Chi testing on non-public powerball data

Reply #15

TinFoilHat85705 — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:41:04 GMT

Jack Daniels give you any luck?

It appears it's on a rebound, as far as chi values are concerned... and I still have to say that I think it's rigged. Here's the last 15 (of 129) values with their difference and saturation percentage comparatively. What you will notice is that 3 draws ago (3/27/2010), it had the biggest change back upwards (across all 129 draws). Could be natural, but appears to be an unnatural jump... who knows, right!?

Grouped Chi, Difference, % Saturation, Draw

0.70... [ More ]

Reply #14

rdgrnr — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:05:40 GMT

I just poured 4 fingers of Jack Daniels in a glass.

Those are the only numbers in this thread that I can comprehend.

Now I'm gonna slam that sucker and see if I can understand.

And then repeat as necessary.

Reply #13

TinFoilHat85705 — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:21:11 GMT

Or how about on 4/30/1997, numbers drawn were: 19, 16, 17, 15, 18 and PB# 17... and yet it was only a pre-test! What are the chances that it happened, and didn't also happen to be a public winning draw

Reply #12

TinFoilHat85705 — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:29:02 GMT

I personally don't believe everything I see or get told, or I wouldn't have found the data I now have... it just personally interests me to dissect it and find things that don't seem to make sense. As of 3/15/2010... out of 11,202 draws (since 1992), 1,122 had the PB # match one of the white balls (10%). However, 83% of those coincidentally fell on a test draw versus a public draw. So the public only knows of this type of thing happening 1/5 of the time. Suurrre no one's in control of what the p... [ More ]

Reply #11

GASMETERGUY — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:36:38 GMT

The Powerball drawing is shown on TV. One can see the balls fall into the chute. This, IMHO, negates all that went before.

They can pre-test 24/7, change the ball set, mix and match all they want. The only draw that counts is the one they televise. The only draw we should be concerned with is the one they televise.

Hopefully someone will take the time to explain why those pre-tests are of such great concern. I don't see the significance.

Reply #10

TinFoilHat85705 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:38:46 GMT

With the results from 3/17/2010, it continued to decline (now): 0.56556

Reply #9

TinFoilHat85705 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:09:38 GMT

Chi Update:

My prediction is that any day now (literally), they are going to do away with the current ball set #29-32 (went in place on 1/7/2009). It's values are falling far lower than the previous set and unless their unknown rules are to behave like the set from 2000-2002, it just hasn't rebounded at all in the last 8 weeks. Before tonight's draw, the chi probability test result (compared to expected values) is at 0.58140.

Reply #8

TinFoilHat85705 — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:05:13 GMT

My reference that there have been thirty something duplications of 5 white balls is accurate for all 18 years (back to 1992). I thought I had found that many in only 4,000 draws (2005 to 2010), but there is actually 33 with only 2 being public draws (in all 11,202 draws) as of 3/10/2010.

So they're telling us that only 6% of the seemingly impossible odds (at minimum 1.2 million combinations) of when fifth duplication occurred, that it just so happened to land on public draws and the other 31... [ More ]

Reply #7

TinFoilHat85705 — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:20:36 GMT

You could say that my journey started when I wanted to know if forecast predictions could be made on random numbers. This quest will probably carry with me throughout my life. It is currently being applied to the lottery though, despite all those who have told me there's absolutely nothing to analyze (when the programmed word random is applied).

Seven years ago, I pulled up the PowerBall and the Fantasy 5 (now called The Pick) number histories. They were both similar in the idea that rando... [ More ]

Reply #6

konane — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:24:31 GMT

Welcome to Lottery Post! Love your screen name!

We have several really good number crunchers here who may be able to assist you. I certainly hope so.

I am aware of 4 ballsets each for white and red balls. They recently confirmed that number, plus confirmed the same number a year ago when I inquired. 6 draws prior to jackpot draw is new information, thank you for letting us know.

Reply #5

jwhou — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:52:07 GMT

My understanding is that they run test draws first and if the criteria that they've set for independence isn't met, they switch to a set that did pass that criteria before making the draw, at least that's what the Texas lottery commission website says, their criteria is that no number be drawn more than five times in six draws. The idea is that if a ball set has been compromised then it would be unlikely to pass the pre-test and the alternate ball set would be used in the draw, of course the alt... [ More ]

Reply #4

dr65 — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:20:33 GMT

Sorry, but I think I need a tin foil hat now.

You might have to simplify some data or at least explain it.

Reply #3

TinFoilHat85705 — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:16:13 GMT

I don't fully understand what you are saying. I don't know much about chi other than self-teachings and mostly because I got confirmation they use it for their abnormality testing. I do have 18 years of non-public data though and wish I had others that could help in dissecting it.

When you were responding, were you aware that there's 4 sets of balls each numbered 1 through XX and for each draw 6 draws actually occur with only one being labeled the public winning drawn numbers? So you have fou... [ More ]

Reply #2

jwhou — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:26:33 GMT

So how would the constraint that five numbers are drawn from a set each time relate to a distribution based analysis? The five numbers drawn constraint implies that no single number will appear within a set of 5 more than once and as these are discrete sets of 5, there are boundary situations where in the published data they are closer than 5 drawn but only because one is near the beginning of one set while the other is near the end. Ultimately the constraint means there's always the artificial... [ More ]

Reply #1

TinFoilHat85705 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:00:29 GMT

Here's an updated graph that is not stretched to fit. Again, here's the break-down:

53g / light blue little dotted line = Two ball sets ago (#21-24)

55g / dark red thick line = Last ball set (#25-28)

59g / light green thick dashed line = Current ball set (#29-32)

Each interval represents chi-test on one draw (one draw meaning the actual public draw in addition to the other 5 non-public testing draws) amongst eachother with calculated expected values for the ranges as they went from e... [ More ]

Chi testing on non-public powerball data

TinFoilHat85705 — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:50:20 GMT

I've ran some chi-testing on powerball data, more specifically on the non-public sets. The light blue dotted line (53g mod-208) is for two ball sets ago (#21-24). The thick light maroon line (55g mod-301) is for the very last ball set (#25-28). The light green thick dashed line (59g-67) is for our current ball set (#29-32) upto 2/16/2010. The thin light purple line (59g R) is from random draw data for additional comparison purposes. Time goes from left to right meaning that newer draws would be... [ More ]