Interest In Backtesting and Simulating Lottery Systems

Reply #99

lotterybraker — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:21:21 GMT

The More I read threads here at LP the more I come to the conclusion that there are MILLIONS of people out there that are so Gullible it is UNBELIEVABLE!!!! That guy got SH$T HOUSE LUCKY and that is all there was to it...there is no MAGICAL SECRET BOOK ANYWHERE ON PLANET EARTH that is going to tell you how to win the lottery and TRY AND USE SOME COMMON SENSE, if there was a book...THERE WOULD BE NO LOTTERY EVER..it would be won every single week..right!!!!?

How to win LOTTERY BOOKS were

Reply #98

sully16 — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:33:33 GMT

I'll take the time to backtest someones system, and I'll try making new predictions from the system, however, I do like the sums and rootsums the best, I like playing the bell curve, I know there are more numbers adding up to 12-13-14-15, then 6-7-8, but with some process of elimination and paying attention to what is due, I believe you can get more hits.

Reply #97

RJOh — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:46:22 GMT

Probably not to the persons who has nothing to gain by doing it. That's the reason I do my own. Beside the results only matter to me since I'm not trying convince anyone else to do what I do.

Reply #96

mayhem — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 04:49:01 GMT

Is it worth it

Reply #95

RJOh — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 06:06:20 GMT

Back testing takes a lot of time if done as a true back test because you have to go back and use only the data that was known at the time and see if you would have gotten a winning result that you now know. It may even require that a file with only the data up to the date of the back test be created each time a back test is done to get realistic results which very few are willing to spend time during.

Reply #94

jimmy4164 — Tue, 24 May 2011 14:01:37 GMT

I'd like to express thanks to the 23 (out of 31 on May 24, 2011) for taking the time to respond to the Poll positively. Unfortunately, as you have witnessed I'm sure, this topic is not easy to pursue when there is a concerted effort to thwart it by a vocal minority who appear to have some vested interest motivating them.

I don't have the time or will to deal with such dissonance at this time. What I hope is that you have enough interest in this area to pursue the links provided in my other th... [ More ]

Reply #93

jimmy4164 — Mon, 16 May 2011 17:48:18 GMT

A Blog Entry prompted by some of the posts above...

Reply #92

Stack47 — Thu, 12 May 2011 21:36:42 GMT

A consistent order is definitely necessary and would probably require changing the combos almost every drawing. By keying on at least one digit repeating and then enter the other digits by the past ten drawings frequency is a possible consistent solution for evaluation. I'll use the KY evening drawing so if it does show potential, I can play it (LOL).

8 7 1

6 8 9

4 8 0

3 5 4

7 2 9

5 2 8

0 6 7

9 1 0

1 6 2

2 3 0

I'll move the picks over to the prediction board jus... [ More ]

Reply #91

jimmy4164 — Thu, 12 May 2011 18:04:00 GMT

P.S.

When you tell me, You must be assuming I believe risking $1000 with only an expected 72 chances to win in a 100 drawings to show a $100 profit is a good bet playing pick-3, but I don't. I only suggested testing that system because nobody else has provide a system for you to test.

... it reminds me you keep forgetting I already tested several Pick-3 systems in the past, a couple in response to your questions:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218425/1764080

Reply #90

RJOh — Thu, 12 May 2011 17:38:11 GMT

Hopefully someone will know which system that Iowa financial adviser used to win $9 million playing Hot Lotto and you test it.

According to the news story:

He and his wife started playing Hot Lotto about three months ago after reading a book that claimed to have the secrets to winning the lottery. He followed the recommendations, which included buying 19 plays for each drawing to cover all the Hot Ball options.

From that we know he play 19 lines ~25 times. Todd speculates it was a wheel... [ More ]

Reply #89

jimmy4164 — Thu, 12 May 2011 17:00:21 GMT

Stack47,

What I hope I can do is help you to abandon your tendency to think about things like people don't bet that way or nobody would play... because if you don't, you will not be able to benefit from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. There are many cases with MC where it's imperitive that the simulation eventually be modeled on real behaviour but for what we're doing here it doesn't matter at this point.

Before looking at short term results, please follow this thread:

https://www.lottery... [ More ]

Reply #88

Stack47 — Thu, 12 May 2011 02:14:40 GMT

It was only offered as an example of a hypothesis.

Five years is a very logical time period to test a system for profitably but this isn't a play the same combos forever type of system.

This exemplifies where you are going wrong in your thinking.

I gave you the benefit of doubt by saying it's possible that 5000 players would purchase a $1 pick-3 QP tying to win $500 last night and I was being very liberal by saying someone would play the same ten combos for 100 drawings using that ty... [ More ]

Reply #87

RJOh — Wed, 11 May 2011 20:49:48 GMT

After reading about the financial adviser winning the Hot Lotto jackpot by playing all 19 HB every drawing for three months I wanted to create a file to analyzes its data even though the game isn't played in Ohio.

I went to the PowerBall website to copy and paste the numbers but the page had a bunch of tabs at various places which made it difficult to convert the data to a file format I could use. I finally had to write a little program that looked at each character and delete the ones that... [ More ]

Reply #86

jimmy4164 — Wed, 11 May 2011 05:46:50 GMT

I'm not ignoring you GASMETERGUY. I've just run out of time tonight. You're thinking in the right direction!

--Later

Reply #85

jimmy4164 — Wed, 11 May 2011 05:40:40 GMT

'This system CAN show a profit year over year for 5 years'

You took this literally. It was only offered as an example of a hypothesis.

That's very logical but only if the order of digits remained the same for 5 years and that's why I was being very liberal when I suggested 100 trials. Six hits in 100 drawings playing ten $1 box wagers I used beats chance and eleven hits would show a profit. This is a pencil and paper type system with lots of options so I chose one that could be tested... [ More ]

Reply #84

GASMETERGUY — Wed, 11 May 2011 02:52:29 GMT

To address the question being asked, backtesting can be useful.

If one were to read of +1-2+1 or the Missing digists system, then by backtesting you can determine if the idea has merit. If not, you move on.

To address the normal distribution curves at the beginning of this thread, there is no mathematical way to determine the numbers in the next draw. There is no magical equation. Paul Erdos has some unique ideas but I have yet to find anything which I can twist to fit the lottery. (Nor do... [ More ]

Reply #83

Stack47 — Tue, 10 May 2011 22:05:33 GMT

This system CAN show a profit year over year for 5 years

That's very logical but only if the order of digits remained the same for 5 years and that's why I was being very liberal when I suggested 100 trials. Six hits in 100 drawings playing ten $1 box wagers I used beats chance and eleven hits would show a profit. This is a pencil and paper type system with lots of options so I chose one that could be tested. Since I used the combined midday and evening drawings digit frequency from the KY l... [ More ]

Reply #82

jimmy4164 — Tue, 10 May 2011 04:57:16 GMT

Stack47,

Your description of this old system raises more questions than it answers. If you refer to the code I posted in the Backtesting Thread recently, you will be in a much better position to program a simulation of it than me, since you seem to be familiar with it. Besides, you're asking the wrong questions.

When you make a request like, Show us if this system can't beat chance with 6 hits or can't show a profit by with 11 hits., it's not clear what you're asking for. This system... [ More ]

Reply #81

Stack47 — Tue, 10 May 2011 03:48:29 GMT

I created the order using the frequency from the last ten combined KY midday and evening drawings. And to make things easier, Jimmy can use those ten combos in 100 trials. Most pick-3 systems change the combos weekly and some daily, but I just wanted to give Jimmy a chance with a real system to provide some valuable insights.

Reply #80

RJOh — Tue, 10 May 2011 01:25:45 GMT

Since the only rule is place ten pick-3 digits in a gird in order of most preferred digits to least , the player is picking all the numbers and arranging them in any order he prefers. How is that a system that can be evaluated

Reply #79

Stack47 — Mon, 09 May 2011 21:21:13 GMT

I'm not trying to get this pick-3 system back tested; just giving Jimmy a system so he show us the merits of back testing and simulating lottery systems.

Reply #78

RJOh — Mon, 09 May 2011 20:12:44 GMT

And you can add the more worthless are the ideas too.

Reply #77

time*treat — Mon, 09 May 2011 19:45:49 GMT

The less backtesting they will do with their own efforts, the more ideas they seem to have.

Reply #76

Stack47 — Mon, 09 May 2011 18:18:10 GMT

4 5 6 had a box hit on today's KY midday drawing. Maybe I should look at that old system a little closer.

Reply #75

RJOh — Mon, 09 May 2011 17:45:34 GMT

If one has time, there's no limit to the ideas members want backtested or statistics about. Check https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/231269

Reply #74

Stack47 — Mon, 09 May 2011 14:57:47 GMT

P.S. What is your goal posting in this thread?

I found an old pick-3 system circa 1980s that you can use to show us the merits of back testing simulating lottery systems.

8 7 9

1 4 7

3 8 0

9 1 3

4 5 6

6 2 1

2 3 7

0 9 4

5 2 8

7 5 0

Following the system's instructions, I place the ten pick-3 digits in a gird in order of most preferred digits to least. While it does have a 1 in 100 chance of hitting a straight and a 1 in 9 chance to match a front pair, it's desi... [ More ]

Reply #73

jimmy4164 — Sun, 08 May 2011 16:54:25 GMT

RJOh,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

It's hard to disagree with most of what you said above. A [notable] exception is that I think it is foolhardy to cavalierly dismiss the accumulated knowledge of centuries from around the world. Don't forget, the flat earth crew didn't land on the moon!

I suspect the only thing we truly disagree on is whether it's possible to design a mathematically consistent, provable system, or not. I also believe YOU would welcome any method that could test... [ More ]

Reply #72

RJOh — Sun, 08 May 2011 05:50:23 GMT

I can't help but wonder how they learn new things themselves, if not through reading.

As far as I know no system exists that can predict the outcome of a lottery drawing better than a random quick pick and all the articles I've ever read say the same thing so reading them again isn't going reveal anything new about the theoretical systems we are discussing.

It's unlikely they have read many scholarly articles or journals because if they had they would know that source citations are not on... [ More ]

Reply #71

jimmy4164 — Sun, 08 May 2011 03:50:29 GMT

A recurring theme expressed by several people here when discussing my postings is the fact that I make a lot of references to other people's work. Their conclusion is that since I make these references, I must not have any knowledge of the subjects myself. Just today, RJOh said, Besides, every thing Jimmy knows he has documented with a link to something he read so it's unlikely he've given much thought to the subject. I can't help but wonder how they learn new things themselves, if not through r... [ More ]

Reply #70

Stack47 — Sun, 08 May 2011 02:06:06 GMT

P.S. What is your goal posting in this thread?

Did you forget you asked What are the Merits of Backtesting and Simulating Lottery Systems?

I flipped a coin between I think it would be a waste of time. and discard vote just on a slim chance you would actually follow through on something you started. Read this, read that, study this, study that isn't discussion, but that's exactly how you answered when I asked the merits of whatever it is you are trying to prove or disprove.

You started... [ More ]

Reply #69

jimmy4164 — Sat, 07 May 2011 22:36:00 GMT

I said, If you would take my advice and read...

...to which you added, Someone's opinion who isn't a member of LP?

Unbelievable. When you're unwilling to admit you don't understand what the links point to, wouldn't it make more sense to just quietly ignore the thread rather than keep spewing out evidence that you don't get it?

--Jimmy4164

P.S. What is your goal posting in this thread

Reply #68

Stack47 — Sat, 07 May 2011 22:24:05 GMT

I have nothing against simulations because they are valuable in testing betting strategies. But I see nothing valuable about testing any strategy with short term goals over millions of trials. If I had a pick-5 system that consistently matched 2 o 3 numbers with an occasional 4 or 5 number match, 21 or 28 trials is sufficient.

Besides, every thing Jimmy knows he has documented with a link to something he read so it's unlikely he've given much thought to the subject.

What Jimmy showed so... [ More ]

Reply #67

Stack47 — Sat, 07 May 2011 21:03:27 GMT

If you would take my advice and read

Someone's opinion who isn't a member of LP?

P.S. Hint: A Backtest does not require a Monte Carlo simulation component.

Based on observation, RJ back tested RC5 and found that in slightly over 50% of drawings 1 - 2 numbers repeated and I did the math showing the probability that slightly over 50% of all the possible combinations have 1 - 2 repeating numbers. From that innocent exchange you said:

It seems that you and RJOh are basically saying y... [ More ]

Reply #66

RJOh — Sat, 07 May 2011 21:01:19 GMT

You are likely to know as much about creating a winning system as any other LP members including Jimmy so asking him or any other member a question about the value of back testing such a system using a simulated lottery is a waste of time. If he had an answer he would had probably already posted it. Besides, every thing Jimmy knows he has documented with a link to something he read so it's unlikely he've given much thought to the subject.

Reply #65

jimmy4164 — Sat, 07 May 2011 19:00:56 GMT

What is the value of back testing a system based on past performance against a simulated lottery?

If you would take my advice and read the Wikipedia and MathWorks articles you might not have a need to ask a question. At least, if you did, it might be a question that makes logical sense, and consequently, be answerable.

I really hope you will SERIOUSLY study the information and links in this Posting:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947

Until you do, further discussion will serv... [ More ]

Reply #64

Stack47 — Sat, 07 May 2011 17:42:20 GMT

Is it impossible for you to answer a simple question?

What is the value of back testing a system based on past performance against a simulated lottery

Reply #63

jimmy4164 — Sat, 07 May 2011 04:08:45 GMT

It seems that you and RJOh are basically saying you don't believe there is anything to be gained from applying backtest or simulation techniques to proposed lottery selection systems. Since you've declared often that the stats published by the lotteries for each game only tell you what you already know, that they will pay back 50% of the gross over the long haul, you seem to have given up any hope of determining in advance what your chances of succeeding with a system are.

Before giving up, I... [ More ]

Reply #62

Stack47 — Sat, 07 May 2011 02:55:37 GMT

Any 5/39 game has 291,720 (50.67%) combinations with 1 or 2 numbers repeating. Back testing RC5 only proves what we already know and unless there is a flaw in the simulated lottery, the results would be about the same.

All any back testing would show is if any past winning numbers had one the profiles used but we already that if we used that data to develop them.

and checking the probability is faster than setting up a simulation too.

Reply #61

RJOh — Sat, 07 May 2011 02:50:11 GMT

It's fairly easy to find 12 numbers that have won several jackpots but what does it prove?

For example in Ohio Rolling Cash5 (5/39):

03 04 07 10 11 15 16 21 23 30 35 38

07/03/09 - 11 16 21 30 35

04/18/09 - 03 10 16 35 38

03/30/08 - 03 07 15 23 35

02/04/08 - 04 15 21 35 38

also:

MATCH 0 = 277

MATCH 1 = 766

MATCH 2 = 788 $ 788

MATCH 3 = 370 $ 3700

MATCH 4 = 62 $ 18600

MATCH 5 = 4 4 jackpots

1220 prizes = $ 23088 + 4 JP

Reply #60

Stack47 — Sat, 07 May 2011 02:18:47 GMT

You could back test 12 numbers in a 5/39 game and find out they won several jackpots, but that doesn't prove or disprove they will win another jackpot in the near future. Or you could back test the same 12 numbers using a simulated lottery and find they never won a jackpot and that would neither prove or disprove those numbers will win a jackpot in the near future.

If a system using 1 of 5 numbers repeating at a 50% rate was based on past drawing statistics, back testing only proves what is a... [ More ]

Reply #59

RJOh — Sat, 07 May 2011 01:48:48 GMT

I didn't say I believed, I said I observed.

Using a lottery program I can check any/all winning numbers with any amount of previous drawings. I checked 2251 of 2266 drawings of Ohio Rolling Cash5 and found the following number of times the 5 winning numbers had been in the previous 15 drawings at least 1 time:

5/5 = 1135

4/5 = 828

3/5 = 256

2/5 = 30

1/5 = 1

number pool size of 15 drawings = 28-29 (28/39 = 70% 1135/2251 = 50%)

When I checked the previous drawing of 2265 of... [ More ]

Reply #58

jimmy4164 — Fri, 06 May 2011 21:47:19 GMT

The only things back testing will disprove are things we already know aren't true.

Using universal quantifiers like only in math and logic can get you in trouble. Other problems arise when you talk about disproving things. If you believe statistics of the frequency of numbers repeating over 15 draws can be used to provide an edge selecting for the next draw, why not write a backtest or simulation and see what happens

Reply #57

RJOh — Fri, 06 May 2011 20:38:18 GMT

If one observed certain relations between present drawings and previous drawings, how will back testing disprove what they observed?

Observations such as half the time a drawing in a 5/39 game will have at least one number from the previous drawing is supported by calculating the odds and those of all 5 winning numbers hitting in the previous 15 drawings at least half the time even though only 70% of the numbers may be covered are more likely to be proved by back testing.

The only things

Reply #56

jimmy4164 — Fri, 06 May 2011 14:58:06 GMT

We can think of four numbers predict!

This sounds like a system that someone could program a backtest for which could remove any doubts that obviously remain that previous draws are independent of today's draw.

Reply #55

dr san — Fri, 06 May 2011 12:00:33 GMT

Ok Jimmy, then you might consider developing a system or a 50/50 sitema

To predict that half the numbers are going to repeat, or sequences of patterns to peers who have Possibility of repeating, as the repetition of an event is the likely secret, a lottery example of 49 / 6, try to see the repetition of pairs and triplets, rather than provide numbers

Randomly, and the other 50% (system 2) to see for three types of output frequencies, hot, cold and m dios.em NUMC game we can provide 100%, r... [ More ]

Reply #54

jimmy4164 — Thu, 05 May 2011 22:48:43 GMT

The Markov model is a simple model for random systems evolved over time when the successive states of a system are not independent.

Some models look back further than 1 transition state, but generally, this is an informative simplification. The important thing for lottery players to remember is the key phrase, NOT independent.

Reply #53

dr san — Thu, 05 May 2011 17:03:47 GMT

hello=[link]http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/N mero_sequencial_combinat rio[/link

Reply #52

dr san — Thu, 05 May 2011 16:58:43 GMT

A Markov Chain in Discrete Time is a stochastic process in which the variable t represents time intervals, {X (t), t = 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}, and which enjoys the Markov property, ie, the probability of X (t) transition from state i to state j in the next period depends only on the present state and not the states visited in past periods.

In our study we only consider Markov chains with the following characteristics:

The state space X is finite or countable (discrete states). The present

Reply #51

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Thu, 05 May 2011 11:35:16 GMT

TT

Thanks, that's all I needed to do

RL

Reply #50

time*treat — Mon, 02 May 2011 16:21:42 GMT

I checked out the link Jimmy posted. It seems the pages take a while to load, so at first you'll get a message saying you can't view some/many pages. After a while, they do show up. Pages that actually aren't included will have a message like Page 510 to 514 not shown in this preview.

Reply #49

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Mon, 02 May 2011 15:12:42 GMT

jimmy

I am interested, Don't know how you came to the conculsion you did. I also don't know what is tricky about

the link, I scrolled the pages to the end of the book and it ended on page 498 with the index. Maybe the

pages are sized somehow by the browser. On second thought I will seek the information on my own time

and don't need your input yo make up my mind rather or not I can use it. A third though just reminded me

that nothing you would say would provide any help in this ar... [ More ]

Reply #48

jimmy4164 — Mon, 02 May 2011 14:17:10 GMT

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

Sorry, but when you told toeplitz, this is first time I have ever heard the term but unless I have misunderstood the basic idea then it would describe exactly how I view random lottery draws, I thought that you would really, really, be interested in the topic. I guess I was wrong.

PS. I checked out the link to Markov chains and the book ended in the 490's, could not find page 517

This is understandable. Many people find Google Books tricky to navigate. Maybe you'll do... [ More ]

Reply #47

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Mon, 02 May 2011 12:44:09 GMT

Jimmy

I don't know the ends or outs of Markov chains but if you thought of the lottery in terms of the lexigraphic indexed

Big Wheel senario then it would be impossible. While the same set could be drawn it would require a foward

movement in time/distance. The time/distance from the last draw would equal 100% or 360 degrees for this to happen.

PS. I checked out the link to Markov chains and the book ended in the 490's, could not find page 517

RL

Reply #46

jimmy4164 — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:08:15 GMT

Since this is a Poll Thread on Interest in Backtesting and Simulation, perhaps it would make sense to start a new thread for this discussion. How about Markov Chains and the Lottery in the Mathematics Forum?

Here is some information to get you started...

Here you can find multiple sources on Markov Chains and their applications:

http://www.mat.ucsb.edu/~g.legrady/academic/courses/04s102/markov.html

Markov Chains

A Markov chain is a sequence of random values whose probabiliti... [ More ]

Reply #45

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:48:25 GMT

toeplitz

Don't take this the wrong way but I really, really, really like you. Markov chains, this is first time I have ever heard

the term but unless I have misunderstood the basic idea then it would describe exactly how I view random lottery

draws. I hope you hang around for awhile.

RL

Reply #44

jimmy4164 — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:41:24 GMT

I wonder what Paul Erdos thought about lottery games.

Since he's responsible for more published papers on math than any other mathematician, it shouldn't be too hard to find out. Have you looked it up

Reply #43

toeplitz — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 02:54:04 GMT

I wonder what Paul Erdos thought about lottery games.

Also as for Monte Carlo Methods I wonder how many here know that the term itself was coined by Stanislaw Ulam and John von Neumann?

von Neumann was after all the father of Game Theory beginning with his publication of the Minimax theorem in 1928 which states that in matrix zero-sum games with perfect information, there exists a pair of strategies for both players that allows each to minimize his maximum losses --- applicable to our... [ More ]

Reply #42

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 01:52:56 GMT

Jimbo

Seems all those test and super computers were not enough to keep US tax payers from having to bail them out.

RL

Reply #41

RJOh — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 01:07:35 GMT

Jimmy4164 assumes if a system works in one 649 game, it will work in all 649 games, yet if I compared the winning numbers in the local Ohio Classic Lotto(6/49) with the results of any other 649 games, I would be surprised if even one of them was a winner in that game proving what works with OCL is unique to OCL.

One way to maybe see if my system would work with another similar game might be to generate similar data using its history and compare that data with that generated for OCL. The foll... [ More ]

Reply #40

time*treat — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 23:45:42 GMT

Yep, what the data IS doing is more important than what the odds say it SHOULD do.

If a number is currently trending far below its expected hit rate, I'd like to know that and drop that number from my play selections.

If someone didn't get the code quite right and the results are skewed in some way, a fair simulation isn't going give me the same kind of results.

I don't care what the game is going to do over the next gazillion years, or a million results produced by a fake game that doe... [ More ]

Reply #39

Stack47 — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 23:33:01 GMT

Well, one thing is for sure, chart reading and interpretation are not his cup of tea, but I'm sure he makes up for it in other ways.

Oh my, silly me; Next time when I see a red line an with arrow pointing at it with average expectation -5.26 between a 7 and 8 line and probability (%) is written next to it, I'll simply ignore it and assume the 7 and 8 lines are meaningless. Only about 2.6% of the 50,000 random gamblers should average -5.26% so maybe you could ask the author what the 7 and 8 l... [ More ]

Reply #38

jimmy4164 — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 05:38:15 GMT

Stack47 says, The chart appears to be copied off a website with no explanation of the less than 8% probability of an average expectation of -5.26 . Even if we read the chart to mean a less than 80% probability it's still not close to the probability!

Well, one thing is for sure, chart reading and interpretation are not his cup of tea, but I'm sure he makes up for it in other ways. I hope someone tells him he just got some egg smudged up behind his ear, on the left side.

Reply #37

Stack47 — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 02:14:01 GMT

How about we run a Monte Carlo simulation on $100,000 worth of pick-3 bets over a 150 million years and see if the lottery maintains a 50% edge.

I've asked Buzz several time without an answer; if nobody can make a profit playing pick-3, who gets the $18,250,000 payoff that his figures prove on a 50% lottery edge when there is an average daily bet of $100,000 every year

Reply #36

Stack47 — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:59:50 GMT

The roulette chart here was based on 50,000 random gamblers each betting on 1,000 spins, using a RNG to produce all the data.

Let's take a look at the probabilities of 1000 simulated spins. The American roulette wheel used in the simulation has 38 possible outcomes, 1 to 36 and 0 and 00. The mean is 26 or 27 hits and 26 hits have a -6.4% win expectation and 27 hits has -2.8% win expectation. If you notice the left side of the chart it indicates the mean probability is less than 8% of a -5.26... [ More ]

Reply #35

JosephusMinimus — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 23:36:37 GMT

No way of knowing. That would be the rational and prudent approach, but it assumes each of us is smarter than we might turn out to be

Reply #34

truecritic — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:34:14 GMT

I agree, a win percent above 50% - not necessarily a profit.

Reply #33

truecritic — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:32:29 GMT

RJoh

So the only way any of us will ever know if such a system can exist is to create one ourselves and then keep it to ourselves leaving our fellow LP members to debating the question in threads like this.

LOL, yes. The search for a winning system might take To infinity ... and beyond

Reply #32

time*treat — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:57:54 GMT

Some systems will be better than random and some worse, although we don't talk about those worse ones much.

I think some folks are stuck on the notion that a system has to be a jackpot winner in order to be worthy of the label System , but consider pick 3, for simplicity :

Let's say that the average return on random is 50%.

A certain system could have an average return of 70%. It's not returning a profit, but it still performs better than random . That slower rate of loss ... is an edg... [ More ]

Reply #31

RJOh — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:47:13 GMT

IF you have a system that works for lottery, I think it will be rare and should be kept in a vault with armed guards............I believe such a system can exist, just I haven't seen evidence of it.

In other words you believe such systems may exist but it would be foolish of the person who had one to reveal it let alone share it. So the only way any of us will ever know if such a system can exist is to create one ourselves and then keep it to ourselves leaving our fellow LP members to debati... [ More ]

Reply #30

ameriken — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:38:54 GMT

I too believe such a system can exist, as I do believe in systems (methodologies ) and I do believe that one can improve their results over the random odds by use of such a system. Now, if my lousy math is correct, for the cash 5 game I play (5/32), the odds of a 4/5 ($200) is 1/1492, 3/5 ($10) 1/57, and 2/5 ($1) 1/7. So, unless I am wrongly figuring this, on average $1492 should randomly yield approximately $673, or 45%, meaning I should get back about $45 out of every $100.

Based on that, I... [ More ]

Reply #29

truecritic — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:56:09 GMT

I think testing like this helps people see visually that there can be random winners in various games, including lotteries. I would still like to see a Pick3 test that shows if it is possible to make a profit playing QPs. Reading stats on lottery websites or the odds printed on tickets, playslips, pamphlets, etc; doesn't tell me that.

Agree with ameriken, especially this statement, when someone wins big and claims it is the result of a sysem, the win appears to prove that the system really pr... [ More ]

Reply #28

Stack47 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:27:45 GMT

Simulation can only tell you how many tickets are likely to be sold before there is a winner not if that winner will be you.

Because this simulation is based on random play, the result of a similar lottery simulation would show the what we can see on a lottery game's odds of chart . A pick-3 simulation could be 1000 QP bets on 50,000 drawings.

The roulette chart here was based on 50,000 random gamblers each betting on 1,000 spins, using a RNG to produce all the data.

The total amount... [ More ]

Reply #27

time*treat — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:00:21 GMT

The Wall Street firms are ALSO using those supercomputers to front-run the trades of the retail players, view the entire order book depth, paint the tape, and simultaneously act as market makers in the shares.

Pretty easy to win the game when you can see all the cards.

Reply #26

time*treat — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:50:03 GMT

Aside from whether or not we agree if it is true, that would have been a more sensible statement.

Thing is, we already know about the few big winners and the many more losers.

Reply #25

RJOh — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:36:04 GMT

Doesn't the odds charts on the back of most play slips tell you that? In fact that is the ways odds are calculated, the numbers of possible out comes divided by one ticket are the odds of it happening to that ticket.

Reply #24

ameriken — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:33:52 GMT

I think what Jimmy may be trying to say, is regardless of whether or not there is a system involved, there are going to be few big winners and many more losers. However, when someone wins big and claims it is the result of a sysem, the win appears to prove that the system really produces results when in reality, it is all still just a random outcome.

Reply #23

garyo1954 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:31:53 GMT

Jimbooble!!!!!

Since your last post, my computer has done 2,397,997,620, +/- 585,686 calculations involving the lottery. You however, have done absolutely nothing to help those poor people who voted that backtesting and simulation might prove uselful.

You evoked the word backtesting and simulation in two consecutive threads and yet have failed to define it, explain it, or even attempt to describe any meaningful purpose it might offer.

One has to wonder if you know what you are talk... [ More ]

Reply #22

jimmy4164 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:19:58 GMT

At this point in our investigation, we're not trying to predict. What we're doing is looking at the range of possibilities that random processes are capable of presenting to us without applying filters or systems to the output of the random number generators. Note that there were some pretty big winners among those 50,000 roulette players, and all they did was bet on 1 every time

Reply #21

RJOh — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:08:01 GMT

If a system is based on what happened in the past, how can it fail backtesting using that same data? It might fail a simulation because a simulation creates a past of its own. If you are backtesting a system on a 649 game and use a simulation of a 649 game rather than the particular 649 game used to develop the system, it will probably fail every time. Like wise a system developed using only simulations will probably fail when used with a real games. Simulation can only tell you how many tickets... [ More ]

Reply #20

jimmy4164 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:42:57 GMT

b) That'd be as useless as 'simulating' a stock chart.

Don't tell that to the Wall Street firms doing it 24/7 with supercomputers!

You may not have started at the beginning of this subject.

Please check out the excerpts from the 2 articles referenced here:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947

Reply #19

time*treat — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:34:50 GMT

Backtesting: Tells me

a) how a system/idea would have performed for any given drawing. cost vs. winnings

b) whether or not I have any errors (logic or syntax) in that system.

Simulating Lotteries: I don't bother.

a) There's plenty of real data available.

b) That'd be as useless as 'simulating' a stock chart.

Reply #18

Stack47 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:02:40 GMT

Wouldn't it be better for you, with less risk of egg on your face later

I'm just saying if you wait too long to get to whatever the point is you're trying to make, there won't be a later . Rome wasn't built in one day, but they didn't wait for all your drama to unfold before starting.

Have you ever thought about how many Rolling Cash 5 payslips you could fill out in the time it takes to try to trash one of my posts?

Haven't been in Ohio for almost two years and have no current plans... [ More ]

Reply #17

jimmy4164 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:33:11 GMT

P.S. Given your last paragraph above, I don't understand what it is that keeps you so attentive to my posts.

Reply #16

jimmy4164 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:11:27 GMT

You just can't deal with those charts, can you? Wouldn't it be better for you, with less risk of egg on your face later, to just sit on the sidelines until you have something useful to say?

Have you ever thought about how many Rolling Cash 5 payslips you could fill out in the time it takes to try to trash one of my posts?

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/230340/2026231

Reply #15

Stack47 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:44:26 GMT

Even if somebody sees pink elephants on the charts still doesn't change the fact trading stocks and roulette are not lottery games. Unless he can explain the relevance, this thread will have a quick death just like the majority of the threads he starts.

Ohio Post Dreams here Let's go Ohio! : 1149 replies, 75,999 views

Transportation : 28 replies, 1591 views

The Kelly Criterion : 1 reply (by Jimmy), 481 views

A Challenge For Roulette System Players : 0 replies, 84 views

Persona... [ More ]

Reply #14

jimmy4164 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:37:23 GMT

To me, a backtest of a lottery system would be to use your system rules to pick your numbers, sequence through actual past draws, and keep a tally of your equity. A forward test is not usually undertaken until a system looks viable on the [back]test data. I have yet to see a lottery system meeting this criteria for any reasonable length of time - have you?

The roulette chart here was based on 50,000 random gamblers each betting on 1,000 spins, using a RNG to produce all the data. I call this

Reply #13

RJOh — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:57:05 GMT

I can see both the RED and BLUE bars, so you're half right.

Reply #12

JosephusMinimus — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:35:34 GMT

There are dozens of real lottery systems alive and well on the American continent. Simulating one instead of using any of the real ones seems redundant and a lot less trustworthy than using one with a cadre of overseers and a security infrastructure.

Backtesting is primarily a tool intended to assist in narrowing the avenues of approach to developing a system intended to predict lottery draw results. But backtesting a simulated system seems an empty exercize.

In fact, the ultimate test for... [ More ]

Reply #11

jimmy4164 — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:06:03 GMT

Stack47 and RJOh have helped me narrow the problem with their perceptions here down to two possibilities.

Either they are color blind, and can only see that RED bar in the middle of the roulette chart...

or, the BLUE bars mean absolutely nothing to them.

Reply #10

RJOh — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:51:16 GMT

The only other observation I could have made was the one you said you didn't need to be reminded of.

Reply #9

Stack47 — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:41:02 GMT

I was thinking it would be easier to divide 2 by 38 if I wanted to know the house edge in roulette. He could have explained how he got the 2 and and 38 , but pretty graphs are attention grabbers

Reply #8

jimmy4164 — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:25:42 GMT

I was hoping you might have an observation to make on the charts, rather than merely pointing out that someone else produced them.

Be patient.

Reply #7

garyo1954 — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:20:42 GMT

I was thinking the same thing RJOH. This looks like a scanned page of Anti-Lottery Anonymous Weekly. Maybe if we can convince him to flip it over, we can all read How I BEAT Monty Hall's car door problem! by Don Catlain.

Or it could be a sales circular for Krogers. In which case, none of us would have to leave the house to see what their specials are.

Reply #6

RJOh — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:55:55 GMT

I was thinking your would be showing and explaining charts generated by your tests and simulations rather pictures of some one else work.

Reply #5

jimmy4164 — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:16:07 GMT

No need to remind me that this is a picture of a roulette simulation and not a Pick-3 game. Be patient.

Reply #4

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:27:20 GMT

Reply #3

TnTicketlosers — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:57:13 GMT

An no matter what is said and done on systems this state pays in that certain range payout anyway.When I go to Ky or Ga to play the excitment of it is awesome...Tennessee makes a sick feeling in my gutt..

Reply #2

GASMETERGUY — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:11:40 GMT

No matter what subject you decide to bring up on this forum, there will be people telling you It can'be be done!

So go for it and try to ignore the nay-sayers. Like the poor, they will be with us always.

Reply #1

RJOh — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:27:29 GMT

Could any of this testing have shown during the first month that Tennessee used a computer RNG for their pick3 drawings which was not producing any doubles or triples because of a mistake that the odds of a double or triple hit were zero and the odds of a straight or box hit with three different numbers were 1:720 and 1:120 instead of the usual 1:1000 and 1:220?

If all it does is show the odds of winning a lottery game with certain parameters are the same as those calculated and posted on the... [ More ]

Interest In Backtesting and Simulating Lottery Systems

jimmy4164 — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:00:08 GMT

If you are reading this you are probably aware that there are several people posting in the Backtesting and Simulating Lottery Systems Thread who seem to have a vested interest in disrupting serious discussion of the subject or possibly just enjoy frustrating someone whose ideas they don't like. Whatever their motivations, I need to determine if it is worth any further effort on my part to try to introduce Monte Carlo Methods and discussion. I feel these people are behaving very rudely and fooli... [ More ]