Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,301 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stew12 on Oct 2, 2008
My post above is simply my opinion. This thread is your opinion, and I have posted my opinion on your opinion. Welcome to the internet.
Stew12...let me tell you something..before you open you mouth and spouting sh%t that you dont know what you are talking about..you should FIRST LEARN ABOUT what you are talking about ok..
Feel free to show me where I went wrong. Posting "spouting sh%t that you don't know what your talking about" is very vague.
because I have been here a few years and not even once have I seen you post any INFORMATIVE INFORMATION about any subject ok
I have posted my opinions in numerous threads here and always explain my methods thoroughly. If they do not help people, so be it. I share what I know and enjoy learning from others here.
and oh yeah..I knew more than your ass before I joined this site about RANDOM AND NUMERICAL FIELDS..I have known more about random and numerical Fields while I have been at this site..and you know what..when I leave..I will still know more than you
I am not here for a "who knows more than who" contest, so I have no problem if you think you know more about mathematics than I do.
Just because you posted an idea on the internet doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with it.
It's been said 70% tickets sold are random QPs and each state lottery know the actually statistic. Many people buy QPs just for the chance of winning the jackpot and most don't care which combinations they get as long as they have a fair chance of winning. The argument here is the "tests" conducted to ensure a random drawing have an affect on the random official drawings.
"PROOF NUMBER ONE...the fact that your Lottery doesnt even mention on their WEBSITE that they PRETEST THE DRAWS is Misleading to the Public.."
I suppose that doesn't apply to me or is a "fact" because the Ohio Lottery website has the rules and regulations that clearly say the equipment is tested. The Texas Lottery website shows the results of the pre-test so it's not a "fact" there either.
"PROOF NUMBER TWO..In any form of BETTING you are betting on the NEXT OUTCOME"
I wondering how many hands of Blackjack are being dealt, dice being rolled, roulette wheels being spun, and how many "outcomes" will be known in the time it took me to type this sentence.
Back in the day when Blackjack was dealt from a single deck, all the previous hands before the next shuffle did have an affect on the next outcome because those cards were not used. Now even if you can find a single deck game, they shuffle after each "outcome". I can go to crap and roulette tables and watch the "next outcome" without betting and bet on the "next outcome". From my point of view, the "next outcome" is the outcome I'm betting on and to my knowledge, no lottery allows betting on their tests.
It's probably more accurate to say we are betting on a SPECIFIC OUTCOME and if it's a random outcome, all previous outcomes should have no affect on it. "Proof number one" isn't even true and "proof number two" proves nothing. I want to see the proof that testing the equipment or pre-test drawings has a real affect on the official random drawing.
Chesapeake, VA United States
Member #65,040
September 15, 2008
63 Posts
Offline
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but...
I understand what you're saying about the pre tests messing up natural random, but how can you prove that the pre tests mess up natural random in the first place?
I read something earlier about you starting a lawsuit...is that true?
Its like poker: you can play your best but you gotta know when to fold your cards and take a rest. Hold your cards, take a breath, and hope that nobody else is stacking the deck.
CT United States
Member #61,396
May 21, 2008
781 Posts
Offline
I understand what you're saying about the pre tests messing up natural random, but how can you prove that the pre tests mess up natural random in the first place?
United States
Member #17,554
June 22, 2005
5,582 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by kwint on Oct 3, 2008
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but...
I understand what you're saying about the pre tests messing up natural random, but how can you prove that the pre tests mess up natural random in the first place?
I read something earlier about you starting a lawsuit...is that true?
It does have an affect on randomness, but not in the way most people see it. Even randomness has an ebb and flow, and if you can spot these trends and patterns you may have a better prediction rate. However, when you take away certain parts of that pattern and throw in varibles( pretests and tube rotations) in it's place, which will never be revealed to the public, the predictablity success rate is lowered.
The simplest example is an overdue number in the pick-3 game. If number 3 was overdue in the first position for 18 days in a row, and THAT specific tube in the first position was never rotated or had pretests done to it, the prediction rate would increase. I've seen it a thousand times. An overdue number will show, but in another position......why????????.....because the that overdue tube was rotated to another position. That makes it more difficult to predict, among other factors.
How would you like to invest in stocks and not see the daily value of the stock, but rather every 3rd or 4the day of the stock's performance? I'm guessing you'd all like to see the daily-consecutive performance charts.
United States
Member #17,554
June 22, 2005
5,582 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by pacattack05 on Oct 3, 2008
It does have an affect on randomness, but not in the way most people see it. Even randomness has an ebb and flow, and if you can spot these trends and patterns you may have a better prediction rate. However, when you take away certain parts of that pattern and throw in varibles( pretests and tube rotations) in it's place, which will never be revealed to the public, the predictablity success rate is lowered.
The simplest example is an overdue number in the pick-3 game. If number 3 was overdue in the first position for 18 days in a row, and THAT specific tube in the first position was never rotated or had pretests done to it, the prediction rate would increase. I've seen it a thousand times. An overdue number will show, but in another position......why????????.....because the that overdue tube was rotated to another position. That makes it more difficult to predict, among other factors.
How would you like to invest in stocks and not see the daily value of the stock, but rather every 3rd or 4the day of the stock's performance? I'm guessing you'd all like to see the daily-consecutive performance charts.
I forgot to mention what else could also happen. That overdue tube which is now in a different position will have pretests done to it, which means that overdue number could have come out in the pretest and will not show at all for even a longer period of time in any new position, which I've seen many times also.
MD United States
Member #1,701
June 18, 2003
10,731 Posts
Offline
I don't know how any tube could affect the drawing. Each tube is the same length, diameter and thickness. The inside diameter is within specified dimensions.
Each ball is dimensionally correct to within the specifications designed for them. Roundness thickness, weight and overall width.
BigJohn says. You don't hit the number. The number hits you!!!!
I'm not Big John, I'm Four4me, Big John's a friend.
United States
Member #17,554
June 22, 2005
5,582 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by four4me on Oct 3, 2008
I don't know how any tube could affect the drawing. Each tube is the same length, diameter and thickness. The inside diameter is within specified dimensions.
Each ball is dimensionally correct to within the specifications designed for them. Roundness thickness, weight and overall width.
I just got done explaining how the tube could affect the drawing. You're talking about the correct size and specs of the equipment. That is not what I'm saying. It's the different positions the tubes are rotated to, and pretests done to them that is the key factor. And NOT telling us what the pretest results and new positions are.
NY United States
Member #23,834
October 16, 2005
4,772 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by four4me on Oct 3, 2008
I don't know how any tube could affect the drawing. Each tube is the same length, diameter and thickness. The inside diameter is within specified dimensions.
Each ball is dimensionally correct to within the specifications designed for them. Roundness thickness, weight and overall width.
Two tubes with identical specs will still be different, even if only microscopically. At least in theory, the different tube could cause a different result even if every one of the thousands of other variables were exactly the same. A minor difference in friction, shape, or whatever could result in one ball or all of them having a slightly different speed or trajectory.
All of those variables acting together is what makes the drawings so thoroughly random, and that's why it's ridiculous for anyone to think that pretests affect the randomness of the drawing. If (note that it's a big if) there are any detectable patterns, having only some of the data will make it harder to detect or analyze the pattern, but when the drawings are random having extra drawings does absolutely nothing to change the randomness of any of the drawings.
MD United States
Member #1,701
June 18, 2003
10,731 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Oct 4, 2008
Two tubes with identical specs will still be different, even if only microscopically. At least in theory, the different tube could cause a different result even if every one of the thousands of other variables were exactly the same. A minor difference in friction, shape, or whatever could result in one ball or all of them having a slightly different speed or trajectory.
All of those variables acting together is what makes the drawings so thoroughly random, and that's why it's ridiculous for anyone to think that pretests affect the randomness of the drawing. If (note that it's a big if) there are any detectable patterns, having only some of the data will make it harder to detect or analyze the pattern, but when the drawings are random having extra drawings does absolutely nothing to change the randomness of any of the drawings.
Floyd the tubes are extruded probably in ten or twelve foot lengths and cut to size on a CNC lathe.
To whom it may concern i know quite a lot about the materials they use to build these machines i am a machinist i have worked for a few company's that buy materials from them. I know these tubes are extruded and while they might have microscopic differences they are nevertheless exact in size and shape to the specified allowable tolerances. (To fit the balls.) I have been to the company that makes the machines for the various state lottery's that use their brand. I know people who have made and still make the lottery machines. The company is about 2 miles from my house.
I don't care if they take the tubes out of a machine in Illinois and switch them with the machines in Maryland if they are the same make of machine they will fit either machine.
And while i cannot make anyone change there mind about the tubes affecting the draw. It just not the case.
The equipment used to make the various parts for the lottery machines is CNC controlled (Computer Numerical Controlled) capable of manufacturing thousands if not millions of part to within. 00005 thats right a half a millionth. But thats not necessary for these parts. Most of them are within .001 to 002 some parts + or - .005 except the balls and tubes. They use statistical processing during a run of parts and any part that doesn't fit the specifications is scraped. They have go and no gages for the balls and tubes. Since the tubes are extruded on CNC extruder's they only need cut to length. On a CNC lathe. Outside of the balls and tubes the machines are a simple conglomeration of parts commonly referred to as mixer.
BigJohn says. You don't hit the number. The number hits you!!!!
I'm not Big John, I'm Four4me, Big John's a friend.
United States
Member #4,877
May 30, 2004
5,289 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Sep 28, 2008
I agree with Stew12, unofficial pre-test drawings are like warm-ups before a game. It wouldn't be professional to have live drawings with no idea if the equipment was working. Even when the results of the unofficial drawings are published, it's after the official drawing and can't help the players in that drawing. I'm sure some players play the numbers in the pre-test drawings and might feel cheated because the drawings that they might have won wasn't official and that may be a reason states don't publish them. The only drawings that count are the official ones.
United Kingdom
Member #31,294
January 27, 2006
73 Posts
Offline
Interesting post lotterybraker and it makes sense to those of that rely on past draws. How can you make a reasonable prediction if 3/4 of the data is missing?
CT United States
Member #61,396
May 21, 2008
781 Posts
Offline
One would think since each tube is identical (within specifications) moving them would prove to have no advantage for the randomness of the lottery. It seems to be the ball sets they are more concerned about, and rightfully so.
MD United States
Member #1,701
June 18, 2003
10,731 Posts
Offline
Thats right ball sets can be a key to their ability to control an outcome. But as stated by many lottery's they are randomly selected also.
The ball sets are weighed in accordance with procedures and a planned schedule. The Independent Accounting Firm observes and certifies the internal weighing of ball sets. Each ball must meet very strict weight guidelines: The weight of each Ping Pong style ball must fall within +/- 0.095 grams of the average weight of the ball set. The weight of each natural-rubber ball must fall within +/- 1 gram of the average weight of the ball set.
It seems to me no matter what the lottery does to get drawings out people are going to complain that they are cheating us.