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

Posted: March 20, 2007, 3:34 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on March 19, 2007

KYFloyd

That's very true about dice, but there are only 36 possible combinations.

Now what if we tweak your example, take the next 15 rolls let's say, and look for that exact sequence of numbers to roll again- isn't that'w what we're doing with looking for sets of lotto numbers to repeat, (but on a much grander scale of course).

The game I track more than other is illinois Little Lotto (5/39) I've tracked it every night for three years and have yet to see a repeater.

PS

Re: dice, there is a game called Barboo (or sometimes batbooth), very popular in illegal casinos in the Northeast - every roll is a "hop bet"- (one roll bet) - changes the odds drastically.

Vegas casinos put it in for a very short time as an experiment, but it didn;t rally catch on, was too confusing for the players. Ther were two shooters, andall bets went through the prop box in the middle of the layout.

You've basically suggested a pick 15 game where there are 36 digits to choose from instead of 10, and that's a much grander scale than any existing lotery game. It's a good analogy, but the actual numbers make the numbers in PB or MM look small.Extremely small. The chances of getting a specific outcome in that game would be 1 in 221,073,919,720,733,357,899,776. You're about 1,258 trillion times more likely to pick the right combination in megamillions. So why is it still a good analogy? Because lots of combinations is what it's all about. Let's start small and flip a coin and work our way up.

It's a "perfect" coin and I'll assume you believe that there's a 50% chance of heads and a 50% chance of tails. You flip the coin a couple of hundred times. For a lot of people there's an intuitive idea that if you've gotten 10 heads in a row the chances of another heads are somehow less than 50%, becuase the chance of getting 11 heads in arow is so small. Of course once you've gotten 10 heads in a row it's an absolute certainty that you've gotten the very unlikely 10 heads in a row. So what do you think? Does the chance of getting heads ever become more or less than 50% for the next flip?

Next we'll move to steeper odds and roll a die. Just one die, because we're not playing craps. It's also a "perfect" die, and I'll assume you agree that there's a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6. You roll it a few hundred times. Does the chance of rolling a 6 ever become more or less than 1 in 6? I think that in your first sentence above you've already agreed that there will always be a 1 in 6 chance, no matter how many times the die has already been rolled.

So what are the chances that you'll repeat any particular pattern? If you flip the coin a couple of hundred times is there any doubt that you'll get 2 heads in a row multiple times? For rolling the die there's a 1 in 36 chance of rolling two 6's in a row, right? Now here's the important question: how often will any particular pattern repeat? The chances of getting two heads in a row the first time was 1 in 4 (.5 * .5 = .25), right? After the first time you got two heads in a row did the chances of doing it again stay 1 in 4? With rolling the die does the chance of rolling two 6's in a row remain 1 in 36 after the first time you get two 6's? I'm assuming you'll agree that the odds continue t be 1 in 4 and 1 in 36 regardless of how long you continue. Even if you spend the entire week rolling the die and rack up a 100,000 rolls, and you've rolled back to back 6's thousands of times will the chances of rolling two 6's on your next two rolls still be 1 in 36?

Now that you've got 100,000 consecutive rolls to look at, did you ever get four 6's in a row? The odds for 4 in a row are 1 in 1296 (1 in 36 * 36 * 36 * 36), so you should have gotten 4 in a row a bunch of times, even though that's less likely than two in a row. It won't happen as often, but each time it happens the odds that it will happen again stay the same, right?

With the lottery, even in a "small" game like little lotto, there are huge numbers of possible combinations. For little lotto it's 575,757. If they have 575,758 drawings they couldn't help but have a combination that wins twice, but what about after 57,576 drawings? If they hadn't had a repeat by then they would have drawn 10% of the possible combinations. Doesn't that mean that for the next drawing there would be a 10% chance of drawing a combination that had already won and a 90% chance of drawing a combination that had never won? If so, what happens over the next 100 drawings? I think that with a 10% chance for a repeat on each drawing we should expect that about 10 of the next 100 would be combinations that had been drawn previously. In 3 years there are only about 1100 drawings, so with no repeats that only represents about 0.2% of the possible combinations, so we should only expect a 0.2% chance that any given drawing will be a repeat. That also means that we could expect that 1 of the next 500 drawings will be a repeat, but there are never any absolute guarantees in probability. There's only about a 40% chance of a repeat in the next 500 drawings, but there's also a chance that we could see multiple repeats.

The important point here is whether or not the odds of an outcome change because of previous outcomes. If you agree that the chances of getting heads when flipping a coin remain 50% for every flip then you've also agreed that the odds remain the same for repeated tries of any random event, regardless of what those odds are. Nobody here has ever said that the chances of a previous combination being drawn again are good. With more than half a million possible combinations in the small games and only a few thousand results so far for any given game the probability of repeating a previous combination is still very small. The probability of any particular combination being drawn are also very small, but just like the odds of getting 2 heads in a row, the odds of a combination being drawn again don't change just because it has already happened before.

Since you're fond of royal flushes, you could also imagine that we each have a deck of cards that have been thoroughly shuffled, and we each deal out a 5 card hand. Do we both have the same (very small) chance of getting a royal flush? If you deal first and actually get a royal flush does the chance that I'll get one change.

PA United States Member #22983 October 6, 2005 2226 Posts Offline

Posted: March 20, 2007, 7:56 pm - IP Logged

Maybe so "technically," but how "likely" is it that a repeat draw will actually come up? But yeah as I also said, I could not stand Jackie's attitude, and at the same time her son in law's attitude. Like attracts like, which is probably why there is so much negativity there. Although I did like the other son's attitude of not wanting a new car because there is nothing wrong with the old one. I am the same way, and would not get rid of my car.

ALthough I would have a nice backup lol. No way would I ever have more than 2 vehicles, that is just plain stupidity. "Passion" or not, 20 cars covered up in my yard is not something I want to see. I am more of a electronics/computer gadget kind of guy, but I still would not take it to absolute extremes.

United States Member #10720 January 23, 2005 933 Posts Offline

Posted: March 20, 2007, 8:13 pm - IP Logged

I didn't get to see it. Maybe it's on bubeTube or something. I don't have A&E, only the Lottery winners shown thereon have the $ to get A&E, I think. Anyway, it would be boring if we never had any wacky stories about Lottery winners. But anytime the subject is mentioned it seems like the person always mentioned is JW. Maybe that's an extreme case. Even for winners that have some problems usually it's not going on for years later.

Zeta Reticuli Star System United States Member #30470 January 17, 2006 10391 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2007, 2:47 am - IP Logged

KY Floyd

This happens on dice tables everyday in every casino in the world. Somebody starts making the high pc bets for the house and oe of the "probabilities boys" will advise them that they are giving up such and such percentage and it's a very 'bad' bet.

Let's say they are betting the hardways or C & E or a Horn bet. And it hits. And they parlay it. Now the probabilties experts are really dazling everybody with the percentages.

But the player that made the $40 horn bet and parlayed it and caught it again walks to the cage with a couple of hundred while the "stack, a pack, and call the tail waitress" crew stands their with their $1 on the Don't, in essence renting a spot on the table.

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.

Zeta Reticuli Star System United States Member #30470 January 17, 2006 10391 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2007, 11:11 am - IP Logged

KY Floyd

Now that you've got 100,000 consecutive rolls to look at, did you ever get four 6's in a row? The odds for 4 in a row are 1 in 1296 (1 in 36 * 36 * 36 * 36), so you should have gotten 4 in a row a bunch of times, even though that's less likely than two in a row. It won't happen as often, but each time it happens the odds that it will happen again stay the same, right?

True, that's the odds of getting four in a row, but nobody knows when those four will show. Casinos get rich because people think they'll be "smart bettors" and pounce on the "four in a row".

With the lottery, even in a "small" game like little lotto, there are huge numbers of possible combinations. For little lotto it's 575,757. If they have 575,758 drawings they couldn't help but have a combination that wins twice, but what about after 57,576 drawings? If they hadn't had a repeat by then they would have drawn 10% of the possible combinations. Doesn't that mean that for the next drawing there would be a 10% chance of drawing a combination that had already won and a 90% chance of drawing a combination that had never won? If so, what happens over the next 100 drawings? I think that with a 10% chance for a repeat on each drawing we should expect that about 10 of the next 100 would be combinations that had been drawn previously. In 3 years there are only about 1100 drawings, so with no repeats that only represents about 0.2% of the possible combinations, so we should only expect a 0.2% chance that any given drawing will be a repeat. That also means that we could expect that 1 of the next 500 drawings will be a repeat, but there are never any absolute guarantees in probability. There's only about a 40% chance of a repeat in the next 500 drawings, but there's also a chance that we could see multiple repeats.

Doesn't matter whether it's playing cards, dice, lotto, any game of chance - probabilities are based on millions of decisions. In your example of 57,576 draws of Little Lotto, a combination may show four times in that set, and not show for the next 6 sets of 57, 576 games, but in the long run will have shown 1/575,757th of the time.

There are actually people that hang out on crap tables with pads and pencils waiting for a 12 not to show for 35 rolls and then bet it (on the business, these people are known as 'skids' and 'fleas'). Sure, a 12 should roll once everry 36 rolls, but that's in the long run. If you could watch one million rolls it would have hot 1/36th of the time, but maybe the day someone decides to try a 12 system it shows 1 out of 300 rolls - long after their system bankroll has been shot.

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.

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

Posted: March 21, 2007, 11:18 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on March 21, 2007

KY Floyd

Now that you've got 100,000 consecutive rolls to look at, did you ever get four 6's in a row? The odds for 4 in a row are 1 in 1296 (1 in 36 * 36 * 36 * 36), so you should have gotten 4 in a row a bunch of times, even though that's less likely than two in a row. It won't happen as often, but each time it happens the odds that it will happen again stay the same, right?

True, that's the odds of getting four in a row, but nobody knows when those four will show. Casinos get rich because people think they'll be "smart bettors" and pounce on the "four in a row".

With the lottery, even in a "small" game like little lotto, there are huge numbers of possible combinations. For little lotto it's 575,757. If they have 575,758 drawings they couldn't help but have a combination that wins twice, but what about after 57,576 drawings? If they hadn't had a repeat by then they would have drawn 10% of the possible combinations. Doesn't that mean that for the next drawing there would be a 10% chance of drawing a combination that had already won and a 90% chance of drawing a combination that had never won? If so, what happens over the next 100 drawings? I think that with a 10% chance for a repeat on each drawing we should expect that about 10 of the next 100 would be combinations that had been drawn previously. In 3 years there are only about 1100 drawings, so with no repeats that only represents about 0.2% of the possible combinations, so we should only expect a 0.2% chance that any given drawing will be a repeat. That also means that we could expect that 1 of the next 500 drawings will be a repeat, but there are never any absolute guarantees in probability. There's only about a 40% chance of a repeat in the next 500 drawings, but there's also a chance that we could see multiple repeats.

Doesn't matter whether it's playing cards, dice, lotto, any game of chance - probabilities are based on millions of decisions. In your example of 57,576 draws of Little Lotto, a combination may show four times in that set, and not show for the next 6 sets of 57, 576 games, but in the long run will have shown 1/575,757th of the time.

There are actually people that hang out on crap tables with pads and pencils waiting for a 12 not to show for 35 rolls and then bet it (on the business, these people are known as 'skids' and 'fleas'). Sure, a 12 should roll once everry 36 rolls, but that's in the long run. If you could watch one million rolls it would have hot 1/36th of the time, but maybe the day someone decides to try a 12 system it shows 1 out of 300 rolls - long after their system bankroll has been shot.

I agree with CoinToss. I am a dealer in a casino and I see the laws of probablilty get shredded daily. There are rolls where the same number comes up sometimes 5-10 times in a row. Highly unlikely but it does happen and it does happen a few times a week.

Just like in blackjack. You can play by the book all night long and end up losing your house. Even though if you "theoretically" play by the book, you will have a 1% advantage over the house, this does not guarantee you will win. Thats why they have table limits, shuffling, and 6-8 decks. I have taken peoples money time and time again even when they "perfectly" play by the book.

The only true thing about probability is it is still improbable to predict anything with 100% accuracy.

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

Posted: March 21, 2007, 11:42 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on March 21, 2007

KY Floyd

Now that you've got 100,000 consecutive rolls to look at, did you ever get four 6's in a row? The odds for 4 in a row are 1 in 1296 (1 in 36 * 36 * 36 * 36), so you should have gotten 4 in a row a bunch of times, even though that's less likely than two in a row. It won't happen as often, but each time it happens the odds that it will happen again stay the same, right?

True, that's the odds of getting four in a row, but nobody knows when those four will show. Casinos get rich because people think they'll be "smart bettors" and pounce on the "four in a row".

With the lottery, even in a "small" game like little lotto, there are huge numbers of possible combinations. For little lotto it's 575,757. If they have 575,758 drawings they couldn't help but have a combination that wins twice, but what about after 57,576 drawings? If they hadn't had a repeat by then they would have drawn 10% of the possible combinations. Doesn't that mean that for the next drawing there would be a 10% chance of drawing a combination that had already won and a 90% chance of drawing a combination that had never won? If so, what happens over the next 100 drawings? I think that with a 10% chance for a repeat on each drawing we should expect that about 10 of the next 100 would be combinations that had been drawn previously. In 3 years there are only about 1100 drawings, so with no repeats that only represents about 0.2% of the possible combinations, so we should only expect a 0.2% chance that any given drawing will be a repeat. That also means that we could expect that 1 of the next 500 drawings will be a repeat, but there are never any absolute guarantees in probability. There's only about a 40% chance of a repeat in the next 500 drawings, but there's also a chance that we could see multiple repeats.

Doesn't matter whether it's playing cards, dice, lotto, any game of chance - probabilities are based on millions of decisions. In your example of 57,576 draws of Little Lotto, a combination may show four times in that set, and not show for the next 6 sets of 57, 576 games, but in the long run will have shown 1/575,757th of the time.

There are actually people that hang out on crap tables with pads and pencils waiting for a 12 not to show for 35 rolls and then bet it (on the business, these people are known as 'skids' and 'fleas'). Sure, a 12 should roll once everry 36 rolls, but that's in the long run. If you could watch one million rolls it would have hot 1/36th of the time, but maybe the day someone decides to try a 12 system it shows 1 out of 300 rolls - long after their system bankroll has been shot.

"There are actually people that hang out on crap tables with pads and pencils waiting for a 12 not to show for 35 rolls and then bet it (on the business, these people are known as 'skids' and 'fleas'). "

There you go. You agree that the odds of something happening don't change just because it did or didn't happen already. I've never said we know when something will happen, and you also agree. Of course the corollary is that we also don't know when something won't happen. The odds of rolling a 12 after not rolling one in 300 rolls is still only 1 in 36, and the odds that Tuesday's winning combination for MM will be drawn the folowing Friday is still 1 in 175,711,536.

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

Posted: March 21, 2007, 11:49 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by MegaWinner on March 21, 2007

I agree with CoinToss. I am a dealer in a casino and I see the laws of probablilty get shredded daily. There are rolls where the same number comes up sometimes 5-10 times in a row. Highly unlikely but it does happen and it does happen a few times a week.

Just like in blackjack. You can play by the book all night long and end up losing your house. Even though if you "theoretically" play by the book, you will have a 1% advantage over the house, this does not guarantee you will win. Thats why they have table limits, shuffling, and 6-8 decks. I have taken peoples money time and time again even when they "perfectly" play by the book.

The only true thing about probability is it is still improbable to predict anything with 100% accuracy.

The laws of probability never get shredded because they always work flawlessly. Thinking that something improbable happening violates the laws of probability suggests that you don't actually understand the laws of probability.