Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 3, 2016, 8:36 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Combinations & % Error Challenge

Topic closed. 45 replies. Last post 8 years ago by RJOh.

Page 2 of 4
41
PrintE-mailLink
JAP69's avatar - alas
South Carolina
United States
Member #6
November 4, 2001
8790 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 28, 2008, 7:24 pm - IP Logged

I knock out five numbers from the grid 80% of the time that will not be drawn when I play my choices on the one line I play when I do play. Bang Head

What state would anyone like 5 numbers eliminated in? Green laugh

I could get real lucky though and hit five of five. ROFL

WHATT

    Avatar
    NY
    United States
    Member #23835
    October 16, 2005
    3474 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 28, 2008, 8:18 pm - IP Logged

    Hi,

        First of all, thanks to everyone for their comments. Especially, RJOh for submitting a suggestion.

       

    KY Floyd

        It’s good to see your comments even if we end up agreeing to disagree. *L*  Let me start by giving you a perspective from my point of view.

     

    1)      Because the lottery is random, the only sure fire way to win it is to bet all the combinations.

    2)      Because the lottery is random, there is currently no fool proof way to predict what the next numbers picked will be.

    3)      Any attempt to eliminate individual lottery numbers or combinations is an assumption. The lottery Post is a place where those assumptions are submitted, scrutinized, and measured for accuracy.

     

        With that out of the way, lets go back to my initial suggestion.

        Would you agree that if you select one number out of 39 different numbers that there is a 3% chance that you are either right or wrong? ( I’ll let you choose 1 different number every game for the next 100 draws and let you decide whether you where right 97% of the time or wrong 97% of the time) *L*

        The best suggestion I have for you is not to think of beginnings of this system in the usual terms. It is and will be a little different than you are used to. Be patient, weigh it on its own merits, and you might possibly have a new tool to work with.   And in the end, if your disagree and think it’s all hogwash, that’s fine too.    

     

        RJOh

        I really like the way your data is organized. Very cool. I’m not sure the best way to quantify the amount of combinations eliminated versus error though.

    Would you agree that if you select one number out of 39 different numbers that there is a 3% chance that you are either right or wrong?

    No. If only one number out of 39 was drawn then there would be a 1 in 39 chance of of correctly guessing that number. Since there are 5 numbers that are drawn there is a 5 in 39 chance. When 5 of 39 numbers are drawn then 5/39ths of the numbers are drawn. 5/39ths is 12.82%, so there is a 12.82% chance that picking one number randomly will result in picking one of the 5 numbers that are drawn. The flip side is that if you decide that a particular number won't be drawn the chance that you will be correct is 87.18%, not 97%. You aren't eliminating 12.82% of the combinations with a 3% chance of choosing incorrectly. You're eliminating 12.82% of the combinations with a 12.82% chance of choosing incorrectly, so it's a wash.

    As BobP notes, you can increase your chances of winning if a certain result occurs in exchange for an reduced chance of winning if that result doesn't occur. For a simple analogy imagine playing pick 3 with only even numbers. If the winning number is even you have a 1 in 500 chance of winning instread of 1 in 1000. Since there is only a 50% chance that the winning number will be even your overall chance of winning is .50 * 1 in 500, which is 1 in 1000. There is no net gain.

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      19816 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 28, 2008, 9:49 pm - IP Logged

      Impressive research, RJOH.  I feel humbled by your work.

      I see that you divide the 39 numbers into three groups in decending order.  Have you compiled the three groups using a different standard?  By that I mean something like taking the 13 most frequently drawn numbers over the life of the drawing to be in the "A" group, and the 13 least drawn numbers over the life of the crawing to be in the "C" group, and allowing the remaining numbers fall into the "B" group?

      I did write a routine that calculates the average and median rate of occurances of the numbers in the winning combinations and compare that to the number of time they hit in a most recent period and color them accordinly, 0=blue, 2=red, 3 or more=yellow and everything else=green.  When ever all of the winning numbers are one color and I calculate all the numbers that could be in that group, they're 80% of the total number pool so there's no real advantage.  I keep checking hoping that one time there will be a group small enough that I could cover a winning combination in ten or twenty lines.

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

        BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
        Dump Water Florida
        United States
        Member #380
        June 5, 2002
        3102 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 28, 2008, 11:35 pm - IP Logged

        Cough !!! You might want to take a second look at playing with only
        five even digits and how many straight numbers one can make with
        any five digits.  When the winning number is even and you are playing
        an even number you have a 1 in 65 chance of winning $500.

        1: 000
        2: 002
        3: 004
        4: 006
        5: 008
        6: 020
        7: 022
        8: 040
        9: 044
        10: 060
        11: 066
        12: 080
        13: 088
        14: 200
        15: 202
        16: 220
        17: 222
        18: 224
        19: 226
        20: 228
        21: 242
        22: 244
        23: 262
        24: 266
        25: 282
        26: 288
        27: 400
        28: 404
        29: 422
        30: 424
        31: 440
        32: 442
        33: 444
        34: 446
        35: 448
        36: 464
        37: 466
        38: 484
        39: 488
        40: 600
        41: 606
        42: 622
        43: 626
        44: 644
        45: 646
        46: 660
        47: 662
        48: 664
        49: 666
        50: 668
        51: 686
        52: 688
        53: 800
        54: 808
        55: 822
        56: 828
        57: 844
        58: 848
        59: 866
        60: 868
        61: 880
        62: 882
        63: 884
        64: 886
        65: 888

        BobP

          JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

          United States
          Member #5599
          July 13, 2004
          1184 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 29, 2008, 12:05 am - IP Logged

          Hi,

             Below is a listing for how many combinations there are for different amounts of lottery number pools. I believe the math to be correct, but wouldn't mind a double check. Like my initial example, you'll find 575757 combinations for a 5/39 game. If you eliminate one specific number from all the combinations you'll find 501942 combinations,  for what becomes a 5/38 game. So, if you eliminate approximately 50% of the numbers accurately, then you would be playing say a 5/20 game with 15504 combinations or a 5/19 game with 11628 combinations.

             I would have you note that this method reduces combination on a different scale than using combinations to reduce from the total amount combinations. I guess you could say that reduction methods using combinations is linear, while reduction methods using individual numbers is non-linear.

            Sounds fairly good huh. But, KY Floyd is 100% correct when he says "There is no such thing as a free lunch." If you elect to elimate one number that ends up being picked, then every subsequent combination you bet will be unable to win the 5 out of 5 prize. To make matters worse, look at Maddogs challenges. Everyone, including myself, is having a tough time getting enough numbers right for a payoff.

            The upside is, when you do select correclty there is a dramatic reduction in combinations.

            My suggestion is to use this system first. Only eliminate those numbers which you deem to have the lowest probabilty of occuring. Then use the usual combination reductions methods to obtain your final picks.

            Anyway, this completes what I want to say about the method I started this thread with.

            Are ther any others methods anyone would like to suggest?

           

           

          NUMCOMB
          51
          66
          721
          856
          9126
          10252
          11462
          12792
          131287
          142002
          153003
          164368
          176188
          188568
          1911628
          2015504
          2120349
          2226334
          2333649
          2442504
          2553130
          2665780
          2780730
          2898280
          29118755
          30142506
          31169911
          32201376
          33237336
          34278256
          35324632
          36376992
          37435897
          38501942
          39575757
          40658008
          41749398
          42850668
          43962598
          441086008
          451221759
          461370754
          471533939
          481712304
          491906884
          502118760
          512349060
          522598960
          532869685
          543162510
          553478761
          563819816
          574187106
          584582116
          595006386
          605461512

          You are a slave to the choices you have made.  jk

          Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
            mid-Ohio
            United States
            Member #9
            March 24, 2001
            19816 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 29, 2008, 12:49 am - IP Logged

            Impressive research, RJOH.  I feel humbled by your work.

            I see that you divide the 39 numbers into three groups in decending order.  Have you compiled the three groups using a different standard?  By that I mean something like taking the 13 most frequently drawn numbers over the life of the drawing to be in the "A" group, and the 13 least drawn numbers over the life of the crawing to be in the "C" group, and allowing the remaining numbers fall into the "B" group?

                     FILE :OHIO ROLLING CASH5 
               COUNT OCCURRENCES OF NUMBERS IN FILE
             
                10/04/04 TO 05/28/08  1193 RECORDS

              11. 176   31. 161   18. 151   37. 141   
              21. 175   36. 160    1. 150   17. 139   
              15. 172   23. 159   14. 150    6. 138   
               7. 171   33. 159   29. 149    2. 137   
              30. 170   24. 156   32. 149    9. 137   
               3. 169   13. 154   10. 148   28. 136   
              19. 166   27. 154   20. 148   39. 136     
              38. 165    4. 153   12. 147   25. 135   
              35. 164    8. 152   26. 146   22. 133   
              16. 162   34. 152    5. 145   

            A=11 21 15 07 30 03 19 38 35 16 31 36 23
            B=33 24 13 27 04 08 34 18 01 14 29 32 10
            C=20 12 26 05 37 17 06 02 09 28 39 25 22

            Tried your suggestion and there were 21 distribution patterns.  Nothing that I could use to pick combinations in a unique way.


               1. A  B  B  C  C =176
               2. A  A  B  B  C =171
               3. A  A  B  C  C =139
               4. A  B  C  C  C =118
               5. A  B  B  B  C = 99
               6. A  A  A  B  C = 98
               7. A  A  B  B  B = 52
               8. A  A  A  B  B = 48
               9. B  B  B  C  C = 44
              10. B  B  C  C  C = 44
              11. A  A  C  C  C = 43
              12. A  A  A  C  C = 33
              13. A  A  A  A  B = 24
              14. A  A  A  A  C = 24
              15. A  B  B  B  B = 22
              16. B  B  B  B  C = 17
              17. A  C  C  C  C = 16
              18. B  C  C  C  C = 15
              19. B  B  B  B  B =  5
              20. C  C  C  C  C =  3
              21. A  A  A  A  A =  2

             * 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
              19816 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 29, 2008, 11:32 am - IP Logged

              Having separated numbers in winning combinations into groups of high/low/medium, active/normal/inactive, hot/normal/cold and other ways and seeing all the different mixes has less than 25 distribution patterns and are were dominated by nine or fewer patterns that looked similar regardless of the type of mix convinces me that it almost impossible to eliminate a small group of numbers that will not have any of the winning numbers most of the time.

              In the Ohio Rolling Cash5 file which I sighed for this thread, 51% of the time at least one number from the previous drawing was in the winning combinations and 10% of time it was two or more.  With its payout of $1 for a match2, $10 for a match3 and $300 for a match4 had I simply replayed the previous winning combination every drawing, I would have won back $582 of the $1,192 it would have cost to play.

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

                Avatar
                NASHVILLE, TENN
                United States
                Member #33372
                February 20, 2006
                1044 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 29, 2008, 12:38 pm - IP Logged

                I did write a routine that calculates the average and median rate of occurances of the numbers in the winning combinations and compare that to the number of time they hit in a most recent period and color them accordinly, 0=blue, 2=red, 3 or more=yellow and everything else=green.  When ever all of the winning numbers are one color and I calculate all the numbers that could be in that group, they're 80% of the total number pool so there's no real advantage.  I keep checking hoping that one time there will be a group small enough that I could cover a winning combination in ten or twenty lines.

                I am please to noted that you took the time to look.  While the results were disappointing, having that knowledge is better than not having it.

                I once had a chemistry professor in college who told us that 99% of all the experiments turned out to be failures.  Had someone documented those failures, future chemists would not waste their time re-inventing the wheel, or the experiment in this case.

                I think LP would benefit if there was a forum for "failed" attemts.  There might be a gem or two of benefit to someone else.

                Hey, that would make a good poll.  "How many failures have you experienced while developing your method?"

                Anybody up to do that one?

                  time*treat's avatar - radar

                  United States
                  Member #13130
                  March 30, 2005
                  2171 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 29, 2008, 2:45 pm - IP Logged

                  How would you define "failure"?

                  I have tried systems that had the winner but were too expensive to play. (haven't we all?) I have had systems that didn't work well with other systems (non-confirming). Usually, afterwards, I had created some code that I could use in other places.

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

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7295 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 29, 2008, 6:35 pm - IP Logged

                    How would you define "failure"?

                    I have tried systems that had the winner but were too expensive to play. (haven't we all?) I have had systems that didn't work well with other systems (non-confirming). Usually, afterwards, I had created some code that I could use in other places.

                    LP has a 2if5 wheel with 25 combinations that uses all the numbers in a 5/39 game. Granted playing $25 with a win expectation of $1 doesn't look all that great, but it costs nothing to experiment with the wheel. The wheel is unbalanced; 1 number will appear 7 times, 6 numbers 4 time, 30 numbers 3 times, and 2 of the numbers will appear twice. It might be easier to break this wheel down and create a system that raises the win expectation than using a system that is more expensive to play.

                      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                      mid-Ohio
                      United States
                      Member #9
                      March 24, 2001
                      19816 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 29, 2008, 7:09 pm - IP Logged

                      Hey, that would make a good poll.  "How many failures have you experienced while developing your method?"....qoute:GASMETERGUY

                      If success is winning more than you spend every time you play then lottery players fail almost every time they play and that's the way the games are designed or else the states couldn't keep 50% of the sales for themselves and offer a large jackpot to the winner to attract more players.

                      When I test a theory, what ever happens is not a failure to me, the results answer a question I asked or disprove a myth that I read or heard.  Almost any system can win something if you're willing to buy enough combinations.  Beating the odds seem to be more a matter of luck than how one pick  combinations, at least that's my theory until I or someone else proves other wise.

                      I'll continue to play combinations picked using a system because even when I lose I like to think I'm in control of my own destiny.

                       * 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: May 30, 2008, 1:09 am - IP Logged

                        Cough !!! You might want to take a second look at playing with only
                        five even digits and how many straight numbers one can make with
                        any five digits.  When the winning number is even and you are playing
                        an even number you have a 1 in 65 chance of winning $500.

                        1: 000
                        2: 002
                        3: 004
                        4: 006
                        5: 008
                        6: 020
                        7: 022
                        8: 040
                        9: 044
                        10: 060
                        11: 066
                        12: 080
                        13: 088
                        14: 200
                        15: 202
                        16: 220
                        17: 222
                        18: 224
                        19: 226
                        20: 228
                        21: 242
                        22: 244
                        23: 262
                        24: 266
                        25: 282
                        26: 288
                        27: 400
                        28: 404
                        29: 422
                        30: 424
                        31: 440
                        32: 442
                        33: 444
                        34: 446
                        35: 448
                        36: 464
                        37: 466
                        38: 484
                        39: 488
                        40: 600
                        41: 606
                        42: 622
                        43: 626
                        44: 644
                        45: 646
                        46: 660
                        47: 662
                        48: 664
                        49: 666
                        50: 668
                        51: 686
                        52: 688
                        53: 800
                        54: 808
                        55: 822
                        56: 828
                        57: 844
                        58: 848
                        59: 866
                        60: 868
                        61: 880
                        62: 882
                        63: 884
                        64: 886
                        65: 888

                        BobP

                        If that's directed at my post, I didn't say anything about playing pick 3 with 5 even digits. I said playing pick 3 only with even numbers, of which there are 500. Play 1 of them (straight) and your chance of winning is 1 in 500 if the winning number is even. FWIW, if you played even numbers boxed you could also win on odd numbers that have an even digit, such as 176 paying for 167, 617, 671, and 761.

                        If I was going to play numbers that can be made with (all) 5 even digits I can play a lot more than the 65 you list:
                        1: 000
                        2: 002
                        3: 004
                        4: 006
                        5: 008
                        6: 020
                        7: 022
                            024, 026, 028
                        8: 040
                            042
                        9: 044
                            046, 048
                        10: 060

                          BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
                          Dump Water Florida
                          United States
                          Member #380
                          June 5, 2002
                          3102 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 30, 2008, 3:15 am - IP Logged

                          If that's directed at my post, I didn't say anything about playing pick 3 with 5 even digits. I said playing pick 3 only with even numbers, of which there are 500. Play 1 of them (straight) and your chance of winning is 1 in 500 if the winning number is even. FWIW, if you played even numbers boxed you could also win on odd numbers that have an even digit, such as 176 paying for 167, 617, 671, and 761.

                          If I was going to play numbers that can be made with (all) 5 even digits I can play a lot more than the 65 you list:
                          1: 000
                          2: 002
                          3: 004
                          4: 006
                          5: 008
                          6: 020
                          7: 022
                              024, 026, 028
                          8: 040
                              042
                          9: 044
                              046, 048
                          10: 060

                          You said: " For a simple analogy imagine playing pick 3 with only even numbers. If the winning number is even you have a 1 in 500 chance of winning instread of 1 in 1000. Since there is only a 50% chance that the winning number will be even your overall chance of winning is .50 * 1 in 500, which is 1 in 1000. There is no net gain."

                          Ok. Always amazing how we can see exactly what we want to see.

                          One interesting thing was I learned something about the Maybel
                          Quik Wheeler.  I entered Straight 0-2-4-6-8 and Force Doubles and
                          got 65 combinations for my trouble.

                          Went back and unchecked Force Doubles and got 125.  Got to stop
                          doing things when I'm half asleep. Zzzzzzzzz 

                          1: 000
                          2: 002
                          3: 004
                          4: 006
                          5: 008
                          6: 020
                          7: 022
                          8: 024
                          9: 026
                          10: 028
                          11: 040
                          12: 042
                          13: 044
                          14: 046
                          15: 048
                          16: 060
                          17: 062
                          18: 064
                          19: 066
                          20: 068
                          21: 080
                          22: 082
                          23: 084
                          24: 086
                          25: 088
                          26: 200
                          27: 202
                          28: 204
                          29: 206
                          30: 208
                          31: 220
                          32: 222
                          33: 224
                          34: 226
                          35: 228
                          36: 240
                          37: 242
                          38: 244
                          39: 246
                          40: 248
                          41: 260
                          42: 262
                          43: 264
                          44: 266
                          45: 268
                          46: 280
                          47: 282
                          48: 284
                          49: 286
                          50: 288
                          51: 400
                          52: 402
                          53: 404
                          54: 406
                          55: 408
                          56: 420
                          57: 422
                          58: 424
                          59: 426
                          60: 428
                          61: 440
                          62: 442
                          63: 444
                          64: 446
                          65: 448
                          66: 460
                          67: 462
                          68: 464
                          69: 466
                          70: 468
                          71: 480
                          72: 482
                          73: 484
                          74: 486
                          75: 488
                          76: 600
                          77: 602
                          78: 604
                          79: 606
                          80: 608
                          81: 620
                          82: 622
                          83: 624
                          84: 626
                          85: 628
                          86: 640
                          87: 642
                          88: 644
                          89: 646
                          90: 648
                          91: 660
                          92: 662
                          93: 664
                          94: 666
                          95: 668
                          96: 680
                          97: 682
                          98: 684
                          99: 686
                          100: 688
                          101: 800
                          102: 802
                          103: 804
                          104: 806
                          105: 808
                          106: 820
                          107: 822
                          108: 824
                          109: 826
                          110: 828
                          111: 840
                          112: 842
                          113: 844
                          114: 846
                          115: 848
                          116: 860
                          117: 862
                          118: 864
                          119: 866
                          120: 868
                          121: 880
                          122: 882
                          123: 884
                          124: 886
                          125: 888

                          BobP

                            JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

                            United States
                            Member #5599
                            July 13, 2004
                            1184 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 30, 2008, 5:46 am - IP Logged

                            Hi,

                              By using an individual number method, for Pick 3, you get the following:

                            1-leaves 729 combinations -%error=27.1 (ie-eliminate the number 8 from all combinations being considered)

                            2-leaves 512 combinations-%error=48.8

                            3-leaves 343 combinations-%error=65.7

                            4-leaves 216 combinations-%error=78.4

                            5-leaves 125 combinations-%error=87.5

                            6-leaves 64 combinations-%error=93.6

                            7-leaves 27 combinations-%error=97.3

                            8-leaves 8 combinations-%error=99.2

                            9-leaves 1 combinations-%error=99.9

                            Even though this is a very effective method in a Pick 5 type of game, it ends up being a 10 to 1 reduction method in Pick 3 and pick 4 games. 

                            Does anyone have a Pick 3 or Pick 4 method that doesn't end up being a 10 to 1 reduction method? (10 combinations for every 1% error)

                            You are a slave to the choices you have made.  jk

                            Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

                              Avatar
                              NASHVILLE, TENN
                              United States
                              Member #33372
                              February 20, 2006
                              1044 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: June 2, 2008, 9:07 pm - IP Logged

                              How would you define "failure"?

                              I have tried systems that had the winner but were too expensive to play. (haven't we all?) I have had systems that didn't work well with other systems (non-confirming). Usually, afterwards, I had created some code that I could use in other places.

                              Failure is testing a theory only to discover the concept did not pick the winning numbers a sufficent number of times to make the financial effort profitable.

                              I agree most heartily with your statement about systems that were too expensive to play.  These systems, in my humble but sagacious opinion, can be labeled "failure".

                              So what is "success"?  Sucess is a system that is reasonable, that results in less than 100 number sets and is correct ( it predicts a winner) at least one time out of ten.  (And if anyone has such a system, I would be more than willing to invest in your project.)  I doubt such a system exists.  I have no doubt that such system will be developed by someone at some time in the future.  There is just too much research going on right now for such a system not to be found.  We may not have PhD's or Nobel prizes but we have something most people do not have....we have imagination. 

                              Feel free to tweak the above characteristics of "success".  Success, like failure, means different things to different people.  One man's failure is another man's success or something akin to that.