Info On RNG'S

Reply #37

psykomo — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:17:48 GMT

It all start's from the TOP/DOWN<<<<<<

it is called:

TRICKLE DOWN

theory<<<<,,,,,<if buts's @ top get more $LOP (slop) why should this little

guy(PIG) want to work<<<<<<<<<<<for what<<<<<<<<<<<<

????????????????????????????????????????BEER??????

GREAT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if you like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

slop more BEER... [ More ]

Reply #36

Badger — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:48:00 GMT

Of course I can believe it. They're state employees. If you've ever had to deal face-to-face with state employees, you likely find that the vast majority of them are not there because they love to work and/or produce. They're there because the pay is fine, and the benefits are great, and because it's difficult to get fired from such a job, and they get fancy pensions. My impression based upon personal experience.

Reply #35

JAP69 — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:15:39 GMT

I understand one of the reasons to go rng was to cut cost.

If you have say 5 employees doing the work for ball drawings doing the pretest work and actual draws where are those employees now?

Did they save money by showing them the door?

If they reassigned them to other positions is not saving money.

I would not be whinnin about a job if I was going to lose it.

These companies that create rng equipment are out to sell a product for their profit zone. Plain and simple there.

Reply #34

LOTTOMIKE — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:06:42 GMT

i've read the various views on RNG here and i stand by my opinion that it could be tampered with a lot more easily than the ball drawings.not having a ball draw robs players of that crucial element of seeing the balls drop for themselves while watching to see if their numbers hit.those fake cartoon draws are stupid and artificial and might trick some people into thinking they are watching an actual drawing.its deceitful in my opinion to even have an RNG in the first place.all states should be ba... [ More ]

Reply #33

Badger — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:37:36 GMT

It may indeed prove nothing about fraud. It does, however, when combined with all the other debacles at the TN lottery, point toward massive incompetance on the part of the TN lottery. And in business, incompetance means turnover and startover. I would expect nothing less in this case.

Reply #32

LANTERN — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:48:13 GMT

I got it, 2 or more states will be predicted,the predictions for one of them will be openly posted and those of the other state will be put into an encrypted zip kind of file and uploaded into a file hosting server, from where people can download the encrypted file and after the draw I will give the password so they can open it and see the predicted numbers in there.

It is the only way in which I can make the test as fair as possible.

I will start when ready, first there will many posted p... [ More ]

Reply #31

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:24:49 GMT

This case does not prove anything about fraud. Mistakes can happen. Fraud is more difficult. And you have to be careful not to believe everything you read in the newspaper. Any competent lab running tests would certainly have found the no repeat problem.

But you are right, complacency is always a problem and must be accounted for in any security plan.

Reply #30

LANTERN — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:07:23 GMT

I had deleted this post, But I will re-post it:

Why do private predictions that are neither (Not) posted nor played produce winning numbers a lot more often, than those that are posted and or played? Why?

If nothing else, it at least should keep the Tx Lottery on their toes for quite a while after it starts

Reply #29

Dead_Aim — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:04:10 GMT

Chuck wrote:

There are independent auditors and independent oversight and no cheat can be accomplished without involving multiple partners.

That has already been proven not to be the case. TN's third party programmer made a mistake. It was caught by no one. Every so-called security measure failed. The multiple tests and testers we hear so much about did not notice the program was not putting out doubles? I would think that would be the 2nd or 3rd thing to check on the list of things tha... [ More ]

Reply #28

LANTERN — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:49:13 GMT

Well, against the who Know or are said to Know better , a person who Really knows do can and does increase his chances of winning a lot, if there is no tampering with the draw's results.

If LP had a safe Time Capsule way of safeguarding predictions untill after the draw, it could be proved.

Anyhow, in the near future within the next 6 to 12months or before that I will prove without the shadow of a doubt that your odds of winning can be increased, at least on the Daily Games .

H... [ More ]

Reply #27

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:41:14 GMT

No mystery here. Numbers that are NOT posted are said to win more because there are those that say they do - but they cannot be tested. If accurate records were kept, instead of human feelings , I have no doubt that a statistical sample would play true.

Reply #26

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:38:35 GMT

The only ways to increase your odds of winning are to play more - or in a double-barrel game like Powerball, to buy numbers covering all red ball numbers (thereby giving yourself a guaranteed win and at least a discount in the game - you basically buy 42 plays for $39). The only other possible hope for increasing one's odds is to assume fault in the draw process and to play the most common numbers for mechanical draw machines or the last numbers drawn for an RNG (or some other RNG issue like a... [ More ]

Reply #25

LANTERN — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:31:40 GMT

If it was not possible for people to increase their chances of winning perhaps there would be no reason to cheat, but even if they increase the odds against the players, some players can increase their own odds of winning, how can they control that other than by cheating?, the lotteries by now are aware that there are people who can win on games a lot more often than most others, a few members of LP seem to know how to win one or more lottery games a lot more often than they would if they bought... [ More ]

Reply #24

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:11:55 GMT

There is no reason to cheat. If a lottery wants more rolls, they simply set the odds to where they want to set the average jackpot and the average number of winners per year. It is really an exercise in simple math. Why cheat when you can just use statistics? Besides, as I say, cheating involves jail time, then end of lotteries, and the end of one's career and reputation. Private lotteries were outlawed at the turn of the previous century (1900) and replaced with state-run lotteries because... [ More ]

Reply #23

CARBOB — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:02:28 GMT

chuck32,

There is also no reason for the state to cheat to make money. Besides the threat of jail time, a lottery simply designs a game in the way it wants it to perform. There is absolutely no reason to cheat.

There is one reason to cheat!! Maximum Profit more profit , bigger bonuses. The lottery is all about Money

I suspect that this is one of the real reasons behind the concern about RNG's. There is this feeling that the computers know all of the numbers played a... [ More ]

Reply #22

LOTTOMIKE — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:28:20 GMT

the thing i'm also concerned about is the RNG state could study that data and 'maximize' their profit by programming the computer to make the number with the least amount of money bet on as the winning number.the winning number most of the time being a number the state would have to pay the least amount of money on while bringing the most profit.

Reply #21

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:19:06 GMT

Predicting winning lottery numbers is going to be hard no matter what, but it is much worse due to the lottery operators and their pre-tests, after all they quit selling numbers at least 30 minutes before the draws, that gives the lottery people 30 minutes, they should quit selling numbers 10 minutes before the draws.

This is a common question from lottery players. Why stop selling so early? Lotteries used to sell up until a few minutes before draw time, and then hold the drawing. The Po... [ More ]

Reply #20

CARBOB — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:38:07 GMT

Great point Ricky, that has been my concern all along. If you think it's not happening in states where they have RNG and even in the states with balls, I have some beach front property , in Fla, for sale. Remember this saying, when someone says, it's not about sex , it's about sex; When someone says, it's not about money , it's about money. When someone starts spouting off about lottery integrity , when money is involved, forget it. Integity is out the door.

Reply #19

Lkydeb*594 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:36:20 GMT

this is exactly my thought. I remember a few months ago when this subject of RNG was brought up, Todd stated that they have to make a profit that got my attention. Thank u for this post Ricky, very interesting.

Reply #18

paurths — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:01:43 GMT

Using RNG's the instance that organises the draw will never make a loss.

At least, not over the long run. If it is played smartly enough, no one will ever notice, not even the ones that track the statistics intensively.

Any given day: All the bets are placed, that's all computerized.

This means that the mainframe is aware of the payout for each and every number that might come to the draw. That's simple mathematics.

All the instance needs now is that the computer spits out the com... [ More ]

Reply #17

takeitez — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:56:13 GMT

Great Thread!!

Should be required reading by all members.

ez

Reply #16

Todd — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:22:18 GMT

Mike,

That's a harsh way of putting it, but essentially that's the reason. You don't go to computerized drawings because it's more random or any nonsense like that. The randomness of the drawings has nothing to do with any of these decisions.

Frankly, the random arguments are the smokescreen for computerized drawings. Manufacturers of the devices try to bring the discussion into a debate over randomness. That's not the most important issue.

They bring the discussion there beca... [ More ]

Reply #15

LOTTOMIKE — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:39:47 GMT

i'm tired so forgive me this may be in an earlier post i read but its tragic to know that one of the reasons tennessee went to RNG was because the employees hated doing all the work that went along with doing ball drawings plus it got harder once tennessee went to two draws a day....

LOL! can you believe some lazy ass moronic employees might have been a contributing factor in tennessee going computerized

Reply #14

LANTERN — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:34:31 GMT

http://www.random.org/integers/

Random Integer Generator

Here are your random numbers:

4 8 1

8 2 1

4 3 7

5 2 9

7 0 1

7 6 0

4 0 9

7 8 4

5 1 4

8 9 7

6 0 8

0 9 6

2 3 4

5 9 0

5 0 0

4 6 4

3 0 1

0 9 5

8 5 5

8 1 5

1 3 5

6 1 6

4 4 0

5 4 2

3 3 1

5 7 6

5 7 5

4 8 4

2 8 9

5 8 3

Timestamp: 2... [ More ]

Reply #13

four4me — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 04:01:19 GMT

The numbered ping pong balls they use today have seven coats of hardened lacquerer on them they are not easily punctured.

In the old days they were plain ping pong balls with silk screened numerals on them and before that they were hand painted numerals.

Want to know how i know all this it's because they make the ping pong balls used in most lotteries for the US and abroad here in Maryland. And i know some of the people who handled the job.

Reply #12

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:19:54 GMT

Well, I don't know if I want to get into a big debate. As I say, I'm not all that passionate about this subject.

1. There are indeed no unhackable computer systems - just as there are no unhackable physical draw systems. Anything is possible, but we deal with probabilities. The RNG needs to be built in guarded conditions, tested by an independent lab (fully with lines of code reviewed), systems built in later to self-test and create hashes, and then secured in the same way as all dr... [ More ]

Reply #11

Todd — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:44:56 GMT

Respectfully, I disagree. I think the players who don't care are the ones who don't know about it, or are only casual players who play when the JP is big.

However, when even casual players find out about computerized drawings they are at first surprised (because the lottery tries to trick people into believing balls are still being used), and then the next reaction is why? When they learn even more their reaction becomes, we should switch back to balls.

These are not comments made... [ More ]

Reply #10

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:45:47 GMT

Hey Todd,

I'm not sure that any layman can see or measure or detect fraud on a ball machine. At least not a person who is not at the studio with some testing equipment. Magnets in balls; paint in Ping-Pong balls, etc. may not be detectable on a TV screen at all. Players don't catch these problems because they are fixed once the fraud is committed. I've never heard a person suggest a meaninful way to defaud an RNG (except for things like well, I would write the code to draw my numbers... [ More ]

Reply #9

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:32:10 GMT

You have to wonder if some disgruntled employee was at work there. The RNG's were set wrong; the lottery phone number on brochures were replaced by an adult hot line number; the wrong jackpot amount is put on tickets? What are the odds of writing down a phone number and having it be an adult hot line

Reply #8

Todd — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:30:09 GMT

Not at all. I want ball drawings because any layman can see or measure or detect problems or fraud.

That's why computerized drawings in California, Kansas, and Tennessee had problems that festered for weeks and in some cases months -- before PLAYERS in each case detected problems by looking at the poor probability of the bad drawings.

That could never have happened with ball drawings -- and HAS never happened.

The vast majority of lottery players who discuss this issue here and on othe... [ More ]

Reply #7

LOTTOMIKE — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:29:15 GMT

i'm glad to hear that.especially after the dreaded tennessee debacle.

Reply #6

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:20:24 GMT

I'm Good (but incognito here - shhhh). Powerball will not switch to RNG. Just too much protest to make the change. Kicking over the goofy Power Play machine (which can take the whole draw show to pick a number) is a good bet though - just for getting a result in a specific time.

Reply #5

LOTTOMIKE — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:15:21 GMT

how are you chuck? i was wondering if powerball had any plans on going RNG since hot lotto made the switch recently?

thanks.

Reply #4

chuck32 — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:03:34 GMT

Computers are not normally TRUE-random, but they can be set up to be truly random. There are a dozen RNG's operating at lotteries now that are TRUE-random machines. They contain a radioactive element and the seed is taken from random decay. That said, the Pseudo-RNG machines out there are still far good enough for a lottery drawing. Lotteries are a double-random process anyway since the player number is random (okay Pseudo-RNG since picked by humans or the RNG in the terminal).

As for... [ More ]

Reply #3

LANTERN — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 08:50:08 GMT

Did you ever hear somebody said?: Good enough for Government work

Yes, computers can produce patterns that to humans appear to be Random enough.

All or most lottery players probably can't tell the difference between lottery patterns produced by an RNG and those of mechanical draw machines, at least this is what I think.

As to security, they both have their own factors, a programmer might add code that is not well seen and or understood by those checking it, also there could be Extr... [ More ]

Reply #2

LANTERN — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 08:09:36 GMT

Do you want Random? Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud

Of course, when we don't know how and or why then we say Random , that does not mean that there really is any such thing, the real meaning of Random might be: Produced by unknown causes , what is unknown to us now, might not be unknown to people or to some people 20 thousand years from now and or long before that.

While the changes of weather patterns might appear to be random there are definite... [ More ]

Reply #1

Guru101 — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:47:13 GMT

My preference for plastic ball drawings is merely for security reasons. Do I think computers, when programmed appropriately, can generate numbers that are random enough to humans? Yes I do. Plastic ball drawings take full advantage of science, primarily physics. So basically plastic ball drawings work on a scientific level of randomization. The human brain however can only view results generated by a randomization process up to a certain point. There are a lot of things that can be used in a

Info On RNG'S

CARBOB — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:30:32 GMT

This is from a post on the tennessean.com web page about RNG'S with some links to other sites that pertain to the article. I didn't write this, that person is listed at the bottm. Found it very informing. I would like some feedback.

Google Junky

Joined: 24 Aug 2007

Posts: 2

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: To the editor

I think you ran a great story here. I have more information for you to help you make your next editorial. I did post this o... [ More ]