Welcome Guest
You last visited December 10, 2016, 5:13 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Fooled by Randomness

Topic closed. 297 replies. Last post 6 years ago by jimmy4164.

 Page 12 of 20
Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
993 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 22, 2010, 12:25 am - IP Logged

Hello!

Jimmy

Making a profit playing the state lottery and doing better than by "random chance" don't have to be the same thing.

In truth, I hardly know anything at all about Math, but I read somewhere that if a game such as the pick 3 has 1000 straight combinations and that if a person plays 1 number-line each draw, that in the very long run in average a person might win about 1 time straight for every 1000 draws played, so in 100 000 draws played a person might have won close to 100 times, How "close"?

I have no idea.

So that if a person does better than by "random expectation" such as getting more than 100 straight wins on the 100 000 draws played then a person would "beat" "random".

------------

What are Odds?

The odds are a thing of perspective or "point of view", Or are they? They are not!

The "rule" is very clear:

While each number bought has a 1/1000 chance of winning, buying 10 do give better odds, Why? Because after all if you buy 1000 numbers you have 100% chance of winning, even if even then each number still has a 1/1000 chance of winning, so the more numbers bought the better that the chances will be, that should now be very clear to most people.

------------------

So to "beat" random you have to do better than by random expectation.

If you win 2 times straight on 1000 draws playing 1 number per draw then you beat random on those 1000 draws.

------------

What is better? To buy 1 number per draw for 1000 draws or to buy 10 numbers per draw for 100 draws?

1 number per draw gives you 1/1000 chance of winning always.

10 numbers per draw give you 1/100 chance of winning.

But even at 1/1000 per draw extending the playing from 100 to 1000 draws equalize the odds, so both have exactly the same odds, so both are just as good.

-------

But I might be wrong on everything that I wrote there, after all, What do I know about such things, I am "Math Dumb"

-----

Well I wrote a program today and tried 4000 different systems (the systems were all similiar but slightly different so they were easy to implement) the best I could do using these simple systems was a prize ratio of 65%.  Since I'm a jackpot system player and not a Pick3 system player I would expect someone with more advanced Pick3 systems could do better than 65%.  Anyway that was my experiment into Pick3 systems,  now back to jackpot games.

Jimmy

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 22, 2010, 12:50 am - IP Logged

Hello!

Jimmy

Making a profit playing the state lottery and doing better than by "random chance" don't have to be the same thing.

In truth, I hardly know anything at all about Math, but I read somewhere that if a game such as the pick 3 has 1000 straight combinations and that if a person plays 1 number-line each draw, that in the very long run in average a person might win about 1 time straight for every 1000 draws played, so in 100 000 draws played a person might have won close to 100 times, How "close"?

I have no idea.

So that if a person does better than by "random expectation" such as getting more than 100 straight wins on the 100 000 draws played then a person would "beat" "random".

------------

What are Odds?

The odds are a thing of perspective or "point of view", Or are they? They are not!

The "rule" is very clear:

While each number bought has a 1/1000 chance of winning, buying 10 do give better odds, Why? Because after all if you buy 1000 numbers you have 100% chance of winning, even if even then each number still has a 1/1000 chance of winning, so the more numbers bought the better that the chances will be, that should now be very clear to most people.

------------------

So to "beat" random you have to do better than by random expectation.

If you win 2 times straight on 1000 draws playing 1 number per draw then you beat random on those 1000 draws.

------------

What is better? To buy 1 number per draw for 1000 draws or to buy 10 numbers per draw for 100 draws?

1 number per draw gives you 1/1000 chance of winning always.

10 numbers per draw give you 1/100 chance of winning.

But even at 1/1000 per draw extending the playing from 100 to 1000 draws equalize the odds, so both have exactly the same odds, so both are just as good.

-------

But I might be wrong on everything that I wrote there, after all, What do I know about such things, I am "Math Dumb"

-----

LANTERN,

But I might be wrong on everything that I wrote there, after all, What do I know about such things, I am "Math Dumb"

I don't see any glaring errors in anything you wrote above.  You seem to have the basics within your grasp.  I only see one error;  it's one of ommission, but a big one.  When you mentioned that increasing your number of bets increased your probability of winning, you forgot to mention that your costs for ticket purchases went up in direct proportion to your expected winnings.

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 22, 2010, 1:17 am - IP Logged

Well I wrote a program today and tried 4000 different systems (the systems were all similiar but slightly different so they were easy to implement) the best I could do using these simple systems was a prize ratio of 65%.  Since I'm a jackpot system player and not a Pick3 system player I would expect someone with more advanced Pick3 systems could do better than 65%.  Anyway that was my experiment into Pick3 systems,  now back to jackpot games.

Jimmy

An Expected Value of 0.65 is better than 0.50, but that's about all!  Without a Time Machine, I could not help anyone minimize their losses in the PA Daily Number Game by telling them to buy 308 every day.  Analogously, I suspect it's only with hindsight that you can find a 0.65 system or system parameters from 4000 possibilities.

Do you believe that hypotheses tested and verified in a Pick3 game can be carried forward to Pick5&6 games?  A popular purchase here in the Pick3 is a "50 / 50" ticket,  50¢ Box / 50¢ Straight.  Effectively, you have the equivalent of a Pick5 Lotto ticket, albeit with single digit numbers, lower odds, and lower payouts.

Tx
United States
Member #4570
May 4, 2004
5180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 22, 2010, 4:38 am - IP Logged

LANTERN,

But I might be wrong on everything that I wrote there, after all, What do I know about such things, I am "Math Dumb"

I don't see any glaring errors in anything you wrote above.  You seem to have the basics within your grasp.  I only see one error;  it's one of ommission, but a big one.  When you mentioned that increasing your number of bets increased your probability of winning, you forgot to mention that your costs for ticket purchases went up in direct proportion to your expected winnings.

--Jimmy4164

Hi!

Yes,

When you go up from 1 number per draw to 10, you expect to win sooner.

That expenses increase by 10 times over the 100 draws, but in the end:

10 X 100 Draws= \$1000

And:

1 x 1000 Draws= \$1000 also.

-----------

If you play 10 numbers per draw and you keep it up, then:

10 x 1000  Draws= \$10 000 expent, but on 1000 you expect:

Not just \$1000, but \$10,000.

-----------

So expend on numbers X 10 times than before, then:

Expect to win X 10 times also than before.

------------

I thought that that was already being understood.

-----------

Thanks a lot, just the same and Good Luck!

Fernando.

"Ten measures of beauty descended to the world, nine were taken by Jerusalem."

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 22, 2010, 1:50 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy

You almost got it but not quite.  I am not saying play the rest but to make a selection from the rest.

Lets say you played 1 triple every day.  You could expect to hit about 1 out of every 1000 plays on

average.  It could go higher or lower.

If You play singles the odds are still 1 in 1000 for any one set / drawing but I think you would agree

that 72% of all draws would come from this group while only .001% would come from the triple digit

sets.  If you play box-any order than you will win more often than playing straight-exact order.  You

may not win more than you play but you will win more often.  This is what I call playing smarter.

As concerning system play have you ever considered using secondary data that does seem to have a

somewhat prediciable outcome.  As I have stated I don't use numbers in my system and never look at

them except when filling in the playslips.  I have found that  I can predict certian data with a 90% or

better accuracy more than 75% of the time.  System builders won't release certian data as it is often

a result of many hours of hard work and is the key to the system.  My system requires input from the

user and if correct then the winning set is produced. Maybe it would be better to call it a tool as I have

many times within my post.  I still think that you use a basic math example to explain everything and

as long as it is used in this way it will always give the same results.  Many here playing pick-3 / 4 games

have many methods that as far as I can tell change as often as the weather.  The only way to test these

systems is to start now and follow their progress, adapting as they adapt their play.  If you can find

a so called system that uses the same method day after day than you could backtest it but only then.

To apply your method to a what I call a mini system is just a waste of time as it will always show the

same results.  I know you will feel the need to calculate the wins above based on the PA pick-3 but

don't waste you time, I already know what they would be.  Instead calculate how much a QP would

have won and then tell me which would be worse.

RL

RL,

"...I have found that  I can predict certian data with a 90% or better accuracy more than 75% of the time...."

Which would result in a 0.675 Expected Value (0.90 X 0.75), right in the ballpark with JimmyjWright's 0.65 results that I suspect he got by fitting his systems and/or parameters to the data, after the fact.  Perhaps a little like the user input required by your program?     I could design a neural network that would predict winners with astonishing acuracy, provided you only tested it on the Draws used to Train it.  It would revert right back to a mediocre 0.50 picker the moment you turned it loose on Draws it never saw before.  This is KEY to understanding the FLAW in your method.

In terms of making money, 0.675 just doesn't make it anyway.  You need a 1.0 to at least break even!

"System builders won't release certian data as it is often a result of many hours of hard work and is the key to the system."

This is why you remind me of Monte Hall!  You keep hinting that you have some secret source of information that helps you a high enough percentage of the time to avoid discarding the numbers needed to beat the QPs.

Monte is 88 now, an active and busy fundraiser.  Might he have some "inside track" on the Show Me 5?

(Please excuse my silly joke! The answers to this puzzle are above.)

--Jimmy4164

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 22, 2010, 5:11 pm - IP Logged

Well I wrote a program today and tried 4000 different systems (the systems were all similiar but slightly different so they were easy to implement) the best I could do using these simple systems was a prize ratio of 65%.  Since I'm a jackpot system player and not a Pick3 system player I would expect someone with more advanced Pick3 systems could do better than 65%.  Anyway that was my experiment into Pick3 systems,  now back to jackpot games.

Jimmy

I can't envision anyone making a profit playing a pick 3 with quick-picks.   Maybe you or jimmy4164 can run a simulation of playing one QP (\$1.00) daily over the same PA data?   I'd like to see how many runs it takes to produce just one run with a profit.   I am not picky about how much of a profit - it can be a profit of \$1 over the 33 years.

I think your 4000 systems is a lot!  Are you going to leak any clue as to what the basic system was?  I also feel entirely different than jimmy4164 - beating random by showing a higher win percent IS beating random.  There doesn't have to be profit involved.  There wasn't any profit involved with random either. That wasn't part of the question.  Just as Monty Hall manipulating the doors because he does know what is behind each one wasn't part of the original question to Marilyn.

In the real world, of course profit is the issue.  Profit would be THE determining factor.  Win percent wouldn't matter.  If you could somehow show a profit with a win percent LESS than random,  SAME as random.  Or MORE than random.  Who cares how you do it.  Profit is all that counts when you play for money.  (I fully realize getting less than random would not produce a profit)...I'm just emphasizing that profit is king when you play for real.

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3985 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 22, 2010, 5:27 pm - IP Logged

RL,

"...I have found that  I can predict certian data with a 90% or better accuracy more than 75% of the time...."

Which would result in a 0.675 Expected Value (0.90 X 0.75), right in the ballpark with JimmyjWright's 0.65 results that I suspect he got by fitting his systems and/or parameters to the data, after the fact.  Perhaps a little like the user input required by your program?     I could design a neural network that would predict winners with astonishing acuracy, provided you only tested it on the Draws used to Train it.  It would revert right back to a mediocre 0.50 picker the moment you turned it loose on Draws it never saw before.  This is KEY to understanding the FLAW in your method.

In terms of making money, 0.675 just doesn't make it anyway.  You need a 1.0 to at least break even!

"System builders won't release certian data as it is often a result of many hours of hard work and is the key to the system."

This is why you remind me of Monte Hall!  You keep hinting that you have some secret source of information that helps you a high enough percentage of the time to avoid discarding the numbers needed to beat the QPs.

Monte is 88 now, an active and busy fundraiser.  Might he have some "inside track" on the Show Me 5?

(Please excuse my silly joke! The answers to this puzzle are above.)

--Jimmy4164

Jimmy

You are a basket case, and your childish remarks are a testament to your low IQ.  Check any matrix

for any lotttery and you will find the information that the game will conform to before the very first

drawing.  You are the one who thinks he is smart and you are not.  You cannot see outside the

very little box that you live in.  When I choose to play any lottery the first thing that I look at is the

total number of sets possible for the matrix.  This gives me the odds for selecting the correct set at

random.  If I have, as in my 5-39 game 575757 total 5 number sets then the odds for any one single

set chosen at random for any one game is 1 in 575757.   From this I can calculate everything you

have posted here to with a high degree of accuracy.  Even buying two tickets improves the chances

of winning for any one drawing.  This would give one a very small advantage but it is an advantage.

You insist on measuring the success of any system player based on how much spent vs winnings and

then compare this to your PA history and think you are proving something.  The lottery resets with

every drawing and everything I do to improve my play is for that one drawing.  Unless I use the exact

same settings for another play then it cannot be compaired to previous attempt.  The odds do not in

any way predict which set will be drawn.  If I purchase all 575757 sets the odds for the game are still

1 in 575757 and don't change just because I purchased all the sets.  Your logic may apply to some

players and others it will not.  I think you must have failed in many attemps throughout your life and

think that you can save others from making your mistakes.  The problem here is that because you have

failed you think everyone else will fail the same way.  What I spend on the lottery today has no bearing

on what I spend tomorrow.  The compairing of one play against all drawings will give the results you

describe but mean nothing.  I could say that your next QP will will win nothing and then say that if

you play QP's your whole life that you will loose far more than you will ever win and be correct in saying

this.  Even if I say it to thousands of people it would hold true.  Then If one of the thousands did win I

could simply say that it is a random event and ask them to win another to prove their method.  I would

seem to be correct all the time and have very little concern that anyone would prove me wrong.  Using

this simple math I could use it to poke fun and make jokes of everyone and still not be too concerned

that anyone would prove me wrong.   Sorry to say there are many that use this methods so they can

feel better or smarter and hide the real reasons behind it.   I will use my best data and every other

means that I feel will improve my play and if I am wrong then I will loose a couple of bucks.  If I am

right then I will pocket many many bucks.  I ask you to take a very hard look in the mirror and ask

why am you are doing this.

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 22, 2010, 6:24 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy

You are a basket case, and your childish remarks are a testament to your low IQ.  Check any matrix

for any lotttery and you will find the information that the game will conform to before the very first

drawing.  You are the one who thinks he is smart and you are not.  You cannot see outside the

very little box that you live in.  When I choose to play any lottery the first thing that I look at is the

total number of sets possible for the matrix.  This gives me the odds for selecting the correct set at

random.  If I have, as in my 5-39 game 575757 total 5 number sets then the odds for any one single

set chosen at random for any one game is 1 in 575757.   From this I can calculate everything you

have posted here to with a high degree of accuracy.  Even buying two tickets improves the chances

of winning for any one drawing.  This would give one a very small advantage but it is an advantage.

You insist on measuring the success of any system player based on how much spent vs winnings and

then compare this to your PA history and think you are proving something.  The lottery resets with

every drawing and everything I do to improve my play is for that one drawing.  Unless I use the exact

same settings for another play then it cannot be compaired to previous attempt.  The odds do not in

any way predict which set will be drawn.  If I purchase all 575757 sets the odds for the game are still

1 in 575757 and don't change just because I purchased all the sets.  Your logic may apply to some

players and others it will not.  I think you must have failed in many attemps throughout your life and

think that you can save others from making your mistakes.  The problem here is that because you have

failed you think everyone else will fail the same way.  What I spend on the lottery today has no bearing

on what I spend tomorrow.  The compairing of one play against all drawings will give the results you

describe but mean nothing.  I could say that your next QP will will win nothing and then say that if

you play QP's your whole life that you will loose far more than you will ever win and be correct in saying

this.  Even if I say it to thousands of people it would hold true.  Then If one of the thousands did win I

could simply say that it is a random event and ask them to win another to prove their method.  I would

seem to be correct all the time and have very little concern that anyone would prove me wrong.  Using

this simple math I could use it to poke fun and make jokes of everyone and still not be too concerned

that anyone would prove me wrong.   Sorry to say there are many that use this methods so they can

feel better or smarter and hide the real reasons behind it.   I will use my best data and every other

means that I feel will improve my play and if I am wrong then I will loose a couple of bucks.  If I am

right then I will pocket many many bucks.  I ask you to take a very hard look in the mirror and ask

why am you are doing this.

RL,

Wow!  My last posting must have really hit a nerve!

"The odds do not in any way predict which set will be drawn.  If I purchase all 575757 sets the odds for the game are still 1 in 575757 and don't change just because I purchased all the sets.  Your logic may apply to some players and others it will not."

You have a strange understanding of probability.  Probability does not apply differently to different people.  Regardless of whether I have misinterpreted some of your long winded ramblings or not, the fact remains you are claiming to get "blood out of a turnip!"  Where I come from, this doesn't happen.

I would be glad to address specific concerns if you would be willing to keep them focused on specific items.  Since most of the disagreements here stem from the psychologically explainable belief in the Gambler's Fallacy, why not cut and paste a copy of the wiki of it here and tear it apart, line by line, so we can all understand what you're talking about.

In closing, I think I should point out that if you purchase all 575757 combinations in a (5,39) lotto, you have, definitely, changed the odds FOR YOU!  In that case, your odds of winning are 1.0 !!

I would recommend, however, that you don't compare your winnings with what you spent to get that win!

--Jimmy4164

Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
993 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 22, 2010, 11:51 pm - IP Logged

An Expected Value of 0.65 is better than 0.50, but that's about all!  Without a Time Machine, I could not help anyone minimize their losses in the PA Daily Number Game by telling them to buy 308 every day.  Analogously, I suspect it's only with hindsight that you can find a 0.65 system or system parameters from 4000 possibilities.

Do you believe that hypotheses tested and verified in a Pick3 game can be carried forward to Pick5&6 games?  A popular purchase here in the Pick3 is a "50 / 50" ticket,  50¢ Box / 50¢ Straight.  Effectively, you have the equivalent of a Pick5 Lotto ticket, albeit with single digit numbers, lower odds, and lower payouts.

The only hindsight I used in my test 4000 systems (actually it was 999*4 or 3996) was to use the previous draw to predict the next draw.  That doesn't seem like cheating to me but if it makes you feel better then OK.

You know you can go to the prediction board and filter Pennsylvania Pick 3 games and find the top predictors.?  Here are 18 people that have done better than 100% on your Pennsylvania Pick 3 game.

Jimmy

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 23, 2010, 12:51 am - IP Logged

The only hindsight I used in my test 4000 systems (actually it was 999*4 or 3996) was to use the previous draw to predict the next draw.  That doesn't seem like cheating to me but if it makes you feel better then OK.

You know you can go to the prediction board and filter Pennsylvania Pick 3 games and find the top predictors.?  Here are 18 people that have done better than 100% on your Pennsylvania Pick 3 game.

Jimmy

jimjwright,

Do you know what a normal bell-shaped distribution curve looks like?  How far out in the right hand tails of these distributions do you see the TOP 11 over the last 30 days and the TOP 18 lifetime shown above?  As you should know, we can't answer that question without knowing HOW MANY PEOPLE IN TOTAL these 11 and 18 are a subset of, and even more important, what were the prize ratios of the BOTTOM 50 and the OVERALL AVERAGE.  Do you know?

In the limited information displayed above,  I see nothing that can't be explained by the characteristics of a typical Random Distribution.

Are you REALLY persuaded that there is more useful information in today's Draw beyond its value as a SEED for a Random Number Generator?

--Jimmy4164

Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
993 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 23, 2010, 1:26 am - IP Logged

jimjwright,

Do you know what a normal bell-shaped distribution curve looks like?  How far out in the right hand tails of these distributions do you see the TOP 11 over the last 30 days and the TOP 18 lifetime shown above?  As you should know, we can't answer that question without knowing HOW MANY PEOPLE IN TOTAL these 11 and 18 are a subset of, and even more important, what were the prize ratios of the BOTTOM 50 and the OVERALL AVERAGE.  Do you know?

In the limited information displayed above,  I see nothing that can't be explained by the characteristics of a typical Random Distribution.

Are you REALLY persuaded that there is more useful information in today's Draw beyond its value as a SEED for a Random Number Generator?

--Jimmy4164

No I am way too stupid to know what a bell shape curve is.  SEED and Random Number Generator way too complex for me.

Jimmy

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3985 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 23, 2010, 1:41 am - IP Logged

RL,

Wow!  My last posting must have really hit a nerve!

"The odds do not in any way predict which set will be drawn.  If I purchase all 575757 sets the odds for the game are still 1 in 575757 and don't change just because I purchased all the sets.  Your logic may apply to some players and others it will not."

You have a strange understanding of probability.  Probability does not apply differently to different people.  Regardless of whether I have misinterpreted some of your long winded ramblings or not, the fact remains you are claiming to get "blood out of a turnip!"  Where I come from, this doesn't happen.

I would be glad to address specific concerns if you would be willing to keep them focused on specific items.  Since most of the disagreements here stem from the psychologically explainable belief in the Gambler's Fallacy, why not cut and paste a copy of the wiki of it here and tear it apart, line by line, so we can all understand what you're talking about.

In closing, I think I should point out that if you purchase all 575757 combinations in a (5,39) lotto, you have, definitely, changed the odds FOR YOU!  In that case, your odds of winning are 1.0 !!

I would recommend, however, that you don't compare your winnings with what you spent to get that win!

--Jimmy4164

Jimmy

Nerves are fine, just doing the same as you in wasting time taking a few cheap shots.  These are the

best definitions I could find.  Explain where I fall into the gamblers fallacy using the definition taken from

the website you refer to most.  I do not use deviations from expected behaviour for anything never have

never will.

Monte Carlo Fallacy or the Gamblers Fallacy

#1 The belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independant trials of

some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the

future.

#2 The error of believing that past occurrences of a repeating random event will influence its future

occurrences. The gamblers fallacy misunderstands the law of large numbers to infer that future events

will catch up with expecteded regularities

I don't believe that any deviations produced by a random event will ever even out or catch up in any

predictiable manner.  I do believe that all random events will produce deviations from the expected

event.

I once wrote a program that played like a game, It had 44 targets and each was connected to a number.

The idea was to shoot as many as you could without hitting a target with one of the 5 numbers from a set

randomly selected from my database.  My Best was over 20 targets in a row.  When you moved the sight

over the target a simple hit/skip record for the number connected to the target would be displayed.  After

each game the numbers would be shuffled and another randomly selected set from the database would be

used.  It was very easy to hit 10 numbers in a row that were not in the randomly selected set.  Removing

just 5 numbers from a 5-39 game will reduce the total sets by 52%.  I will say in advance that you will

not see any advantage in removing even one number from a pool of numbers because how can this

force the lottery not to draw that number or some long line of bull that if I played this way every day

then I could expect to loose thousands of dollars.  Just keep donating your \$6.00 per week and keep

believing the way you do as it is people like you that make the biggest contributions to the jackpots

that others win.

RL

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 23, 2010, 4:04 am - IP Logged

Jimmy

Nerves are fine, just doing the same as you in wasting time taking a few cheap shots.  These are the

best definitions I could find.  Explain where I fall into the gamblers fallacy using the definition taken from

the website you refer to most.  I do not use deviations from expected behaviour for anything never have

never will.

Monte Carlo Fallacy or the Gamblers Fallacy

#1 The belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independant trials of

some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the

future.

#2 The error of believing that past occurrences of a repeating random event will influence its future

occurrences. The gamblers fallacy misunderstands the law of large numbers to infer that future events

will catch up with expecteded regularities

I don't believe that any deviations produced by a random event will ever even out or catch up in any

predictiable manner.  I do believe that all random events will produce deviations from the expected

event.

I once wrote a program that played like a game, It had 44 targets and each was connected to a number.

The idea was to shoot as many as you could without hitting a target with one of the 5 numbers from a set

randomly selected from my database.  My Best was over 20 targets in a row.  When you moved the sight

over the target a simple hit/skip record for the number connected to the target would be displayed.  After

each game the numbers would be shuffled and another randomly selected set from the database would be

used.  It was very easy to hit 10 numbers in a row that were not in the randomly selected set.  Removing

just 5 numbers from a 5-39 game will reduce the total sets by 52%.  I will say in advance that you will

not see any advantage in removing even one number from a pool of numbers because how can this

force the lottery not to draw that number or some long line of bull that if I played this way every day

then I could expect to loose thousands of dollars.  Just keep donating your \$6.00 per week and keep

believing the way you do as it is people like you that make the biggest contributions to the jackpots

that others win.

RL

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

Indirectly and oversimplified, here is your method in a nutshell, defined by you:

"I will say in advance that you(meaning me I presume, Jimmy4164) will not see any advantage in removing even one number from a pool of numbers because how can this force the lottery not to draw that number or some long line of bull..."

You are absolutely right; I would not see any advantage other than you might be able to afford to buy a subset of the possible outcomes and not be able to afford them all (575,757).   UNTIL you can tell us all how you are going to prohibit the Lottery from choosing the numbers you've discarded, I will continue to see no advantage to their removal, except for the reason given.

You know, those who use previous results to predict the future at least have the possibility going for them that they could uncover mechanical problems or fraud.  I happen to believe that even if their system does stumble on an anomoly, they will not be able to exploit it.  But in your case, basing your next day's prediction entirely on ONE previous day's result, is a joke!

Something tonight caused me to remember what's referred to as the Perfect Prediction.

It's explained here:

http://www.skepdic.com/perfectprediction.html

Nahhh, you wouldn't be capable of anything like that, right?  But if you were, then your method wouldn't be a joke after all!  Would it?

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 23, 2010, 4:14 am - IP Logged

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

Indirectly and oversimplified, here is your method in a nutshell, defined by you:

"I will say in advance that you(meaning me I presume, Jimmy4164) will not see any advantage in removing even one number from a pool of numbers because how can this force the lottery not to draw that number or some long line of bull..."

You are absolutely right; I would not see any advantage other than you might be able to afford to buy a subset of the possible outcomes and not be able to afford them all (575,757).   UNTIL you can tell us all how you are going to prohibit the Lottery from choosing the numbers you've discarded, I will continue to see no advantage to their removal, except for the reason given.

You know, those who use previous results to predict the future at least have the possibility going for them that they could uncover mechanical problems or fraud.  I happen to believe that even if their system does stumble on an anomoly, they will not be able to exploit it.  But in your case, basing your next day's prediction entirely on ONE previous day's result, is a joke!

Something tonight caused me to remember what's referred to as the Perfect Prediction.

It's explained here:

http://www.skepdic.com/perfectprediction.html

Nahhh, you wouldn't be capable of anything like that, right?  But if you were, then your method wouldn't be a joke after all!  Would it?

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  RL, I forgot to commend you on finally [indirectly] admitting that the Gambler's Fallacy really is a fallacy by insisting that you don't make those kinds of mistakes in your thinking!  Congrats!!

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3985 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 23, 2010, 8:34 am - IP Logged

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

Indirectly and oversimplified, here is your method in a nutshell, defined by you:

"I will say in advance that you(meaning me I presume, Jimmy4164) will not see any advantage in removing even one number from a pool of numbers because how can this force the lottery not to draw that number or some long line of bull..."

You are absolutely right; I would not see any advantage other than you might be able to afford to buy a subset of the possible outcomes and not be able to afford them all (575,757).   UNTIL you can tell us all how you are going to prohibit the Lottery from choosing the numbers you've discarded, I will continue to see no advantage to their removal, except for the reason given.

You know, those who use previous results to predict the future at least have the possibility going for them that they could uncover mechanical problems or fraud.  I happen to believe that even if their system does stumble on an anomoly, they will not be able to exploit it.  But in your case, basing your next day's prediction entirely on ONE previous day's result, is a joke!

Something tonight caused me to remember what's referred to as the Perfect Prediction.

It's explained here:

http://www.skepdic.com/perfectprediction.html

Nahhh, you wouldn't be capable of anything like that, right?  But if you were, then your method wouldn't be a joke after all!  Would it?

--Jimmy4164

Jimmy

Still can't do anything but make childish remarks that have nothing to do with the post.  Where did

you get the idea that I base my predictions on one previous days results.  Why don't you post the

odds of selecting 1 number at random for the next drawing, or 5 numbers for that matter.  This is

what I am talking about, You sidestep the main question.  While all the numbers have the same odds

of being drawn only 5 of the 39 will be.

RL

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

 Page 12 of 20