Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 3, 2016, 4:44 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

TEST DRAW insider info for new Powerball. 17 & 7 are ON FIRE.

Topic closed. 47 replies. Last post 8 years ago by Editgap.

Page 1 of 4
PrintE-mailLink
TotallyDavis's avatar - Lottery-061.jpg
New Member
North Charleston, SC
United States
Member #69214
January 6, 2009
45 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 11, 2009, 7:53 pm - IP Logged

A lot of serious players are probably going to be furious with me for sharing this publically, because it increases your chances of winning the jackpot, but what the hey.  As long as it's a LotteryPost member, right?  Here we go...  first the four required predraws to test the equipment (that could have easily been the official draws; they were done the same way), and then the required post test drawing.  Random distribution?  Hardly.

 

01/07 Pre-Test Draws

 

 01        17        30        20        28      -     16

 38        17        29        22        28      -     12

 51        11        37        53        07       -     26

 14        19        58        20        35      -     10

01/07 Official Draw

 31        52        23        33        38      -     24

01/07 Post Draw Test

 35        26        17        36        07      -    28

As you can see, even though they didn't take place in the main drawing, 07 and 17 are very hot in the pre-draws and in the post draws.  Also of note are the numbers 28, 20, 38, 35.  They took place more than once as well and that may indicate a trend.

Good luck Powerballers!  When the info for the 10th is up, I'll take a look at that too!

    Guru101's avatar - rw6jhh
    Indiana
    United States
    Member #48725
    January 7, 2007
    1953 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 11, 2009, 8:23 pm - IP Logged

    I really hope you're kidding. You see 2 numbers come up several times on a single dates pre-draws and post-draw, and all of a sudden the game is rigged and not random.Roll Eyes

    Gonna win.Big Smile

      TotallyDavis's avatar - Lottery-061.jpg
      New Member
      North Charleston, SC
      United States
      Member #69214
      January 6, 2009
      45 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 11, 2009, 8:49 pm - IP Logged

      No, that's not what I said.  I never said the game was rigged.

      I said that those numbers were hitting too much for it to be standard coincidence.

      The ball machine is not a truly random system.  There does not currently exist ANY way to randomly generate a number on earth, not a true random one.

      So the ball machine follows certain rules and patterns, no matter how honest they try to make the lottery.

      And I'm telling you that the machine is not doing a great job of mixing the balls up, because certain numbers are hitting more frequently than they should be given a truly random distrobution.

        RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
        mid-Ohio
        United States
        Member #9
        March 24, 2001
        19816 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 11, 2009, 9:17 pm - IP Logged

        And I'm telling you that the machine is not doing a great job of mixing the balls up, because certain numbers are hitting more frequently than they should be given a truly random distrobution.

        Are you saying that randomness has a particular distribution pattern that can be identified?  And if you don't see that pattern in the numbers drawn, they can't be truly randomly picked?

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

          TotallyDavis's avatar - Lottery-061.jpg
          New Member
          North Charleston, SC
          United States
          Member #69214
          January 6, 2009
          45 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 11, 2009, 9:29 pm - IP Logged

          I'm saying that there is no randomness.  Every number you, or a machine, could conceivably generate is not random.  It is merely the result of the physics of the universe playing out a certain way.  We just see those numbers as random because we believe we couldn't possibly predict them.

          For example, you might say that flipping a coin is random, but given a supercomputer, and all the exact data about how hard you are flipping it, the density of the air, the height from which it was flipped you would theoretically be able to predict how the coin would land.

          Just like if you had a powerful enough computer super computer, and all the exact measurements of the powerball machine, and it's dimensions, etc. you would theoretically be able to predict exactly which balls will land at what time.

          Now we don't have that, but we'll take what we can get.

          College statistics was quite a few years back, but there are formulas that determine what the chances are that a given set of results will occur from what is supposed to be a 'random' system.

          For example, those formulas would say that the chances of the powerball winning numbers being 01 02 03 04 05, with pb of 06 a few times in a row are so low that they are almost statistically refutable.  You might say, "well how can we know that's just not randomness?", but a statistician would say, "We can be 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% sure that something is not right here."

          Now I am not saying that something isn't right.  Powerball is running the most honest game it can, but NO ONE can generate random numbers.  All they can do is hope their machine is mixing the balls up enough so that the numbers appear random.  And the machine, by the looks of it, is not.

            Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
            Chief Bottle Washer
            New Jersey
            United States
            Member #1
            May 31, 2000
            23259 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 11, 2009, 10:10 pm - IP Logged

            <Moved to Jackpot Games forum>

            Please post in the appropriate forum ... thank you.

              Avatar
              San Diego, CA
              United States
              Member #58386
              February 12, 2008
              287 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 11, 2009, 10:25 pm - IP Logged

              TD,

               

              You have mail in your private inbox.

                Guru101's avatar - rw6jhh
                Indiana
                United States
                Member #48725
                January 7, 2007
                1953 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 11, 2009, 11:36 pm - IP Logged

                I'm saying that there is no randomness.  Every number you, or a machine, could conceivably generate is not random.  It is merely the result of the physics of the universe playing out a certain way.  We just see those numbers as random because we believe we couldn't possibly predict them.

                For example, you might say that flipping a coin is random, but given a supercomputer, and all the exact data about how hard you are flipping it, the density of the air, the height from which it was flipped you would theoretically be able to predict how the coin would land.

                Just like if you had a powerful enough computer super computer, and all the exact measurements of the powerball machine, and it's dimensions, etc. you would theoretically be able to predict exactly which balls will land at what time.

                Now we don't have that, but we'll take what we can get.

                College statistics was quite a few years back, but there are formulas that determine what the chances are that a given set of results will occur from what is supposed to be a 'random' system.

                For example, those formulas would say that the chances of the powerball winning numbers being 01 02 03 04 05, with pb of 06 a few times in a row are so low that they are almost statistically refutable.  You might say, "well how can we know that's just not randomness?", but a statistician would say, "We can be 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% sure that something is not right here."

                Now I am not saying that something isn't right.  Powerball is running the most honest game it can, but NO ONE can generate random numbers.  All they can do is hope their machine is mixing the balls up enough so that the numbers appear random.  And the machine, by the looks of it, is not.

                Your argument to there being no randomness is "it's just a result of the physics of the universe playing out a certain way". That's an invalid argument because it doesn't nullify the definition of random. You're examples of the coin flip and balls are invalid as well. A super computer wouldn't be able to predict a coin flip because it doesn't know how hard the person will flip the coin. So you're telling me the mixing of the balls by the current procedure isn't good enough?

                Gonna win.Big Smile

                  Avatar
                  NY
                  United States
                  Member #23835
                  October 16, 2005
                  3474 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 12, 2009, 3:55 am - IP Logged

                  1. You clearly don't remember much of what you might have learned in that college statistics course if you think that this one set of drawings provides any meaningful information.
                  2. You don't know enough (or care enough) to figure out whether the results are perfectly normal, or slightly unlikely. If slightly unlikely, you don't know whether there are too many or too few repeats.
                  3. You don't even seem to know what randomness is. I'll agree that we're completely unable to develop something that's perfectly random. For the sake of argument I'll even stipulate that the PB machines are dismal failures. That you say there is "no randomness" is absolutely ludicrous.

                  I'm not going to say you're wrong about this not being a random distribution, but it's well within the bounds of normality. Since you don't mention anything at all about the one characteristic that  might suggest a departure from a purely random distribution I've got to assume that's not what leads you to your conclusion.

                    TotallyDavis's avatar - Lottery-061.jpg
                    New Member
                    North Charleston, SC
                    United States
                    Member #69214
                    January 6, 2009
                    45 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 12, 2009, 4:14 am - IP Logged

                    A small set of data actually can provide meaningful information, if it is unlikely enough.

                    Suppose I tell you I have randomly shuffled this deck of cards, and I am going to deal you random cards now.

                    Then I deal you the 2 of spades, then the 3 of spades, then the 4 of spades, then the 5 of spades.

                    You stop me and say, "Hey, are you sure you shuffled this deck?" and I respond, "Yeah, I did.  It's just random."

                    Well... maybe it is.  It certainly is possible that a "randomly" shuffled deck of cards could do that.  But it also could mean that the randomization process I used wasn't perfect (and none are).

                    If you were a betting man, you might even take 1000:1 odds that the next card is the 6 of spades.

                    It's the same way with the Powerball numbers.  They come to us and say, "Here are brand new numbers that are totally random because of our awesome new machines.  Now we will draw some test balls."  Now in a field of 59 numbers, if we draw 30 (about half) of them (because that's how many total white balls were drawn including all practice draws and the real thing) and allow repeats, what would we expect?

                    We might see a repeat.  That wouldn't be odd.  But to have 4 or 5 different numbers repeat, and then have a certain number show up THREE times in our draw... that hints that the process is not as random as they originally thought.

                    There is no such thing as *random* when it comes down it.  I could type in 569283/9484 into my calculator, and I certainly wouldn't know what digit would be in the tens place of the answer, but does that mean it's random?  No, it means that the factors involved are so complicated that I can't possibly know what the result will be.  But that doesn't mean they are random.

                    Just like the coin flip.  It's not "random".  It's just that we can't possibly compute all the factors involved.  If we could, we would know what was going to happen.

                    Just like the Powerball.  We can't possibly compute exactly how the machine will mix the balls and then choose 5 of them, but just because we can't compute it doesn't mean it's random.  We just don't know what the outcome will be. 

                    But we can still look for trends.  And that's what those three 17's are.  They are an early trend that shouldn't be.  A strong indicator that 17 is hot right now, and the machine isn't mixing 17 fairly back into the other balls.  This isn't bad.  This is good.  This is great for players.

                    Players need every edge they can get.

                      Stew12's avatar - bad egg-64x64.png
                      CT
                      United States
                      Member #61398
                      May 21, 2008
                      781 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 12, 2009, 4:45 pm - IP Logged

                      There is not enough draw results to tell if the patterns are not truely random.  So far I do not see anything out of the ordinary.

                      Think of the classic Birthday Problem.  It only takes a group of 23 people to have a 50% chance that 2 of their birthdays are on the same day.  Although it seems unlikely with 365 days in the year, doesn't it?

                        Avatar
                        NY
                        United States
                        Member #23835
                        October 16, 2005
                        3474 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 12, 2009, 7:25 pm - IP Logged

                        "I deal you the 2 of spades, then the 3 of spades"

                        If multiple test draws had consecutive numbers you'd have a somewhat relevant analogy, if not an actual point. Since we didn't see consecutive numbers we're clearly not dealing with whether or not adjacent balls were adequately shuffled by the randomization process. The imaginary issue you're tilting at is the repeating of a few numbers in consecutive drawings.

                        "Now in a field of 59 numbers, if we draw 30 (about half) of them(because that's how many total white balls were drawn including allpractice draws and the real thing) and allow repeats, what would weexpect?"

                        I'd expect what probability suggests. How about you?

                        "We might see a repeat."

                        And here's our proof that you don't have a real grasp of the probability. Only having one or two repeats is quite unlikely.

                        "But to have 4 or 5different numbers repeat, and then have a certain number show up THREEtimes in our draw... that hints that the process is not as random asthey originally thought."

                        No, it only means that your concept of random is wrong. Having 3 to 6 repeats is what should be expected. Having one of those repeat a 3rd time should happen fairly often. That's based on the 5 regular balls. Incuding the power ball just makes repeats a bit more likely.

                        "I could type in 569283/9484 into my calculator, and I certainlywouldn't know what digit would be in the tens place of the answer, butdoes that mean it's random?  No, it means that the factors involved areso complicated that I can't possibly know what the result will be. "

                        Of course you can know what the result will be (even if you can't do it in your head), because the "factors" aren't complicated at all. It's an exact process, and not subject to any randomization, whether perfect or not. The numbers are bigger, but it works exactly the same as dividing 1 by 2,and every time you do it you'll get the same result, to 1000 decimalplaces if your calculator is good enough. Again, the example isn't at all analagous to  random probability.

                        If you pick *any* 6 PB drawings (or MM, since the number pool is similar) you should expect results that are similar to  the ones from the last drawing. It can be a single drawing with the tests, or it can be any 6 official drawings, without the test drawings. If you look at the last 6 PB results you'll find a pattern that's essentialy identical to what you used. 5 of the numbers repeate twice and one repeats 3 times.

                        All that said, just because the results don't really suggest a trend doesn't mean there isn't one. There's no question that the system isn't perfect, and a ball being  lighter or heavier, or less round by 1/1000 of 1% will have a very minor affect, making that ball the least bit more or less likely to be drawn. The problem is that even if a ball is a full 15 more or less likely, that's not very meaningful.

                        BTW, the number that came up 3 times in the previous 6 drawings? 17.

                          mymonthlypicks's avatar - spider
                          Virginia Beach,Va
                          United States
                          Member #65378
                          September 25, 2008
                          1180 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 13, 2009, 9:38 pm - IP Logged

                          How did you even come across the Pre and Post (TEST) numbers

                          If OBAMA'S The ANSWER

                          How STUPID was the QUESTION?

                            guesser's avatar - Lottery-017.jpg

                            United States
                            Member #41383
                            June 16, 2006
                            1969 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 14, 2009, 1:38 am - IP Logged

                            YIPPEE !!!

                            WOOHOO !!!

                            You have found a system that GUARANTEES that TWO numbers MIGHT HIT !!!!

                            Yowzers !!!

                            Let me see now - what does two white balls hitting pay ??

                            Oh yeah - NOTHING !!

                            LOL

                             

                            Guys, Gals, Mr. Davis - I have chewed TEST GAME DATA FOR THREE YEARS SOLID, A LOT LONGER THAN MOST ANYONE, and yes, there are TENDENCIES, but it's  1) still random, and 2) MIGHT get you ONE number - MAYBE.

                            I have found a lot more tendencies in test game data than you either know or are sharing, and that has gotten me precisely ONE number once in awhile, and nobody can tell me that hitting this number was anything more than random LUCK.

                            Anyone want my spreadsheet, let me know, I'd be happy to share what I have found, but I'm telling you, it's not worth the effort, which is why I gave up on this data - it didn't really solve anything.

                              guesser's avatar - Lottery-017.jpg

                              United States
                              Member #41383
                              June 16, 2006
                              1969 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: January 14, 2009, 1:42 am - IP Logged

                              There is not enough draw results to tell if the patterns are not truely random.  So far I do not see anything out of the ordinary.

                              Think of the classic Birthday Problem.  It only takes a group of 23 people to have a 50% chance that 2 of their birthdays are on the same day.  Although it seems unlikely with 365 days in the year, doesn't it?

                              That, and a broken clock is right twice a day.