2 billion random numbers and none of them matched the last draw

Reply #20

RJOh — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:16:11 GMT

I think m3g4m1II10ns was trying to create a system that analyze the history of a lottery draw by draw and create a database of complex statistics and winning patterns that could generate a statistically likely winning set of numbers. He just proved having a 64-bit workstation doesn't make it any easier.

I would think that a program that come up with 2 billion random combinations for a lottery that has only 3,819,816 possible combinations and not matching a particular one would be a clue that... [ More ]

Reply #19

RJOh — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:14:48 GMT

Describe a criteria or theory that you think can only be done using pencil and paper and can't be included in a computer program. I would like to try and program it.

Reply #18

guesser — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:16:40 GMT

As far as lottery predictions go, computers don't do as good as we do with pencil and paper.

Sure, I use a spreadsheet as a lot of folks do, but my selections are based on a ton of criteria and theories you can't program (within reason).

Reply #17

KY Floyd — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 07:50:32 GMT

It sounds like you're confused about what was said, but the OP seems to be a bit confused, too. The OP simply said that after generating over 2 billion random combinations he didnt find one particular combination. It's entirely possible to generate 2 or 3 billion combinations and not match a particular combination, because there's no guarantee that you'll generate 100% of the possible combinations.

As far as what the OP actually meant, it sounds to me like he thinks he generated a set of 65,5... [ More ]

Reply #16

RJOh — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:47:38 GMT

The title of this thread is 2 billion random numbers and none of them matched the last draw .

We know that in a MegaMillion drawing there are 3,819,816 possible combinations of 5's and when the 46 megaballs are included there are 175,711,536 possible combinations not 2 billions so any formula or system that would produce more than 175 millions results and not one of them the winning combination of a 5/56+1/46 drawing is looking in the wrong place, it's like searching for a lost boat in Lake... [ More ]

Reply #15

codmander — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:19:50 GMT

since none of these formulas and systems work maybe we should all put em togher and whatevers left play

Reply #14

Raven62 — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:31:02 GMT

No one said their is a benefit to running Excel 2003 (32-bit application) on a 64-bit Version of Vista.

His new 64-bit Workstation may however have a 32-bit Version of Vista installed on it. (the manufacturers don't seem to publicize this information to consumers

Reply #13

Todd — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:31:45 GMT

Even if it was running on 64-bit Vista, 32-bit Excel has no benefit over running on 32-bit Vista. I know this not only theoretically, but also because I am using 64-bit Vista.

Reply #12

x1kosmic — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:21:28 GMT

Sorry JADE, I was just trying to throw in a little, light-hardiness, for M3g4.

I hope everything works out for them. (M3g4 ll1o).

So..... sorry 'bout the repliying thing .....o.k.

Reply #11

RJOh — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:01:52 GMT

I don't know Excel either and after reading m3g4m1ll10ns's post I think it might be a waste of time to learn it. After all it's just a computer program and like all computer programs the data output depends the data input.

As Todd said m3g41ll10ns proved he could pick 65,000 combinations randomly that didn't have the last winning combination but I already knew that was possible since there are 3,819,816 possible combinations of 5's using 56 numbers.

If I was picking 65,000 combinations... [ More ]

Reply #10

JADELottery — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:56:40 GMT

I've already expressed my opinion using the star rating.

No more replies for the A~s Clown.

Reply #9

x1kosmic — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:20:39 GMT

'preciate the heads-up, Raven.......don't think I won't be trying

Reply #8

Raven62 — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:16:21 GMT

You could Learn How to use Excel...

Reply #7

x1kosmic — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:56:44 GMT

Uh-oh, Rjoh, looks like someone went, 'itstheirgame' on you didn't they?

Mabey if Excel isn't working... they could use pencil and paper, and floresent high-lighters, like I do...... because I don't know the first thing about Excel.

I do know a magic formula for finding out what the last numbers were............it's over on the left,.....try Lottery Results.

which I'm sure will be a typical smarty responce also (laugh-out-loud

Reply #6

Raven62 — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:20:39 GMT

The Manufacturer most likely installed a 32-bit Version of the Operating System (XP/Vista) on the 64-Bit Workstation.

Reply #5

Todd — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:55:33 GMT

BTW, I also wanted to add that having a 64-bit workstation does not help this particular exercise whatsoever, because Excel is a 32-bit application.

Reply #4

Todd — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:54:22 GMT

Actually, if you look at what you did scientifically and logically, the only thing you proved is that 65,000 lines of random numbers do not always predict the next draw. You didn't prove that all systems don't work, because you did not try all systems. So you point, which you made in a boldface font, is wrong.

Reply #3

m3g4m1ll10ns — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:43:12 GMT

Wait a minute? For what? Are you going to prove my statement about the futility of predicting lotto numbers wrong? I don't think so! In fact, I know so! The only thing predictable are your responses.

There is NO formula or pattern going forward or back to tell you what the next numbers will be or what the last numbers were! Period

Reply #2

Luminus — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:15:36 GMT

My signature says it all.

Reply #1

RJOh — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:35:58 GMT

Just goes to show there is no formula or pattern going forward or back to tell you what the next numbers will be or what the last numbers were.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. This purple couch therapy session is now over.

Wait just a minute!

You assume that what you don't know is impossible for any one else to know or discover. History proves you're not the first to think that way and was wrong.

2 billion random numbers and none of them matched the last draw

m3g4m1ll10ns — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:58:49 GMT

(I love this new 64-bit workstation!)

The game's MM, and here's the spreadsheet (Excel 2003 SP2):

The first 56 columns are 56 random numbers using =RAND()*RAND()/RAND(). This should make certain all 56 numbers are different.

The next 56 columns are the rank of the random numbers using =RANK(A1,$A1:$BD1) in cells BE1 through DH1.

The next five colums are the first five of the ranked in numerical order using =SMALL($BE1:$BI1,1), =SMALL($BE1:$BI1,2), etc.

Then I did five =IF stateme... [ More ]