over computerized drawings.That said, in my opinion, there is little difference in ball/machine randomness and computer randomness. Whatever is unique within either type drawing platform remains domainly consistent.However, consider all the different ball/machine combinations that Florida utilizes within the Florida Fantasy 5 drawing platform. Total chaos is created within the established lottery pool continuously because of massive ball/machine switching.... [ More ]

Reply #1

Rip Snorter — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:43:37 GMT

I'm not sure it would be a 'tragedy' by the standards I usually set for the word, but I'll like it less than I'd like to see ball drawings continued. Which, I don't believe, will influence the inevitable move in the direction RNG drawings.We can buck and rear, but in the end we'll all tame down and keep buying tickets.Jack

very important poll-computer draws

LOTTOMIKE — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:22:08 GMT

it would be a tragedy but do you see all the new lotteries from here on out all using computerized drawings