Shouldn't we want more computerized lottery systems?

Reply #24

pumpi76 — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:34:13 GMT

i say the same thing, wouldnt we want patterns instead of something that is 100% random and shows no patterns...even if a game is rigged it can still be won if you got a good system...plus a ball number cost the lottery more money, if the lottery saved money it could go into education or some of it return to players in the form of more lower prizes like 2/3 match...

Reply #23

tungsten chef — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:45:39 GMT

kentucky with another back to back same combo.....

561.

Reply #22

time*treat — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 01:48:00 GMT

Same reason they keep votin'.

Reply #21

Maverick2842 — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:51:50 GMT

NOOOOOOOOOO

Reply #20

rdgrnr — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:40:40 GMT

I prefer the Foggy Mountain Breakdown by Flatt and Scruggs.

Reply #19

mayhem — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:51:24 GMT

First of all it's sequitur not sequiter . And I doubt I have to demonstrate it to the entire LP community because I assume most here understand basic physics. True randomness does not exist, because it cannot exist! Everything operates within the boundaries of a finite system. Sure the variables are there but even these have finite limits. Cause and effect=not random. Because of this, patterns have the possibility of existing, because they MUST exist. Whether or not this correlates to the number... [ More ]

Reply #18

garyo1954 — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:32:21 GMT

Bobby,

The OP cared enough to post the question of comparison. I cared enough to show a comparison.

Due to the ingenuity of people, even a ball drop system can be manipulated. Machines can be rigged, balls can be weighted or lightened, fall into a dead air zone, be damaged by the paddles, etc.

Reply #17

bobby623 — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:10:08 GMT

A search of previous posts regarding this subject (balls vs computers) will show that folks oppose computer draws because:

1. Drawings are conducted in secret.

At some appointed time a lottery officials shows up and say the winning numbers (for a game) are .....

There have been instances where in some states, a second lottery official will show up and complain the

numbers released earlier where wrong. And, then give a new set of winning numbers.

2. There are NO assurances that th... [ More ]

Reply #16

garyo1954 — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 08:56:53 GMT

The last chart I'll offer is the sum total chart for each game. Texas is an air mix. California is a computerized draw. You can imagine the normal distribution (Bell curve) as you see the numbers rise to peak 14, both take a dip at 15, rise again at 16 whenCalifornia continues a downward slope. Texas, as you see, has a second dip at 17, rises at 18 and proceeds downward. Now, one might conclude the Texas chart (air mix) is ragged. I would agree with that. I would however, point out the similarit... [ More ]

Reply #15

garyo1954 — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 08:24:29 GMT

The second chart I'll call the Hit Total chart. It shows the 9 digits, how long they are currently out, the longest they have ever been out and how may times they remain out at certain intervals, i.e., 2 draws, 8 draws, 11 draws, etc. There will be some differences, but remember, we are dealing with two different games, which have two different draw lengths as well. Considering that do the numbers look out of line from what yuo might expect

Reply #14

garyo1954 — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 08:18:35 GMT

In discussing ball drop vs computerized lottery machines, one has to remember there are two types of ball drop. A gravity drop has paddles for mixing the balls like Mega-Millions. The other, used in most small matrix games are considered air mix.

There are also several types of computerized Random Number Generators, all of which require a 'seed' or 'key.' Depending on how that 'seed' is generated will determine the lenth of the sequence before a repeat. (A whole thread could be done on RNGs a... [ More ]

Reply #13

ameriken — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:17:41 GMT

I've seen other posts that reveal great suspicions about Lotterires.

If the games are so easily manipulated and computers are not truly random, then why is nearly everyone here trying to predict numbers and playing on a dishonest and flawed lottery?

Seriously.

Reply #12

Boney526 — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:05:35 GMT

The point isn't really whether or not you can find patterns in computerized or ball draws, it's whether it's random, and how easily it can be confirmed to be random.

1) Computers are completely incapable of true randomness, the only way that they can be somewhat random is by using a truely random source, and generating numbers based on that truely random source. They process data, and can only make numbers that appear random for all intensive purposes, but there has to be an algorithm or... [ More ]

Reply #11

sully16 — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:46:36 GMT

no computors.

Reply #10

Greg — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 01:59:42 GMT

You can not provide evidence of your assertion that you can only find patterns through computerized drawings.

You know why?

No evidence exists!

Therefore, asserting there are patterns when computers pick numbers is a non sequiter = does not logically/rationally follow.

And if you COULD somehow PROVE that, then please demonstrate or me, and the entire LP community that numbers from ball machines are either less than random or not random.

Also, please tell me that neither nor you... [ More ]

Reply #9

marcie — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 01:30:51 GMT

I think when you keep seeing the same numbers it is going to fall all over the States just my oppinion. Right like that 710 comb. Ohio had it twice, N.C.other states too.

Reply #8

tungsten chef — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 01:17:46 GMT

arkansas...day and night....877

Reply #7

B$Rizzle — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:49:10 GMT

I agree with you on that. I believe that the programmers job is to make the drawings NOT have a pattern that is why I like ball drawings better. Ball drawings do have patterns alot of the times and that is how I pick my #s.

Any computer program can be manipulated to skew in a certain way that's why I do not trust computer draws.

Reply #6

ttech10 — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:32:08 GMT

You will have patterns in balls occasionaly, but that doesn't mean they're not random. The existence of patterns is also the existence of randomness.

Computers can be random as well and they can also have patterns (that are random), if done correctly. The problem is that there are lottery commissions out there that have it programmed into their computers that certain things cannot happen (as mentioned above with Tennessee).

Personally I wouldn't be alright with computerized drawings a... [ More ]

Reply #5

mayhem — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:44:25 GMT

I'm fairly certain that that the obvious and stated goal of computerized systems are to not have a pattern since thats the very definition of random. I wouldn't call that manipulation but good programming.

So now I've heard it all four ways.

1. Real balls have patterns.

2. Real balls are truly random.

3. Computers cannot be truly random.

4. Computers are the most random.

lol. Oh well.

Reply #4

B$Rizzle — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:38:58 GMT

I dont agree with your logic here. I believe it is the exact opposite.

As others have stated, computer drawings can be manipulated easy Im sure they are more-so manipulated to stear away form patterns

Reply #3

mayhem — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:22:41 GMT

That just proves that patterns are more likely with computer systems, man made or not. In anycase wouldn't it have been great to be part of the 120 club in Tennessee.

Reply #2

four4me — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:05:03 GMT

It goes way deeper than computers aren't fundamentally random. Computers can and have been manipulated it's programing can be altered by pushing buttons that doesn't allow doubles to be drawn.

As reported in the Tennessee lottery when they switched to computers to draw numbers for almost two months they robbed the people by not allowing doubles to be drawn and when the people reported something was wrong they ignored it until someone contacted the governor's office.

Computerized drawings f... [ More ]

Reply #1

tungsten chef — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:32:17 GMT

notice all the same combos in pick 3 that came out back to back draws?

what's this all about? oh yeah its random...

jersey today and last night....943

maryland yesterday...159 both draws from eve to mid.

ohio....170

a couple others i do believe

Shouldn't we want more computerized lottery systems?

mayhem — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:22:26 GMT

I see the argument here is that people like real balls because they are truly random and computers are fundamentally not random. Isn't that a good thing? Aren't we all looking for patterns? Seems to me like pattern finding would is ONLY possible in a simulated random number generator than with a truly non-simulated random number generator.