Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited April 28, 2017, 10:07 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Coincident occurrence - 1-ply vs. 2-ply

Topic closed. 3 replies. Last post 12 years ago by time*treat.

Page 1 of 1
PrintE-mailLink
time*treat's avatar - radar
Thread Starter

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 14, 2005, 3:04 pm - IP Logged

1-ply vs. 2-ply lotteries. Whether you consider a ply to refer to the game of chess or toilet paper…
On a 'news' thread, we were kicking around the idea of someone who found the RNG that matched a real lottery game. I commented that you could do well enough without knowing the exact system a game used. And might do even better. Here's how…

I = the Lottery, you = the player. I'll use single digit numbers for simplicity.


I have an RNG, Sys_A. Every day, I run Sys_A up to 10,000 times for 'testing' like some of the lotteries do before each draw. Over 5 days I pick out the 500th, 958th, 2000th, 7535th, and 8376th drawing for my official numbers. I get 1,7,3,9, & 4. Notice that the draws picked out for my official numbers are not equally spaced. The first 'ply' is the RNG. The second 'ply' is how many times (generated by another RNG?) the first function is run before the number is pulled. In this case, the numbers generated by the second 'ply' are 500, 958, 2000, 7535, and 8376. You could argue that this is the true draw order, not 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5.

You have a system, Sys_B. You run Sys_B five times and get 1,7,3,9, & 4.

Question. Could a third party, without looking at the code, tell that these systems were different?
Put another way; when we look at the drawings how do we know where we are looking along the string of outputs?

It seems to me that even if you had Sys_A, your first 5 draws (most likely) wouldn't match my drawn numbers, because you don't know how many times I will 'step' the function before I pull the trigger. This may be the answer to the question of how the writers of the RNG programs are prevented from capitalizing on their inside knowledge of the code. And playing the 6th number picked by Sys_B may do better for you than playing the 6th number picked by Sys_A. This goes to my straight path - winding road (coincident occurrence) comment made elsewhere.


You could even add a third RND (ply) to cycle the second RNG.

Finally, let's not turn this into a ball VS. computer thread. Too many of those already.

In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

    time*treat's avatar - radar
    Thread Starter

    United States
    Member #13130
    March 30, 2005
    2171 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: June 17, 2005, 4:18 pm - IP Logged

    Hmm, I thought someone would have at least challenged my theory by now, or at least tried to postulate an answer to the question. I guess everyone is feeling uninspired this week.

     

    In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
    Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

      SirMetro's avatar - center
      East of Atlanta
      United States
      Member #6191
      August 11, 2004
      1389 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: June 18, 2005, 1:07 pm - IP Logged

      I do something that is what I think would be relatively similiar with my Cash 3 and 4 games. Difference is, I measure the frequency of hits over varying time frames, then compare the results and identify only the numbers that match in each position. Cash 3 hasn't worked so well, but Cash4 produces decent results with just a few numbers to play (actually won the first nite I tested it). It is one of my ways to reduce my list of numbers.

      I just don't do the RNG thing because I figure a Cash 3 number can only hit 1000 times and a cash 4 can only hit 10000 times. And there are hundreds of Cash 4 numbers that simply have not hit at all in GA (only lottery I track).

      Sir Metro

        time*treat's avatar - radar
        Thread Starter

        United States
        Member #13130
        March 30, 2005
        2171 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: June 18, 2005, 10:25 pm - IP Logged

        You may be on to something there.
        I don't use RNG's either. I should have stated this topic differently.

        I meant that if the lottery uses a number generator to get a number and then uses that number as input to a second number generator, then is it possible to create a single function that mimics the same output? If a lottery game used such a method (multiple number generators) then would we not actually be looking at non-evenly spaced draws.

        Here is an example:before draw time, the lottery runs a machine and pulls out 3 numbers: 2,5, & 7

        this results in ballsets/machines 2,5, & 7 being used in the draw (for pick 3). Let's say the result is 9,3,1.

        So, the question is can we write a system that finds winning numbers based soley on the known portion of the output (past winning numbers) even though the (unknown?) ballsets and/or machines are incorporated in there too. Some states give the ballsets and machines used, as well.

        In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
        Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.