Indiana, RNGs & Allegations: Time to TestPrev Topic Next Topic

ayenowitall

United States
Member #4,416
April 22, 2004
1,075 Posts
Offline

Apr 17, 2005, 3:18 pm

We've all read the numerous posts about the Hoosier Lottery's use of RNGs. Most people seem to think that there's something crooked going on. I'll have to admit that I at first thought all the charges of fraud were altogether groundless. After looking at the payouts on Indiana's daily games, I began to think that there was perhaps some substance to accusations made against the Hoosier Lottery. Now, I'm thinking that the lottery games in Indiana simply aren't very popular. That would very easily explain the low payout figures on the daily games.
If the Hoosier Lottery is analyzing which numbers are played prior to the drawings in order to pick out draw numbers which will afford the lowest payouts, that should be relatively easy to prove or disprove. Any such monkeying around with the draws would certainly be a marked departure from randomness. There are ways to check for randomness with methods such as Linear Regression, Chi-Square, and T-tests . I'm certainly not enough of a mathematician to know much about these tests. Frankly, I've only read of their use, but it should be a simple matter to apply those tests to the RNG draw history of Indiana's lottery games. Any manipulation of drawings should be readily apparent when testing is carried out.
I'm not looking for the usual chants of fraud and corruption here. Rather, I'd like to know if there are any serious mathematicians or statisticians among us who can settle this matter for us. I know that there are some good math minds on Lottery Post. Are any of you good enough or interested enough to give us a definitive verdict on the Hoosier Lottery by testing their RNG drawings for randomness? I think everyone here would appreciate your efforts.
Please and thank you,
aye'
RJOh

100

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline

Apr 17, 2005, 4:00 pm

With 1000 possible combinations in the pick3 game, if one was trying to avoid the 10-20 most popular combinations for any particular drawing and pick only from the remaining 980, a .2% variance couldn't be detected in those type of tests unless those 10-20 combinations were the same for all the games over a period of time. Even in games that use balls, it's normal for certain box combinations not to come up in months and straight combinations not to up in years.
RJOh

* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
four4me

MD
United States
Member #1,701
June 18, 2003
10,731 Posts
Offline

Apr 17, 2005, 4:10 pm

aye What the guys from indians are saying is you can pick the number that might win on paper and it will win. They say the problem is if they actually play the number it woln't win. people on lottery post predictions get the numbers right for indiana all the time. But that just for fun. If you live in indiana and bet 500 pick 3 numbers tonight then they will draw the number you didn't pick. Or so thy say.
ayenowitall

United States
Member #4,416
April 22, 2004
1,075 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2005, 4:37 am

four4me,
I think I understand the allegations, but my thinking was that Indiana's draw numbers wouldn't stand up to testing for randomness if they were selectively avoiding the numbers which would cost them most to pay off. Maybe my basic premise was incorrect. As RJOh pointed out in his response, the accepted tests for randomness cannot so easily be applied to draw results. Perhaps its easier to test RNG systems than it is to test a given series of numbers that they might produce. Frankly, the whole concept of randomness is something that I don't entirely understand.
The trips and quads in Indiana seem to pay off in fairly good numbers. I'd have to think they'd be avoiding those numbers if they really wanted to put the screws to the players. At any rate, I still think that the draw history should appear somewhat skewed if indeed there is something amiss in the way the numbers are being selected. Evidently, the standard tests for randomess aren't going to be the way to prove or disprove any allegations. Thanks to both of you for you input. It was just an idea that I had. Maybe there's another way.
aye'
four4me

MD
United States
Member #1,701
June 18, 2003
10,731 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2005, 2:44 pm

ayenowitall test away i was just giving you the examples that were handed me. When i kept informing the posters that we hit the indiana's lottery every day almost pick3/4 games on the prediction pages they replied. Come here and play your numbers for real and you wouln't win. If i ever hit the lottery for a substancial amount i will do that. I will go there and play for a week maybe two and if i dont hit both games straight i will write an apology. I'm also going to try and find out the percentage of people playing pick 4 games. I have doubts that many people or shelling out cash for a game they can't win.

100

Poway CA (San Diego County)
United States
Member #3,489
January 25, 2004
14,120 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2005, 2:59 pm

Here are the Midday results for Indiana. Check the percentages against what I show for the actual 220 numbers in my Blog.

Numbers Inspected: 365

Classification		Matches	Percent	Matching Numbers
High/Low:
	HHH	45	12.3%	979 989 766 768 698 988 555 995 988 868 567 658 559 596 988 555 896 956 755 978 588 595 767 796 976 975 998 558 787 686 995 977 699 566 678 985 696 666 688 958 687 696 575 779 577
	HHL	142	38.9%	872 466 487 097 851 525 580 584 992 289 871 519 187 289 086 584 845 497 636 479 864 056 299 507 837 847 258 258 670 827 573 850 486 295 718 298 358 625 946 849 570 708 359 994 790 479 782 593 398 918 708 186 674 628 991 552 199 535 818 465 155 397 681 671 516 187 635 455 299 551 257 560 177 837 984 817 953 870 782 057 592 991 918 727 747 269 718 960 356 266 774 537 629 672 495 466 606 085 097 547 826 874 663 883 880 077 499 549 954 478 456 852 198 892 926 488 059 378 852 255 763 615 851 893 927 458 850 818 615 276 187 276 749 981 375 805 099 735 681 296 949 951
	HLL	144	39.5%	353 640 520 493 912 611 181 026 328 710 429 317 820 109 205 822 094 830 174 923 943 016 228 942 091 730 910 427 183 922 408 733 037 052 035 544 720 803 419 513 803 309 354 080 942 280 419 252 603 460 530 205 620 514 135 349 380 603 810 621 416 036 184 501 107 153 491 145 824 531 454 173 308 544 512 106 482 429 544 632 206 294 128 390 283 016 046 391 194 174 831 931 072 921 823 082 494 016 390 902 225 190 624 193 724 019 092 261 437 921 702 105 471 146 248 744 511 634 734 161 703 317 624 801 205 236 025 453 019 903 484 209 137 148 533 305 610 374 249 327 035 901 922 005
	LLL	34	9.3%	314 033 021 233 140 122 140 213 413 231 110 210 004 314 400 123 342 421 120 402 103 024 041 411 241 324 200 323 322 100 141 413 120 414
Even/Odd:
	EEE	39	10.7%	640 466 026 820 868 822 086 864 228 408 486 080 280 460 004 628 620 400 824 482 206 046 686 266 402 082 024 466 606 624 826 880 248 666 624 488 200 484 688
	EEO	143	39.2%	872 520 766 487 768 328 698 988 021 429 580 988 584 289 205 094 289 830 658 584 845 636 056 016 942 847 140 122 258 427 258 140 988 670 922 827 850 052 544 720 803 298 803 625 896 946 849 708 942 782 252 603 588 708 186 210 674 205 380 818 465 681 603 810 621 416 560 036 184 984 870 782 454 308 342 544 106 421 429 269 544 632 294 128 960 283 120 016 072 629 823 672 494 016 902 225 085 724 566 092 261 702 874 663 041 883 146 678 744 634 241 696 478 324 456 801 852 205 892 926 236 025 852 322 209 100 148 458 850 818 687 696 610 276 276 249 120 805 681 296 922 005 414
	EOO	138	37.8%	989 493 912 611 314 181 033 097 851 710 525 109 992 871 187 567 174 497 479 923 299 943 507 091 730 837 233 910 596 183 037 035 295 718 419 358 309 354 956 570 994 213 790 978 479 413 231 419 398 918 110 530 552 514 349 671 516 187 635 455 299 257 314 767 123 837 501 107 817 491 145 796 057 592 976 918 512 727 998 747 718 558 787 390 356 194 174 774 831 921 103 495 390 190 699 019 097 547 437 921 105 471 077 734 161 411 499 549 985 703 954 198 059 453 019 378 323 903 255 763 615 851 893 927 141 615 958 305 413 187 374 749 981 327 035 901 099 949
	OOO	45	12.3%	979 353 555 995 317 519 559 733 573 555 513 359 755 593 595 991 199 135 535 155 397 551 177 153 953 531 173 991 975 391 537 995 931 977 193 511 317 137 533 575 779 375 735 577 951
Sums:
	0	0	0%
	1	1	0.3%	100
	2	2	0.5%	110 200
	3	4	1.1%	021 210 120 120
	4	3	0.8%	004 400 103
	5	5	1.4%	140 122 140 041 005
	6	10	2.7%	033 213 231 123 501 402 024 105 411 141
	7	15	4.1%	520 205 016 052 205 106 421 016 016 511 241 205 025 322 610
	8	19	5.2%	611 314 026 710 233 035 080 413 530 620 314 107 512 206 161 323 305 413 035
	9	19	5.2%	720 513 252 603 135 603 810 621 036 153 531 342 072 225 261 702 324 801 414
	10	19	5.2%	640 181 820 109 091 730 910 037 280 460 514 145 046 082 190 019 703 019 901
	11	23	6.3%	353 317 830 056 803 803 380 155 551 416 560 173 308 632 128 902 092 146 317 236 209 137 533
	12	30	8.2%	912 525 822 174 228 507 183 408 309 354 570 552 516 057 390 174 831 921 390 606 624 921 471 624 453 903 255 615 615 327
	13	27	7.4%	328 580 094 427 670 922 733 850 544 625 535 184 454 544 544 283 391 931 823 193 085 724 634 148 850 805 922
	14	22	6.0%	851 086 923 419 419 671 635 455 257 491 824 482 356 266 194 437 248 077 734 059 851 374
	15	34	9.3%	429 555 519 636 942 258 258 573 555 708 942 708 186 465 681 177 870 429 294 960 537 672 663 744 456 852 852 276 276 249 375 735 681 951
	16	25	6.8%	493 466 097 871 187 943 295 718 358 790 628 349 187 817 592 727 718 466 097 547 826 880 763 484 187
	17	22	6.0%	872 584 584 845 827 359 755 782 593 674 818 953 782 269 629 494 566 926 458 818 575 296
	18	19	5.2%	567 864 837 486 918 837 918 747 558 774 495 549 954 666 198 378 927 981 099
	19	19	5.2%	766 487 289 289 658 559 847 298 946 595 991 199 397 991 874 883 478 892 577
	20	14	3.8%	992 497 479 299 596 956 479 398 299 767 686 488 893 749
	21	9	2.5%	768 849 588 984 975 678 696 687 696
	22	10	2.7%	868 994 796 976 787 499 985 688 958 949
	23	6	1.6%	698 995 896 995 977 779
	24	2	0.5%	978 699
	25	4	1.1%	979 988 988 988
	26	2	0.5%	989 998
	27	0	0%
Root Sums:
	0	0	0%
	1	39	10.7%	640 181 766 487 820 109 289 289 658 091 730 559 847 910 037 298 946 280 460 595 991 199 514 397 145 991 046 082 190 019 874 883 703 478 892 019 100 901 577
	2	39	10.7%	353 317 992 830 497 479 056 299 596 803 803 956 479 398 110 380 155 299 551 767 416 560 173 308 632 128 686 902 092 146 317 488 236 200 209 137 893 533 749
	3	43	11.8%	912 768 021 525 822 174 228 507 183 408 309 354 849 570 588 210 552 516 984 057 975 390 120 174 831 921 390 606 624 921 471 678 696 624 453 903 255 615 615 687 696 120 327
	4	40	11.0%	328 580 868 094 427 670 922 733 850 544 625 994 004 535 400 184 796 454 976 544 544 787 283 391 931 103 823 193 085 724 634 499 985 688 148 850 958 805 922 949
	5	33	9.0%	698 851 995 086 923 140 122 140 419 896 419 671 635 455 257 491 824 482 356 266 194 995 977 437 041 248 077 734 059 851 374 779 005
	6	46	12.6%	033 429 555 519 636 942 258 258 573 555 708 213 978 942 231 708 186 465 681 177 123 501 870 429 294 960 537 402 672 024 699 663 105 744 411 456 852 852 141 276 276 249 375 735 681 951
	7	44	12.1%	979 520 493 466 097 988 988 871 205 187 943 016 988 052 295 718 358 790 628 205 349 187 817 592 727 106 421 718 016 016 466 097 547 826 880 511 241 205 025 763 484 322 610 187
	8	43	11.8%	989 872 611 314 026 710 584 584 845 233 827 035 080 359 755 413 782 593 674 530 620 818 314 107 953 782 512 998 269 206 629 494 566 161 926 323 458 818 305 575 413 035 296
	9	38	10.4%	567 864 837 720 486 513 252 603 918 135 603 810 621 036 837 153 531 342 918 747 558 774 072 495 225 261 702 549 954 666 324 801 198 378 927 981 099 414
Key Numbers:
	0	102	27.9%	640 520 026 033 097 021 710 580 820 109 205 094 830 086 056 016 507 091 730 910 140 140 670 408 037 850 052 035 720 803 803 309 080 570 708 790 280 603 708 460 110 210 004 530 205 620 380 603 810 400 560 036 501 107 870 057 308 106 206 960 390 120 016 046 402 072 103 082 016 024 390 902 606 190 085 019 097 092 702 041 105 880 077 703 801 205 059 200 025 019 903 209 100 850 305 610 120 805 035 901 099 005
	1	108	29.6%	912 611 314 181 021 851 710 317 109 871 519 187 174 016 091 910 140 122 140 183 718 419 513 213 413 231 419 918 110 186 210 991 199 514 135 818 155 681 671 516 187 810 551 621 314 416 184 177 123 501 107 817 153 491 145 531 173 991 918 512 106 421 718 128 120 016 391 194 174 831 931 921 103 016 190 193 019 261 921 041 105 471 146 511 161 411 241 317 801 198 019 100 615 137 851 148 818 141 615 413 610 187 981 120 901 681 414 951
	2	103	28.2%	872 520 912 026 328 021 429 525 820 992 289 205 822 289 923 299 228 942 233 122 258 427 258 922 827 052 720 295 298 625 213 942 782 280 231 252 210 628 205 620 552 299 257 621 123 824 782 592 342 512 727 421 482 429 269 632 206 294 128 283 120 266 402 072 921 629 823 082 672 024 902 225 624 724 092 261 921 702 826 248 241 324 624 852 205 892 926 236 200 025 323 852 255 322 209 927 276 276 249 120 327 296 922
	3	86	23.6%	353 493 314 033 328 317 830 636 923 943 730 837 233 183 733 037 573 035 803 513 803 358 309 354 359 213 413 593 231 603 398 530 135 349 380 535 397 635 603 314 036 123 837 153 953 531 173 308 342 632 390 283 356 391 831 537 931 103 823 390 193 437 663 883 634 734 703 317 324 236 453 378 323 903 763 322 137 893 533 305 413 374 375 327 035 735
	4	98	26.8%	640 493 314 466 487 429 584 094 174 584 845 497 479 864 943 942 847 140 427 140 408 544 486 419 354 946 849 994 942 479 413 419 460 674 004 514 349 465 455 314 400 416 184 984 491 145 824 454 342 544 421 482 429 747 544 294 046 194 174 774 402 494 024 495 466 624 724 547 437 874 041 471 146 248 744 634 734 411 499 241 549 954 478 324 456 624 488 453 484 148 458 141 413 374 749 249 949 414
	5	103	28.2%	353 520 851 525 555 580 995 584 205 519 567 658 584 845 056 507 559 258 596 258 573 555 850 052 035 544 295 513 358 625 354 956 570 359 755 593 252 588 595 530 205 552 514 135 535 465 155 516 635 455 551 257 560 501 153 953 145 531 057 454 592 544 975 512 544 558 356 537 995 495 225 085 566 547 105 511 549 985 954 456 852 205 059 025 453 852 255 615 851 458 850 615 958 533 305 575 375 805 035 735 577 005 951
	6	83	22.7%	640 611 466 766 026 768 698 868 567 658 086 636 864 056 016 596 670 486 625 896 946 956 603 460 186 674 628 620 465 681 671 516 635 603 621 767 416 560 036 796 976 106 269 632 206 960 356 016 046 686 266 629 672 016 466 606 699 624 566 261 826 663 146 678 634 161 696 666 456 624 926 236 763 688 615 615 687 696 610 276 276 681 296
	7	91	24.9%	979 872 766 487 768 097 710 317 871 187 567 174 497 479 507 730 837 847 427 670 733 827 037 573 720 718 570 708 755 790 978 479 782 708 674 397 671 187 257 767 177 837 107 817 796 870 782 057 173 976 975 727 747 718 787 174 774 537 072 672 977 724 097 547 437 702 874 471 678 744 077 734 703 317 478 378 763 137 927 687 575 276 187 276 374 749 779 375 327 735 577
	8	109	29.9%	989 872 181 487 768 328 698 988 851 580 988 820 584 289 871 187 868 822 289 830 658 086 584 845 864 228 837 847 258 258 183 988 408 827 850 486 803 718 298 803 358 896 080 849 708 978 782 280 588 398 918 708 186 628 380 818 681 187 810 184 837 984 817 824 870 782 308 918 482 998 718 558 787 128 283 686 831 823 082 085 826 874 883 880 678 248 985 478 801 852 198 892 488 378 852 484 688 851 893 148 458 850 818 958 687 187 981 805 681
	9	111	30.4%	979 989 493 912 097 698 988 429 995 988 109 992 289 519 094 289 497 479 923 299 943 942 091 559 910 596 988 922 295 419 298 896 309 946 956 849 359 994 790 978 942 479 593 419 398 918 595 991 199 349 397 299 984 953 491 796 592 976 991 918 975 998 429 269 294 960 390 391 194 995 931 921 629 494 977 495 390 902 190 699 193 019 097 092 921 499 549 985 696 954 198 892 926 059 019 903 209 893 927 958 696 749 249 981 779 901 099 296 922 949 951
Number Types:
	Singles	267	73.2%	872 640 520 493 912 314 487 026 768 097 328 698 021 851 710 429 580 317 820 109 584 289 871 205 519 187 094 289 567 830 658 086 174 584 845 497 479 864 056 923 943 016 942 507 091 730 837 847 910 140 258 596 427 258 140 183 670 408 827 037 573 850 052 035 720 486 803 295 718 419 298 513 803 358 625 896 309 354 946 956 849 570 708 359 213 790 978 942 479 413 782 593 280 231 419 603 398 918 708 460 186 210 674 530 628 205 620 514 135 349 380 465 397 681 671 516 187 635 603 810 257 621 314 416 560 036 184 123 837 501 984 107 817 153 953 491 145 796 824 870 531 782 057 592 173 308 342 976 918 975 512 106 421 482 429 269 718 632 206 294 128 960 390 283 356 120 016 046 391 194 174 831 537 402 931 072 921 103 629 823 082 672 016 024 495 390 902 190 624 193 085 724 019 097 092 547 261 437 921 702 826 874 041 105 471 146 678 248 634 734 241 549 985 703 317 954 478 324 456 624 801 852 205 198 892 926 236 059 025 453 019 378 903 852 763 209 615 137 851 893 927 148 458 850 615 958 687 305 413 610 276 187 276 374 749 249 981 120 375 327 805 035 901 735 681 296 951
	Doubles	95	26.0%	979 989 353 611 466 181 766 033 988 525 995 988 992 868 822 636 299 228 233 559 122 988 922 733 544 080 994 755 252 588 110 595 004 991 552 199 535 818 155 455 299 551 400 767 177 454 991 544 727 998 747 544 558 787 686 266 774 995 494 977 466 225 606 699 566 663 883 880 744 511 077 161 411 499 696 488 200 323 255 484 322 688 100 818 141 533 696 575 779 099 577 922 005 949 414
	Triples	3	0.8%	555 555 666

CalifDude

100

Poway CA (San Diego County)
United States
Member #3,489
January 25, 2004
14,120 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2005, 2:59 pm

That was for the last year, by the way.
ayenowitall

United States
Member #4,416
April 22, 2004
1,075 Posts
Offline

Apr 20, 2005, 4:24 am

CalifDude,
Thanks for supplying all those numbers. I'm having a little trouble with comparing the 365 actual draw numbers to those 220 unique numbers. It seems like those percentages wouldn't really be comparable. For example, there are ten possible triples. They account for about 4.5% of the 220 unique numbers, but they only account for 1% of the total 1000 possible pick three numbers. Out of 365 numbers drawn, three were triples. That figures out to 0.82%, which seems pretty much in line with the 1% expectation. On the other hand, if we take the 4.5% of unique numbers as the standard for comparison, that would mean that we should expect 16 or 17 triples to hit out of 365 draws. That's way too high since there are only 10 possible triples out of 1000 pick 3 possibilities.
I'm thinking we need to compare the actual draw numbers against the total possibilities for each of those number classifications that you've listed. Do you know where I might find such a breakdown of the numbers? I'm going to seach around the site because I think I've seen someone list such a breakdown of number classifications in the past.
I think you've pointed us in the right direction. Thanks for your help.
aye'
ayenowitall

United States
Member #4,416
April 22, 2004
1,075 Posts
Offline

Apr 20, 2005, 4:36 am

four4me,
I think we're thinking along the same lines. I suspect that, for whatever reason, the daily games just aren't very popular in Indiana. Maybe the Hoosier Lottery just isn't doing a very good job of promoting. I've noticed that the vast majority of their advertising seems to be geared toward scratch-off games and their TV game show. There's some advertising for the PowerBall game also, but that's about the extent of it.
I'm going to try to compare those number classifications that CalifDude listed. I think that should give us a pretty good idea of whether or not there's something shady going on.
Thanks for your interest. Feel free to offer anything else that you think might be of help in this line of inquiry.
aye'

ayenowitall

United States
Member #4,416
April 22, 2004
1,075 Posts
Offline

Apr 24, 2005, 11:36 am

It took me a few days to get to this, but I finally discovered Inspector 3...LOL. (I'm not a Pick 3 player.)

Well, I inspected the full 1000 Pick 3 possibilities and placed the percentages for each number classification beside CaliDude's inspection of 365 Indiana Midday results. The percentages for the full 1000 possibilities are in red. The positive or negative difference of the sample percentage as compared to the full 1000 possibilities is shown on the extreme right.

Considering the sample size, I don't see anything that would be a strong indication of any funny business in the draw history. The vast majority of the percentage differences is less than 2%. Only eight are more than 2%, and the very highest of those is a single difference of 4.4%. This may not prove that Indiana is on the up and up, but there doesn't appear to be any proof here that things are crooked.

Numbers Inspected: 365

Classification		Matches	Percent
High/Low:
	HHH	45	12.3%	12.5% -0.2%
	HHL	142	38.9%	37.5% +1.4%
	HLL	144	39.5%	37.5% +2.0%
	LLL	34	9.3%	12.5% -3.2%
Even/Odd:
	EEE	39	10.7%	12.5% -1.8%
	EEO	143	39.2%	37.5% +1.7%
	EOO	138	37.8%	37.5% +0.3%
	OOO	45	12.3%	12.5% -0.2%
Sums:
	0	0	0%	0.1% -0.1%
	1	1	0.3%	0.3% 0.0%
	2	2	0.5%	0.6% -0.1%
	3	4	1.1%	1.0% +0.1%
	4	3	0.8%	1.5% -0.7%
	5	5	1.4%	2.1% -0.7%
	6	10	2.7%	2.8% -0.1%
	7	15	4.1%	3.6% +0.5%
	8	19	5.2%	4.5% +0.7%
	9	19	5.2%	5.5% -0.3%
	10	19	5.2%	6.3% -1.1%
	11	23	6.3%	6.9% -0.6%
	12	30	8.2%	7.3% +0.9%
	13	27	7.4%	7.5% -0.1%
	14	22	6.0%	7.5% -1.5%
	15	34	9.3%	7.3% +2.0%
	16	25	6.8%	6.9% -0.1%
	17	22	6.0%	6.3% -0.3%
	18	19	5.2%	5.5% -0.3%
	19	19	5.2%	4.5% +0.7%
	20	14	3.8%	3.6% +0.2%
	21	9	2.5%	2.8% -0.3%
	22	10	2.7%	2.1% +0.6%
	23	6	1.6%	1.5% +0.1%
	24	2	0.5%	1.0% -0.5%
	25	4	1.1%	0.6% +0.5%
	26	2	0.5%	0.3% +0.2%
	27	0	0%	0.1% -0.1%
Root Sums:
	0	0	0%	0.1% -0.1%
	1	39	10.7%	11.1% -0.4%
	2	39	10.7%	11.1% -0.4%
	3	43	11.8%	11.1% +0.7%
	4	40	11.0%	11.1% -0.1%
	5	33	9.0%	11.1% -2.1%
	6	46	12.6%	11.1% +1.5%
	7	44	12.1%	11.1% +1.0%
	8	43	11.8%	11.1% +0.7%
	9	38	10.4%	11.1% -0.7%
Key Numbers:
	0	102	27.9%	27.1% +0.8%
	1	108	29.6%	27.1% +2.5%
	2	103	28.2%	27.1% +1.1%
	3	86	23.6%	27.1% -3.5%
	4	98	26.8%	27.1% -0.3%
	5	103	28.2%	27.1% +1.1%
	6	83	22.7%	27.1% -4.4%
	7	91	24.9%	27.1% -2.2%
	8	109	29.9%	27.1% +2.8%
	9	111	30.4%	27.1% +3.3%
Number Types:
	Singles	267	73.2%	72.0% +1.2%
	Doubles	95	26.0%	27.0% -1.0%
	Triples	3	0.8%	1.0% -0.2%

Are there any statisticians among us who see anything suspicious that I might be missing?

aye'

JAP69

South Carolina
United States
Member #6
November 4, 2001
8,965 Posts
Online

Apr 24, 2005, 12:04 pm

__________pick 3____________
__type_______combos___% drawn
no match______120 _______72%
doubles________90________27%
triples_________10_________1%
_________pick 4_____________
__type________combos____% drawn
no match_______210________50.4%
doubles________360________43.2%
triples__________90_________3.6%
double/double___45_________2.7%
quads__________10_________.1%

Numbers are where you find them.

JAP69

South Carolina
United States
Member #6
November 4, 2001
8,965 Posts
Online

Apr 24, 2005, 12:23 pm

Quote: Originally posted by JAP69 on April 24, 2005

__________pick 3____________

__type_______combos___% drawn

no match______120 _______72%

doubles________90________27%

triples_________10_________1%

_________pick 4_____________

__type________combos____% drawn

no match_______210________50.4%

doubles________360________43.2%

triples__________90_________3.6%

double/double___45_________2.7%

quads__________10_________.1%

pick 4 comparison

last year of draws in Indiana

Number Types:
	ABCD	377	51.6%	8065 3819 4376 8526 3190 1052 3574 9245 6340 3597 8613 3012 3251 5419 8690 7460 9652 9256 3420 5064 6712 9523 9143 8304 6041 2570 0859 9263 2109 6280 7219 6258 9178 8016 2476 2873 8324 2873 7302 4213 6048 1645 8710 2043 7603 4652 0435 0826 0295 1569 4185 7480 8642 1893 7324 4795 9286 3958 9271 4890 7529 5601 9134 1697 6914 9025 9246 7892 1328 3506 7310 7052 4965 4820 6279 3756 3659 3417 5974 0168 1240 3685 0943 2831 4256 1597 8673 2037 8793 7521 8167 5638 6359 1362 2791 0279 0761 4196 7392 7053 9782 1423 5701 3782 6584 8597 9672 1802 4903 6317 0124 4790 7859 6357 4753 0761 8216 8319 4930 7684 0627 5031 1605 1685 8603 6370 0461 4079 1097 2413 1092 2804 7315 4268 3817 9231 3091 5493 6450 3264 5847 4620 5672 3950 2089 5746 4938 6801 6417 6937 9475 6312 5032 1690 2863 4137 7083 5017 4983 4756 8421 3261 9467 7146 6329 5073 1039 8761 9417 9516 9728 3456 3905 6294 4561 7985 1506 7354 4197 3829 3560 8426 6328 4697 4687 8504 8926 4619 4657 6104 9657 8635 4265 1583 5673 7539 3495 2790 7549 5197 2815 0592 4902 1329 4520 2194 5124 4610 1458 1895 5238 2431 2068 8293 9205 2931 1290 7639 6734 1329 3875 5274 6135 3695 9874 7168 0175 3059 6895 4127 7581 3956 9685 9104 2198 6419 9872 3014 8495 8031 1925 5721 3576 6879 4316 1526 8369 1584 9341 5243 1792 0782 4172 0976 6910 8430 8542 8256 1865 4183 8350 2408 2876 6397 5892 0391 7985 2073 0329 6278 0894 8710 9674 6741 3574 7389 0654 6908 8142 5930 3487 2389 7823 7593 7508 5172 6401 5973 8510 6945 1240 0523 3478 3250 1497 7159 1853 0739 2036 4592 0245 7325 1408 0384 7352 6204 6143 2406 4791 1679 5098 5743 4721 4980 3185 8093 0758 2598 5328 3645 5462 5042 3064 4957 6329 7432 8702 9756 3798 1258 1948 1629 9852 6701 5734 1978 5096 2671 8019 9307 9021 3126 1673 2046 9043 1270 3096 0241 0694 5612 7362 4832 6278 2915 2380 5693 5698 7512 1038 4639 1326 8463 8132 2684 1476 1396 9126 9247 0569 8175 4198 9120 5274 8754 0715 7963 9257
	AABC	311	42.6%	1353 4252 8966 3010 2033 3044 0710 0043 6362 4694 9928 0780 8835 8328 6775 5758 0047 8959 7211 0454 8737 3138 8487 8718 4624 3889 6206 3368 9890 3378 0072 0072 8428 7765 3932 3800 7044 6211 2082 7696 7475 8606 4007 7533 6883 8411 2027 4164 8733 3788 0830 8085 1541 4495 3996 9549 3566 0980 4113 6797 6009 1200 8344 7875 2711 5188 0889 7144 6869 6770 7726 7996 5625 7600 5100 3007 0504 5441 8556 3600 4054 3992 0881 3889 4993 5539 1099 2842 7226 1400 4402 2812 7657 0969 1213 2774 6300 9692 7702 3853 1541 5424 8938 2313 9588 9442 4005 2661 8894 8773 3936 0034 6056 8355 0339 3438 2313 6965 6691 9080 5512 9293 7671 1401 0755 0455 6763 2723 8982 8580 8813 9593 0747 3382 9337 3734 1500 4272 7073 5300 7122 6680 4577 2263 0177 8522 3346 3743 2881 9766 4050 6256 3341 6916 8806 0903 4338 7880 7670 7121 7668 1007 7678 4667 5299 9688 3979 8384 3623 7675 8066 0012 5537 7113 3397 4574 8438 3613 9951 5244 7644 9619 2848 3474 6609 9591 7288 8660 4858 9349 3884 5052 9446 1696 6199 9334 4457 2421 1949 8830 0350 6680 8505 8050 5850 3007 2082 2492 3930 7868 3141 5300 1183 7022 0320 9921 6697 2050 7275 8003 4288 6631 1822 1613 3411 5571 4421 2788 5805 0433 5542 2886 4247 0097 4814 3348 8229 8874 9114 7473 9227 7009 2281 5393 9359 6119 1671 0096 4996 6447 1150 5299 4155 4335 5313 8876 5015 0922 3837 1383 6003 4476 2565 8699 7793 1201 8138 2766 5030 1722 6337 7785 1499 8983 9609 2116 3731 9918 3877 2127 5636 7646 2533 8834 2362 3611 6717 3653 4191 3577 3577 6642 5254 0773 3923 8804 2285 7047 1129 1388 6488 7728 7740 3438 1618 0144 6411 0949 9290 2062 2668
	AABB	24	3.3%	4488 6622 0110 8338 7878 2772 9229 8338 6060 1818 4554 9090 4949 9955 8998 3377 8844 9955 9229 9229 0330 7007 9977 0404
	AAAB	16	2.2%	0050 6606 4344 7774 0020 4454 4544 4744 6636 8777 9997 3383 1555 9995 9555 0070
	AAAA	2	0.3%	0000 2222

Numbers are where you find them.

Rick G

FEMA Region V Camp #21
United States
Member #520
July 27, 2002
5,699 Posts
Offline

Apr 24, 2005, 12:37 pm

The figures CalifDude provided for the last year of IN midday draws are right in line with what you should expect (using the Inspector 3 tool) and with the normal variations of any state's lottery results.
However, I conducted an experiment in the past here at L.P. and using the inspector 3, inspected the all-states predictors' picks. Using their overall highest percentage in the different inspector 3 categories and then using the deflate tool eliminating all of their picks I was still able to come up with a handful of box combos that were not covered by the predictors and still fullfilled the day's favored parameters of odd/even, high/low, sum range, etc. These picks hit frequently, including a few p-4 straights.
My point is that if the same computer system used at the terminals is the same system used for the draw, it would be very easy to have the least amount of player's picks drawn for the game and still appear to be statistically sound with regard to randomness. Inspector/Deflate has shown me that. I'm not accusing IN of doing that, but it would be a "conflict of interests" for the players.

Posted 4/6: IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit: 555, 347 (str8).
JAP69

South Carolina
United States
Member #6
November 4, 2001
8,965 Posts
Online

Apr 24, 2005, 12:50 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Rick G on April 24, 2005

The figures CalifDude provided for the last year of IN midday draws are right in line with what you should expect (using the Inspector 3 tool) and with the normal variations of any state's lottery results.
However, I conducted an experiment in the past here at L.P. and using the inspector 3, inspected the all-states predictors' picks. Using their overall highest percentage in the different inspector 3 categories and then using the deflate tool eliminating all of their picks I was still able to come up with a handful of box combos that were not covered by the predictors and still fullfilled the day's favored parameters of odd/even, high/low, sum range, etc. These picks hit frequently, including a few p-4 straights.
My point is that if the same computer system used at the terminals is the same system used for the draw, it would be very easy to have the least amount of player's picks drawn for the game and still appear to be statistically sound with regard to randomness. Inspector/Deflate has shown me that. I'm not accusing IN of doing that, but it would be a "conflict of interests" for the players.

Numbers are where you find them.
ayenowitall

United States
Member #4,416
April 22, 2004
1,075 Posts
Offline

Apr 24, 2005, 5:59 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Rick G on April 24, 2005

The figures CalifDude provided for the last year of IN midday draws are right in line with what you should expect (using the Inspector 3 tool) and with the normal variations of any state's lottery results.
However, I conducted an experiment in the past here at L.P. and using the inspector 3, inspected the all-states predictors' picks. Using their overall highest percentage in the different inspector 3 categories and then using the deflate tool eliminating all of their picks I was still able to come up with a handful of box combos that were not covered by the predictors and still fullfilled the day's favored parameters of odd/even, high/low, sum range, etc. These picks hit frequently, including a few p-4 straights.
My point is that if the same computer system used at the terminals is the same system used for the draw, it would be very easy to have the least amount of player's picks drawn for the game and still appear to be statistically sound with regard to randomness. Inspector/Deflate has shown me that. I'm not accusing IN of doing that, but it would be a "conflict of interests" for the players.

Rick G,
I'm certainly not trying to defend the Hoosier Lottery and its use of computer drawings. We've all pretty much heard the hypotheses and possibilities about their drawings beaten to death here at Lottery Post. Since this is the Mathematics forum, what I'm looking for here is some mathematical proof one way or the other.
The comparisons of actual Pick 3 and Pick 4 results against the makeup of all the possible number combinations for those games does not appear to show anything out of line. As I said, if there's something amiss, the proof isn't in those numbers. I'm inclined to think that the experiment that you conducted would show the very same thing for a state using ball drawings, so what would that suggest?
The payout numbers show that the Hoosier Lottery takes the biggest hit on Pick 3 triples and Pick 4 quads, but those number occurrences are right in line with what would be expected. I'd have to think they'd want to avoid those payouts if they were truly trying to get over on the players.
Basically, we've seen two mathematical analyses wherein the proof of wrongdoing does not lie. They don't show anything crooked, but that isn't proof that everything is legitimate. If the drawings in Indiana are not honest, then there must be some mathematical proof of that somewhere. So far, I haven't seen any such proof. If there is some such mathematical proof, I'd like to see someone come forward with it.
As I said earlier in this discussion, I'm starting to think that the daily games in Indiana are simply not very popular and/or the Hoosier Lottery is not doing a very good job of promoting those games. Even the Hoosier Lotto 6/48 game jackpot grows at a snail's pace. Maybe the public just lacks confidence in the Hoosier Lottery's computer drawings, but that's something quite different from the games actually being run dishonestly.
If there is mathematical proof of the allegations that have been flying, where is it?
aye'

New Topic New Poll

Subscribe to this topic

Indiana, RNGs & Allegations: Time to TestPrev TopicNext Topic

Indiana, RNGs & Allegations: Time to TestPrev Topic Next Topic