FEMA Region V Camp #21 United States Member #520 July 27, 2002 5699 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2007, 9:36 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by CCHS13 on March 13, 2007

Todd would you say your RNG here on Lottery Post is superior to state machinces as far

as not grouping similar numbers together?

Grouping similar numbers and pairs together is not a bad thing. We do it with wheels don't we? I like to use an RNG to make combinations from a selected subset of numbers from the game. It's like a "random wheel".

For "pure" random numbers I like random.org. You won't see many similar numbers, patterns or pairings in those combos, they're pretty chaotic.

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

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3502 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2007, 1:55 am - IP Logged

"To me, a good Quick Pick generator would do a better job of scattering numbers"

If you expect a random number generator to generate random numbers, why would you expect it to "scatter" numbers? I'd expect the numbers to be random, and most of the combinations have some numbers that are close together.

Let's assume "close" means 1 or 2 more or less than another number and look at what we should expect for the 56 balls in MM. Imagine the first number selected is 54*. There are 4 numbers that are close and 51 that aren't, so there's a 7.8% chance that the second number will be close to the first and a 92.2% chance that it won't be close. If the 2nd number isn't close there will now be 8 numbers that are close to one of the first two numbers and 46 that aren't. That's 17.4% and 82.6%. If 4 numbers are selected and you still didn't get two that are close there will be 16 that are close and 36 that aren't. That's 44.4% and 55.6%.

Multiplying the probabilities of not getting a number that's close to a previously selected number we get .922 x .826 x .707 x . 556 = .322. We should expect to have two regular numbers that are close 2/3's of the time. For games with a smaller matrix it is even more likely that there will be numbers that are close together.

If 3 of the regular numbers are less than 48 and not close to each other there will be 15 mega balls that qualify as close to one of the 5 regular numbers. That's just a hair under 1/3. If 4 of the numbers are less than 48 and not close to each other there will be 20 mega balls, or nearly 44% that qualify as close. If all 5 of the numbers are less than 48 and not close to each other there will be 25 mega balls, or 54% that qualify as close.

I'd guess that the RNG's are much better at generating combinations that are truly random than lottery players are at recognizing what's random and what isn't.

* If a 1, 2, 55, or 56 turns up there will be fewer than 4 numbers that are close, but the probabilities I've used are still very close.

Kingston, Ontario Canada Member #46867 October 5, 2006 106 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2007, 2:11 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Todd on March 13, 2007

Wow, your answer is exactly 100% wrong.

The local machine generates the Quick Pick, and sends the numbers to the central computer. If the central computer is down then the quick pick does not print out because the central computer is unable to register the numbers, not because it can't generate quick picks.

Thanks Todd...I was waiting for you to respond. Not sure, if the system for raffles works the same way from state to state as Ontario does. I will refer to our old "Winner Take All" nightly raffle game with a guaranteed winner in Ontario that ended last year.

First the lottery terminal generates the ticket selection then it is stored as an ENTRY number (not as the numbers on the ticket). Now the control number/bar code number in Ontario is actually attached to an entry number ie. 34859. After the main lottery draws are done here, the security tags are removed from a computer in the studio. This computer is always under lock and key when not in use. Some may argue, but it is totally random at picking a winning ENTRY.

I was shown one night at the draws in Toronto, how the computer selects the winning ENTRY. With a click of an enter key, the screen shows a field of columns (much like the stocks for Wall Street) with high peaks and low valleys. The highest peak becomes the winning ENTRY. ie. 34589 Lottery officials have to fax that winning ENTRY number to the Central Computer in North York to get the winning ticket number. With their vast data-banks, there they enter the winning ENTRY...go through all the tickets bought, and come back with the ticket number attached to that entry and where it was purchased.

On a sidenote: A lottery ball machine could never be used to select the winning combination. Obviously, lottery officials would be there all night or days if they drew a number, no winner...redraw...no winner. This is the only way to guarantee a winner nightly via computer.

Winner Take All ended over a year ago, and Ontario's Payday lottery was introduced, replacing Winner Take All.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3502 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2007, 2:12 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on March 13, 2007

Todd, I know what you're saying is correct, but this brings up another question. Does where you buy a QP make a difference? I mean, I used to say that Miami has an inordinate number of winners and everyone would simply answer that it is because of the population. However, maybe there are terminals that will never print a winning ticket. I wish I knew how the "algorithm" works, if I'm using the correct term.

There are terminals that will never print a winning ticket, but it's not because the terminals have some magic way of knowing what the winning numbers will be.

If there were only 1000 terminals in each of the 12 MM states that would be a total of 12,000 terminals. If each terminal had the same chance of producing a winner and each terminal that did produce a winner was removed after producing the winner, and there was a winner every drawing it would still take over 115 years to get a winner from each terminal.

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3114 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2007, 2:38 am - IP Logged

When I do random Pick-3 generation during a (10,3,2,3)=8 wheel build I notice numbers tend toward the low side 0-2-3 where getting an all high 5-7-9 number in the set is more rare. I realize there are only 10 all low digit and 10 all high digit numbers out of 210 box, but I've found all low comes up more often then all high if all high appears at all. The same sort of tendency may be in QP terminals. BobP

New Jersey United States Member #1 May 31, 2000 23357 Posts Online

Posted: March 14, 2007, 8:18 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on March 14, 2007

"To me, a good Quick Pick generator would do a better job of scattering numbers"

If you expect a random number generator to generate random numbers, why would you expect it to "scatter" numbers? I'd expect the numbers to be random, and most of the combinations have some numbers that are close together.

Let's assume "close" means 1 or 2 more or less than another number and look at what we should expect for the 56 balls in MM. Imagine the first number selected is 54*. There are 4 numbers that are close and 51 that aren't, so there's a 7.8% chance that the second number will be close to the first and a 92.2% chance that it won't be close. If the 2nd number isn't close there will now be 8 numbers that are close to one of the first two numbers and 46 that aren't. That's 17.4% and 82.6%. If 4 numbers are selected and you still didn't get two that are close there will be 16 that are close and 36 that aren't. That's 44.4% and 55.6%.

Multiplying the probabilities of not getting a number that's close to a previously selected number we get .922 x .826 x .707 x . 556 = .322. We should expect to have two regular numbers that are close 2/3's of the time. For games with a smaller matrix it is even more likely that there will be numbers that are close together.

If 3 of the regular numbers are less than 48 and not close to each other there will be 15 mega balls that qualify as close to one of the 5 regular numbers. That's just a hair under 1/3. If 4 of the numbers are less than 48 and not close to each other there will be 20 mega balls, or nearly 44% that qualify as close. If all 5 of the numbers are less than 48 and not close to each other there will be 25 mega balls, or 54% that qualify as close.

I'd guess that the RNG's are much better at generating combinations that are truly random than lottery players are at recognizing what's random and what isn't.

* If a 1, 2, 55, or 56 turns up there will be fewer than 4 numbers that are close, but the probabilities I've used are still very close.

I knew that someone would try to impose some kind of mathematical formular to "prove" my statements untrue.

Well, your math doesn't add up.

A good RNG would not place four 16s, five 24s, and four 42s on one set of five lines, and do that same kind of grouping on at least every other ticket. (A "ticket" being made up of five lines.)

You tried to prove something that I did not assert. Please read my post again, and note that I said nothing about "similar numbers being grouped together". Did I say the word similar? No, I didn't.

I said "...it is very easy to see how the numbers come out in bunches." Such as the "four 16s, five 24s, and four 42s on one set of five lines" I mentioned above.

I have no idea if your forumlas or calculations are correct, but again, they do nothing to address my point. It would be better to calculate the odds of the pattern of "four 16s, five 24s, and four 42s on one set of five lines" happening once every other ticket.

Good RNGs do not bunch numbers together. "Random" certainly means that you will occasionally have the scenario I mentioned, but it does not mean it happens consistently.

California United States Member #46824 October 1, 2006 270 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2007, 11:17 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Todd on March 14, 2007

I knew that someone would try to impose some kind of mathematical formular to "prove" my statements untrue.

Well, your math doesn't add up.

A good RNG would not place four 16s, five 24s, and four 42s on one set of five lines, and do that same kind of grouping on at least every other ticket. (A "ticket" being made up of five lines.)

You tried to prove something that I did not assert. Please read my post again, and note that I said nothing about "similar numbers being grouped together". Did I say the word similar? No, I didn't.

I said "...it is very easy to see how the numbers come out in bunches." Such as the "four 16s, five 24s, and four 42s on one set of five lines" I mentioned above.

I have no idea if your forumlas or calculations are correct, but again, they do nothing to address my point. It would be better to calculate the odds of the pattern of "four 16s, five 24s, and four 42s on one set of five lines" happening once every other ticket.

Good RNGs do not bunch numbers together. "Random" certainly means that you will occasionally have the scenario I mentioned, but it does not mean it happens consistently.

Todd...how about a little more backround on your pattern of numbers:

What number field did this come from, i.e 5/? & 1/? or 6/? etc?

You say it was consistent, how often did this pattern occur?

D.C./MD. United States Member #44103 July 30, 2006 5587 Posts Online

Posted: March 14, 2007, 3:14 pm - IP Logged

Yes, yes, yes, and yes etc.. When tickets are Qp'd it is local, they are close to what you just played, software is downloaded at off times (except for D.C.they go off whenever), state RNGs are similar and Todd's RNG is very good. LOL jarasan.

Where's me pot o'gold? Great movie for St. Pats "Leprechaun". Jennifer Anistons first feature?

New Jersey United States Member #50273 March 3, 2007 348 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2007, 3:30 pm - IP Logged

Well, I just looked at my QP PB tickets and compared them to my number pool that I used on my "picked" tickets. I purchased 10 selected tickets first, then 10 qp. The first 5 lines of the qp immediatley follwing my selected numbers had almost 3 of "my" selected numbers mixed on every line. The second 5 of those QP's only had an average of 1 of my numbers in each line.

I suspect the next 5 would most likely had just 1 or none of my selected numbers on each line. I'll try that theory out next time I go up there.

I usually don't spend that much on tickets but $12 of them were "free". I cashed in a $7 dollar winning ticket and pooled 5 bucks with a colleague. So I only spent about $10 bucks out of my pocket.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3502 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2007, 3:49 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Todd on March 14, 2007

I knew that someone would try to impose some kind of mathematical formular to "prove" my statements untrue.

Well, your math doesn't add up.

A good RNG would not place four 16s, five 24s, and four 42s on one set of five lines, and do that same kind of grouping on at least every other ticket. (A "ticket" being made up of five lines.)

You tried to prove something that I did not assert. Please read my post again, and note that I said nothing about "similar numbers being grouped together". Did I say the word similar? No, I didn't.

I said "...it is very easy to see how the numbers come out in bunches." Such as the "four 16s, five 24s, and four 42s on one set of five lines" I mentioned above.

I have no idea if your forumlas or calculations are correct, but again, they do nothing to address my point. It would be better to calculate the odds of the pattern of "four 16s, five 24s, and four 42s on one set of five lines" happening once every other ticket.

Good RNGs do not bunch numbers together. "Random" certainly means that you will occasionally have the scenario I mentioned, but it does not mean it happens consistently.

You didn't say "similar numbers being grouped together" or "multiple lines" but you clearly said "numbers come out in bunches". Unfortunately, what we mean when we write something isn't always as clear as we intend, and I read bunches as meaning groupings such as 3,11,34,36, 51, or 21,22,31,38,46.

I was simply addressing your comment about thinking the RNG should "scatter" numbers. All the RNG should do is pick numbers randomly. It shouldn't deliberately choose combinations with numbers that are close together and it shouldn't deliberately scatter the numbers. The math addresses the chances that a random combination will have numbers that are close to one another, and it adds up just fine. If you want to see if the "formula" works just look at recent MM or PB drawings. About 2/3 will have a pair of numbers that are close to one another.

If you're consistently seeing QP's where multiple plays have some of the same numbers repeated on multiple lines I doubt that the RNG itself is at fault. That sounds like the RNG could be doing a perfectly good job of generating random numbers, and then wheeling them. That would be the result of a management decison, not a bad RNG. If the RNG itself is so bad that it consistently repeats the same numbers while attempting to generate each line independently then you should able to find those same numbers repeating onother tickets bought at different times, rather than just seeing the same pattern repeating at different times.

Whether such a management decision is bad or not is a matter of opinion. Personally, I figure that each line should be generated independently of the other lines, but if several combinations are generated by wheeling a set of 8 to 10 random numbers then each combination is random.

New Jersey United States Member #1 May 31, 2000 23357 Posts Online

Posted: March 14, 2007, 3:56 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on March 14, 2007

You didn't say "similar numbers being grouped together" or "multiple lines" but you clearly said "numbers come out in bunches". Unfortunately, what we mean when we write something isn't always as clear as we intend, and I read bunches as meaning groupings such as 3,11,34,36, 51, or 21,22,31,38,46.

I was simply addressing your comment about thinking the RNG should "scatter" numbers. All the RNG should do is pick numbers randomly. It shouldn't deliberately choose combinations with numbers that are close together and it shouldn't deliberately scatter the numbers. The math addresses the chances that a random combination will have numbers that are close to one another, and it adds up just fine. If you want to see if the "formula" works just look at recent MM or PB drawings. About 2/3 will have a pair of numbers that are close to one another.

If you're consistently seeing QP's where multiple plays have some of the same numbers repeated on multiple lines I doubt that the RNG itself is at fault. That sounds like the RNG could be doing a perfectly good job of generating random numbers, and then wheeling them. That would be the result of a management decison, not a bad RNG. If the RNG itself is so bad that it consistently repeats the same numbers while attempting to generate each line independently then you should able to find those same numbers repeating onother tickets bought at different times, rather than just seeing the same pattern repeating at different times.

Whether such a management decision is bad or not is a matter of opinion. Personally, I figure that each line should be generated independently of the other lines, but if several combinations are generated by wheeling a set of 8 to 10 random numbers then each combination is random.

Not my fault you misinterpreted my words. All my statements stand as written, accurately.

United States Member #48046 December 7, 2006 1699 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2007, 3:58 pm - IP Logged

Hey Mega.... just to let you know, part of my 'stradedgy', is what you kinda just discovered, .....try it like this some time, you pick a play....computer picks a play.... you pick a play, computer picks a play, and so on. That way.... if your numbers are a little off, the computer's might be 'on'. I also mix it up both ways in one play I think you'll like what you see sometimes.

Zeta Reticuli Star System United States Member #30470 January 17, 2006 10392 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2007, 5:49 pm - IP Logged

Some of the posts here kind of hint at once a set of numbers is issued as a quick pick, that's it for those numbers.

This is last night's (3-13-07) Illinoiis Litle Lotto results:

LITTLE LOTTO PRIZE PAYOUTS FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007

WINNING NUMBERS: 08 - 14 - 16 - 30 - 34

PLAYER(S) MATCHING 5 OF 5 NUMBERS INCLUDING SUBSCRIPTION WINNERS: 3 EACH PLAYER WILL RECEIVE: $58,333.00

WINNING TICKET(S) WERE SOLD AT:

098699 MOBIL STATION 810 N ROSELLE RD HOFFMAN ESTATES/60194

100413 7-ELEVEN #33067 (QP) 5316 N MILWAUKEE AVE CHICAGO/60630

126227 GAS CITY #169 (QP) 16701 S LAGRANGE RD ORLAND HILLS/60477

NUMBER OF SUBSCRIPTION WINNERS: 0

_______________________________________

Three winners, two of the three a quick pick- the same quick pick (has to be), two different locations.

It is ironic that if you go more than a dollar on a playslip and fill in your numbers in Game "A", how often those numbers show up quick picks on the same playslip.

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

D.C./MD. United States Member #44103 July 30, 2006 5587 Posts Online

Posted: March 14, 2007, 9:44 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by x1kosmic on March 14, 2007

Hey Mega.... just to let you know, part of my 'stradedgy', is what you kinda just discovered, .....try it like this some time, you pick a play....computer picks a play.... you pick a play, computer picks a play, and so on. That way.... if your numbers are a little off, the computer's might be 'on'. I also mix it up both ways in one play I think you'll like what you see sometimes.

I really like your "stradedgy", I usually throw a couple in on the end. Now I will intersperse & see what happens. LOL jarasan