Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 9, 2016, 8:24 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

2 billion random numbers and none of them matched the last draw

Topic closed. 20 replies. Last post 10 years ago by RJOh.

Page 2 of 2
13
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar

United States
Member #10438
January 13, 2005
431 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 7, 2007, 4:19 pm - IP Logged

since none of these formulas and systems work  maybe we should all put em togher and whatevers left playLOL

    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
    mid-Ohio
    United States
    Member #9
    March 24, 2001
    19830 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 7, 2007, 5:47 pm - IP Logged

    since none of these formulas and systems work  maybe we should all put em togher and whatevers left playLOL

    The title of this thread is "2 billion random numbers and none of them matched the last draw".

    We know that in a MegaMillion drawing there are 3,819,816 possible combinations of 5's and when the 46 megaballs are  included there are 175,711,536 possible combinations not 2 billions so any formula or system that would produce more than 175 millions results and not one of them the winning combination of a 5/56+1/46 drawing is looking in the wrong place, it's like searching for a lost boat in Lake Erie by during a search of the Atlantic Ocean.

     * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
       
                 Evil Looking       

      Avatar
      NY
      United States
      Member #23835
      October 16, 2005
      3474 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 8, 2007, 3:50 am - IP Logged

      The title of this thread is "2 billion random numbers and none of them matched the last draw".

      We know that in a MegaMillion drawing there are 3,819,816 possible combinations of 5's and when the 46 megaballs are  included there are 175,711,536 possible combinations not 2 billions so any formula or system that would produce more than 175 millions results and not one of them the winning combination of a 5/56+1/46 drawing is looking in the wrong place, it's like searching for a lost boat in Lake Erie by during a search of the Atlantic Ocean.

      It sounds like you're confused about what was said, but the OP seems to be a bit confused, too. The OP simply said that after generating over 2 billion random combinations he didnt find one particular combination. It's entirely possible to generate 2 or 3 billion combinations and not match a particular combination, because there's no guarantee that you'll generate 100% of the possible combinations.

      As far as what the OP actually meant, it sounds to me like he thinks he generated a set of 65,536 combinations 32,767 different times, and the 2 billion random numbers means 2 billion randomly generated combinations. That's why I'm sure the OP is confused.  It's extremely unlikely that his program is doing what he thinks it's doing. Each set of 65,536 combinations would have roughly a  1.7% chance of matching the combination he was looking for. That means there's a 98.3% chance it won't match. Doing it 10, 20 or 30 times, it's still unlikely that he'd get the match he was looking for.  Doing it 32,797 times, OTOH, it's incredibly unlikely that he wouldn't get the match. As he said, it should have been expected about 562 times. In fact, all 3,819,816 would have been expected an average of 562 times. Many of the combinations would have turned up more than 562 times, and it's certainly possible that one of the combinations wouldn't have shown up at all, but it's exceedingly unlikely that a particular combination wouldn't turn up even once. It's literally trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions more likely that Excel is working properly, but simply not doing what he thinks it's doing.

      Without being familiar with Excel programming I'm just guessing, but I suspect he searched the same set of 65,536 combinations 32,767 times.  He was looking in the right lake, but he only looked at the same 1.7% of the lake over and over and over.

        guesser's avatar - Lottery-017.jpg

        United States
        Member #41383
        June 16, 2006
        1969 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 8, 2007, 4:16 am - IP Logged

        As far as lottery predictions go, computers don't do as good as we do with pencil and paper.

        Sure, I use a spreadsheet as a lot of folks do, but my selections are based on a ton of criteria and theories you can't program (within reason). 

          RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
          mid-Ohio
          United States
          Member #9
          March 24, 2001
          19830 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 19, 2007, 3:14 am - IP Logged

          As far as lottery predictions go, computers don't do as good as we do with pencil and paper.

          Sure, I use a spreadsheet as a lot of folks do, but my selections are based on a ton of criteria and theories you can't program (within reason). 

          Describe a criteria or theory that you think can only be done using pencil and paper and can't be included in a computer program.  I would like to try and program it.

           * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
             
                       Evil Looking       

            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
            mid-Ohio
            United States
            Member #9
            March 24, 2001
            19830 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 19, 2007, 4:16 am - IP Logged

            It sounds like you're confused about what was said, but the OP seems to be a bit confused, too. The OP simply said that after generating over 2 billion random combinations he didnt find one particular combination. It's entirely possible to generate 2 or 3 billion combinations and not match a particular combination, because there's no guarantee that you'll generate 100% of the possible combinations.

            As far as what the OP actually meant, it sounds to me like he thinks he generated a set of 65,536 combinations 32,767 different times, and the 2 billion random numbers means 2 billion randomly generated combinations. That's why I'm sure the OP is confused.  It's extremely unlikely that his program is doing what he thinks it's doing. Each set of 65,536 combinations would have roughly a  1.7% chance of matching the combination he was looking for. That means there's a 98.3% chance it won't match. Doing it 10, 20 or 30 times, it's still unlikely that he'd get the match he was looking for.  Doing it 32,797 times, OTOH, it's incredibly unlikely that he wouldn't get the match. As he said, it should have been expected about 562 times. In fact, all 3,819,816 would have been expected an average of 562 times. Many of the combinations would have turned up more than 562 times, and it's certainly possible that one of the combinations wouldn't have shown up at all, but it's exceedingly unlikely that a particular combination wouldn't turn up even once. It's literally trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions more likely that Excel is working properly, but simply not doing what he thinks it's doing.

            Without being familiar with Excel programming I'm just guessing, but I suspect he searched the same set of 65,536 combinations 32,767 times.  He was looking in the right lake, but he only looked at the same 1.7% of the lake over and over and over.

            I think m3g4m1II10ns was trying to create a system that analyze the history of a lottery draw by draw and create a database of complex statistics and winning patterns that could generate a statistically likely winning set of numbers.  He just proved having a 64-bit workstation doesn't make it any easier.

            I would think that a program that come up with 2 billion random combinations for a lottery that has only 3,819,816 possible combinations and not matching a particular one would be a clue that his program might not be looking at all the possible combinations.

             * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
               
                         Evil Looking