TEST DRAW insider info for new Powerball. 17 & 7 are ON FIRE.

Reply #47

Editgap — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:47:37 GMT

First off, the numbers are random. I have accept and live with that.

The biggest factor or problem with powerball is the odds. That is why the keep increasing the darn number of balls.

Picking 1 exact number out of 195,000,000 is impossible when in reality guessing what number somebody is think of b/w 1 and 100 only gets you close at best most of the time.

If you were given a choice to buy your favorite numbers at the store the stand in front of the television cameras and blow air on th... [ More ]

Reply #46

guesser — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:39:14 GMT

I'm not so sure we would notice a difference if the odds were 1:25,000,000 to be honest with you.

Reply #45

guesser — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:37:51 GMT

We can fly to Mars, but that doesn't mean we WILL.

Each of us is capable of winning any lottery, that doesn't mean we WILL.

Reply #44

guesser — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:36:06 GMT

Your 'bat' is different than anyone else's, because it was NOT hit 'right off the bat'.

Go do some research before posting, sheesh.

Reply #43

RJOh — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:06:08 GMT

It just goes to prove what many players had said, The average players won't notice much change in their chances of winning/loosing once the odds are 1:100,000,000 or greater.

Reply #42

Stew12 — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:08:25 GMT

Well it was the 4th draw (not the first at least) and I'm sure ticket sales were high due to the 165 million jackpot.

Reply #41

time*treat — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:52:06 GMT

https://www.lotterypost.com/news/112702

Reply #40

LottoL — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:03:20 GMT

But thats just me, I'm just a suspicious person when dollar amounts are at these levels!

===============================================================

I think its really interesting that the odds for PowerBall are increased to

1 in 195,249,054 and somebody (One lucky ticket) hits the jackpot right

off the bat!

Anybody know if it was a QP or someone's picks?

Best Of Luck

Reply #39

Stew12 — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:44:50 GMT

Just saying something can be done does not make it true.

Reply #38

guesser — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:34:19 GMT

Regardless of 'how', you said was I was going to say: sooner or later, *ALL* 'secrets' are revealed, one way or another. If someone on the inside KNEW how to do it, you can bet they would have rigged it to win (for a 'close friend') at some point.

Getting caught would pretty much close down most lotteries, the risks far far outweigh the gains.

'Scorpio' - there is nothing to 'live with' aside from the astronomical odds of winning.

Reply #37

scorpio — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:25:00 GMT

for education,it can be done!live with it

Reply #36

Stew12 — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:04:21 GMT

And how do they rig a live, televised drawing? I would love to see that. The liability for getting caught would greatly out weigh the rewards for rigging the draws.

Reply #35

scorpio — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:30:16 GMT

it is definitely rigged,just like the casinos have gotten tighter now.

Reply #34

LottoL — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:11:02 GMT

You are probably right and I hope I am wrong.

To me, just based on odds, 3 winners in a row is suspicious.

If all 3 in a row were QP's, my suspicions would rise even higher.

If all 3 in a row had repeat numbers, my suspicions would rise.

But thats just me, I'm just a suspicious person when dollar amounts are at these levels!

Best Of Luck!

LottoL

Reply #33

guesser — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:00:06 GMT

Doubtful.

That doesn't explain when there is 3 winners in a row, etc.

They WANT winners, they don't want to scare folks off when a game is not won for 2 months, then folks start thinking 'it's rigged - surely we should have a winner by now'.

Reply #32

guesser — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:56:24 GMT

Think of all the possible combinations....

You will have multiple winners if and when these numbers hit:

3-8-24-29-48 can anyone tell me why ?

Okay - just pick a combination of nascar car numbers of your 'favorite' drivers....

6-9-17-26-42 etc. there will be sure to have multiple winners with those.

Reply #31

guesser — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:49:45 GMT

You have obviously not researched this AT ALL, because if you did, you would notice that 'generally speaking' two numbers that hit in a Current game have hit in the prior draws' test games, RARELY is it where all 5 numbers has hit, once in a blue moon you get a no-hitter, but it's usually between 2 and 3 Priors, 2.2 to be exact, and I have not even looked at the prior TWO draws - I would be very sure it would be 3 hits if not more.

There are some numbers that will hit at least once in the pri... [ More ]

Reply #30

scorpio — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:55:20 GMT

i think they can adjust the randomness in pb.at least adjust it so there aren't many winners,or we would have 10-20 winners once in awhile.

Reply #29

aberdeennut — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:55:28 GMT

Hi, there is wheeling programs on this site somewhere I can't remember where at the mo but I think someone will guide you to it, check out thesite menu bar at the top of the page go through the references and you will find it.

I hope this helps you a bit....

Bill....

Reply #28

turtle0747 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:29:38 GMT

I have used the numbers that have not been drawn in the last 2 draws of testing data. This includes pre, post, and draw. In Wednesdays draw, 4 numbers were in there. Now I need a good wheeling program to filter numbers to come up with some good choices.

Reply #27

aberdeennut — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:59:58 GMT

No there is no point LottoL, when you search try the same search in one of the days you may find a difference in the answers and I think you will If you have two days in that Lotto, just a thought as you get an intermix with the two days.

Lotts of luck.

Bill....

Reply #26

aberdeennut — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:06:59 GMT

You are quite right, maybe it could be for the fact that everyone has been chassing numbers for years that prevents them from arriving at the answer, now if you go to my info in jackpot games you baybe surprised, and in my opinion it is the space that is formed that gives the answer, so you must search for the spaces that a number is going to come out in and not the number.

Bill....

Reply #25

LottoL — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:14:44 GMT

Interesting Thought - And If They Could Manipulate The Ballsets, what would be the point ?

Answer: CONTROL

- Control the size of the jackpot.

- Control the number of winners.

- Control where a winning ticket is sold.

- Control the winning numbers - Has 1,2,3,4,5,6 ever been hit in any lottery worldwide?

- . . . . Anyone else have any ideas?

Best Of Luck

Reply #24

guesser — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:32:37 GMT

BTW folks, I looked: Number 07 is not hot by any means, 17 was - a week ago. IF it is going to hit, I'd play it over the next 2 games, then I'd drop it. Now all you need is all the other numbers to go with it...

Reply #23

guesser — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:28:43 GMT

Psyko....

Riddle me this:

With all the 'data' we have available to us, why is it nobody has cracked 'the code' ?

Surely someobody must have (or not), because if someone had, we would have repeat winners, dontcha think ??

And what would be the point to fudging the numbers that come up ?

I can tell you for absolute fact that they don't know if a particular set of numbers has been played before the drawing, they are not that proactive on the numbers, not when sales are cut off 1 hour... [ More ]

Reply #22

psykomo — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:57:57 GMT

guesser:

I resect U and enjoy UR POST !!!!!!!

BUTT, let's suppose this TEST was a real TEST???????????????????????

I don't know BUT, there is ALWAY's a BUTT out DARE smarter and^^

more crooked than U-R meeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!not say'n UR a CROOK!!!

IF this GROOK can find a way 2 manage 2 BALL's

might not they FIND a WAY 2 manage D BALL's

REMEMBER:

GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!!!

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

HOW CAN D PUR PEOPLE SCAM SUM... [ More ]

Reply #21

BuyLow — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:51:07 GMT

Thank you.

Reply #20

Stew12 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:56:09 GMT

http://www.powerball.com/powerball/testpb.doc

Reply #19

BuyLow — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:55:04 GMT

I have searched high and low, plz post a linky. Thanky.

Reply #18

guesser — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:24:19 GMT

Please explain the differences between randomness vs. predictability

If something is not random, then it stands to reason it is predictable, no ?

But if you don't have the tools at your disposal to make it predictable, then it is random, no ?

You cannot say something it not random if YOU cannot predict the results beforehand, and that is especially so if nobody else has.

Think of it this way - I KNOW I can go back in time, all I need is someone to make me a time machine so I can do i... [ More ]

Reply #17

guesser — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:12:53 GMT

For once, I agree with you on something.

Well said.

Reply #16

mymonthlypicks — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:41:18 GMT

Wow Thanks, I didn't think they would. I bet I would of hit the test numbers lol

Reply #15

RJOh — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:52:54 GMT

They're posted on the PB website.

Reply #14

guesser — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:42:00 GMT

That, and a broken clock is right twice a day.

Reply #13

guesser — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:38:29 GMT

YIPPEE !!!

WOOHOO !!!

You have found a system that GUARANTEES that TWO numbers MIGHT HIT !!!!

Yowzers !!!

Let me see now - what does two white balls hitting pay ??

Oh yeah - NOTHING !!

LOL

Guys, Gals, Mr. Davis - I have chewed TEST GAME DATA FOR THREE YEARS SOLID, A LOT LONGER THAN MOST ANYONE, and yes, there are TENDENCIES, but it's 1) still random, and 2) MIGHT get you ONE number - MAYBE.

I have found a lot more tendencies in test game data than you either know or... [ More ]

Reply #12

mymonthlypicks — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:38:36 GMT

How did you even come across the Pre and Post (TEST) numbers

Reply #11

KY Floyd — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:25:50 GMT

I deal you the 2 of spades, then the 3 of spades

If multiple test draws had consecutive numbers you'd have a somewhat relevant analogy, if not an actual point. Since we didn't see consecutive numbers we're clearly not dealing with whether or not adjacent balls were adequately shuffled by the randomization process. The imaginary issue you're tilting at is the repeating of a few numbers in consecutive drawings.

Now in a field of 59 numbers, if we draw 30 (about half) of them(because that's... [ More ]

Reply #10

Stew12 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:45:04 GMT

There is not enough draw results to tell if the patterns are not truely random. So far I do not see anything out of the ordinary.

Think of the classic Birthday Problem. It only takes a group of 23 people to have a 50% chance that 2 of their birthdays are on the same day. Although it seems unlikely with 365 days in the year, doesn't it

Reply #9

TotallyDavis — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:14:18 GMT

A small set of data actually can provide meaningful information, if it is unlikely enough.

Suppose I tell you I have randomly shuffled this deck of cards, and I am going to deal you random cards now.

Then I deal you the 2 of spades, then the 3 of spades, then the 4 of spades, then the 5 of spades.

You stop me and say, Hey, are you sure you shuffled this deck? and I respond, Yeah, I did. It's just random.

Well... maybe it is. It certainly is possible that a randomly shuffled deck of... [ More ]

Reply #8

KY Floyd — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:55:27 GMT

1. You clearly don't remember much of what you might have learned in that college statistics course if you think that this one set of drawings provides any meaningful information.

2. You don't know enough (or care enough) to figure out whether the results are perfectly normal, or slightly unlikely. If slightly unlikely, you don't know whether there are too many or too few repeats.

3. You don't even seem to know what randomness is. I'll agree that we're completely unable to develop somethin... [ More ]

Reply #7

Guru101 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:36:26 GMT

Your argument to there being no randomness is it's just a result of the physics of the universe playing out a certain way . That's an invalid argument because it doesn't nullify the definition of random. You're examples of the coin flip and balls are invalid as well. A super computer wouldn't be able to predict a coin flip because it doesn't know how hard the person will flip the coin. So you're telling me the mixing of the balls by the current procedure isn't good enough... [ More ]

Reply #6

JWBlue — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:25:09 GMT

TD,

You have mail in your private inbox.

Reply #5

Todd — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:10:02 GMT

Reply #4

TotallyDavis — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:29:45 GMT

I'm saying that there is no randomness. Every number you, or a machine, could conceivably generate is not random. It is merely the result of the physics of the universe playing out a certain way. We just see those numbers as random because we believe we couldn't possibly predict them.

For example, you might say that flipping a coin is random, but given a supercomputer, and all the exact data about how hard you are flipping it, the density of the air, the height from which it was flipped you w... [ More ]

Reply #3

RJOh — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:17:10 GMT

And I'm telling you that the machine is not doing a great job of mixing the balls up, because certain numbers are hitting more frequently than they should be given a truly random distrobution.

Are you saying that randomness has a particular distribution pattern that can be identified? And if you don't see that pattern in the numbers drawn, they can't be truly randomly picked

Reply #2

TotallyDavis — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:49:49 GMT

No, that's not what I said. I never said the game was rigged.

I said that those numbers were hitting too much for it to be standard coincidence.

The ball machine is not a truly random system. There does not currently exist ANY way to randomly generate a number on earth, not a true random one.

So the ball machine follows certain rules and patterns, no matter how honest they try to make the lottery.

And I'm telling you that the machine is not doing a great job of mixing the balls up, b... [ More ]

Reply #1

Guru101 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:23:26 GMT

I really hope you're kidding. You see 2 numbers come up several times on a single dates pre-draws and post-draw, and all of a sudden the game is rigged and not random.

TEST DRAW insider info for new Powerball. 17 & 7 are ON FIRE.

TotallyDavis — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:53:02 GMT

A lot of serious players are probably going to be furious with me for sharing this publically, because it increases your chances of winning the jackpot, but what the hey. As long as it's a LotteryPost member, right? Here we go... first the four required predraws to test the equipment (that could have easily been the official draws; they were done the same way), and then the required post test drawing. Random distribution? Hardly.

01/07 Pre-Test Draws

01 17 30 20 28 - 16

38 1... [ More ]