Welcome Guest
You last visited December 3, 2016, 4:44 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 14 of 20

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 28, 2010, 5:18 pm - IP Logged

"I see no Cause & Effect relationships here at all, at least the kind you're implying.  There were more or less single digits in a particular collumn NOT because some other collumn was making it impossible for them to appear, but because they just happened to emerge from the machine when they did."

You're right in saying one position doesn't affect what digit is drawn in another position, but each digit position does have an effect on the three digit outcomes you're tracking. A three digit number cannot repeat or skip one to two drawings unless all three digit positions do exactly the same. From your data we learned yesterday's winner was drawn 14 times, one skip 16, and two skips 12 times and while they did outperform the average, they didn't outperform the cost of play.

A possible way to overcome the cost of play deficit is to consider playing each of the 3 digit positions together within repeat, skip 1, and skip two. The odds against any three digits being drawn in any one position is 2.33 to 1 and 12.7 to 1 in all three positions and the payoff odds are 17.5 to 1 in each drawing. I'd probably look for other methods for choosing which 3 digits to use in each position because of the cause and effect each digit has on the other digits within each position.

"...in all three positions and the payoff odds are 17.5 to 1 in each drawing."

How so?  In PA the Payoff Odds are 500 to 1, in MO, 600 to 1.

Also, you must be working with different definitions of the words "cause" and "effect" than I am, because I can make no sense of your last sentence.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 29, 2010, 3:20 pm - IP Logged

"...in all three positions and the payoff odds are 17.5 to 1 in each drawing."

How so?  In PA the Payoff Odds are 500 to 1, in MO, 600 to 1.

Also, you must be working with different definitions of the words "cause" and "effect" than I am, because I can make no sense of your last sentence.

Unless the PA evening pick-3 drawing has recently started using an RNG, the pick-3 number is determined by 3 individual drawings with each drawing using 10 numbered balls from 0 to 9. A 3 digit number can't repeat unless all 3 digits repeat. If the previous number was 739 and if any other digit but 7 is drawn in the first position, 739 can't repeat. Each individual digit drawing does have an effect on a three digit number repeating or skipping 1 or 2 drawings.

"...in all three positions and the payoff odds are 17.5 to 1 in each drawing."

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered. I suggested as a possible strategy using the repeat digit with 1 and 2 skip digits in each position which creates 27 three digit numbers. \$500 minus \$27 equals a \$473 profit and \$473 divided by \$27 the wager equals 17. 5 to 1. In each position the odds against are 7 to 3 or 2.33 to 1 so the odds against matching all three are 12.7 to 1 (2.33 X 2.33 X 2.33).

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run. But it's old news because one only has to look at the long term probability of the same thing happening to know what's a bad bet.

Did you actually play the same amount of money on the same number every day for 33 years and just now figure out it would have to defy all probability by averaging 2 hits every 1000 drawings just to break even?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 29, 2010, 4:08 pm - IP Logged

Unless the PA evening pick-3 drawing has recently started using an RNG, the pick-3 number is determined by 3 individual drawings with each drawing using 10 numbered balls from 0 to 9. A 3 digit number can't repeat unless all 3 digits repeat. If the previous number was 739 and if any other digit but 7 is drawn in the first position, 739 can't repeat. Each individual digit drawing does have an effect on a three digit number repeating or skipping 1 or 2 drawings.

"...in all three positions and the payoff odds are 17.5 to 1 in each drawing."

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered. I suggested as a possible strategy using the repeat digit with 1 and 2 skip digits in each position which creates 27 three digit numbers. \$500 minus \$27 equals a \$473 profit and \$473 divided by \$27 the wager equals 17. 5 to 1. In each position the odds against are 7 to 3 or 2.33 to 1 so the odds against matching all three are 12.7 to 1 (2.33 X 2.33 X 2.33).

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run. But it's old news because one only has to look at the long term probability of the same thing happening to know what's a bad bet.

Did you actually play the same amount of money on the same number every day for 33 years and just now figure out it would have to defy all probability by averaging 2 hits every 1000 drawings just to break even?

Stack47,

If the previous number was 739 and if any other digit but 7 is drawn in the first position, 739 can't repeat.

Of course!  But so what?  Once a number other than 7 pops out of the first machine, 729 is a dead horse.  However, BEFORE the first machine was cycled, the odds of 729 being drawn were 1 in 1000, the same as for all the other 999 possibilities.

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered.

Wrong.  Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered.  The ODDS remain the same, no matter what you bet.

I suggested as a possible strategy using the repeat digit with 1 and 2 skip digits in each position which creates 27 three digit numbers. \$500 minus \$27 equals a \$473 profit and \$473 divided by \$27 the wager equals 17. 5 to 1. In each position the odds against are 7 to 3 or 2.33 to 1 so the odds against matching all three are 12.7 to 1 (2.33 X 2.33 X 2.33).

This borders on double talk.  Bernoulli would roll over in his grave if he could read your paragraph above.  If you really had such an incredible edge in Pick-3, rather than trying to convince me,  I think you would be busy establishing confederates in all lottery states to prepare for the greatest take down of the lottery in history!

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run.

Wrong.  What you should have noticed, but apparently haven't, is that NO MATTER WHAT SCHEME we devise to pick numbers in a FAIR Pick-3 game, the average number of hits of Straight bets in 33.5 years is going to be clustered mostly in the range [8...16].

Did you actually play the same amount of money on the same number every day for 33 years and just now figure out it would have to defy all probability by averaging 2 hits every 1000 drawings just to break even?

No.  By the time the PA Daily Number game was started in 1977, 16 years had already elapsed since my first college level course in Probability & Statistics.  I knew in advance it was a bad bet.

It's a beautiful day - I'm 'outta here!

--Jimmy4164

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 29, 2010, 7:04 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

If the previous number was 739 and if any other digit but 7 is drawn in the first position, 739 can't repeat.

Of course!  But so what?  Once a number other than 7 pops out of the first machine, 729 is a dead horse.  However, BEFORE the first machine was cycled, the odds of 729 being drawn were 1 in 1000, the same as for all the other 999 possibilities.

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered.

Wrong.  Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered.  The ODDS remain the same, no matter what you bet.

I suggested as a possible strategy using the repeat digit with 1 and 2 skip digits in each position which creates 27 three digit numbers. \$500 minus \$27 equals a \$473 profit and \$473 divided by \$27 the wager equals 17. 5 to 1. In each position the odds against are 7 to 3 or 2.33 to 1 so the odds against matching all three are 12.7 to 1 (2.33 X 2.33 X 2.33).

This borders on double talk.  Bernoulli would roll over in his grave if he could read your paragraph above.  If you really had such an incredible edge in Pick-3, rather than trying to convince me,  I think you would be busy establishing confederates in all lottery states to prepare for the greatest take down of the lottery in history!

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run.

Wrong.  What you should have noticed, but apparently haven't, is that NO MATTER WHAT SCHEME we devise to pick numbers in a FAIR Pick-3 game, the average number of hits of Straight bets in 33.5 years is going to be clustered mostly in the range [8...16].

Did you actually play the same amount of money on the same number every day for 33 years and just now figure out it would have to defy all probability by averaging 2 hits every 1000 drawings just to break even?

No.  By the time the PA Daily Number game was started in 1977, 16 years had already elapsed since my first college level course in Probability & Statistics.  I knew in advance it was a bad bet.

It's a beautiful day - I'm 'outta here!

--Jimmy4164

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered.

Wrong.  Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered.  The ODDS remain the same, no matter what you bet.

====================================================

If you are talking pick 3 - straight bets for \$1 each the odds change by how many tickets you purchase or another way of saying that is by how much you bet.  Since 1 ticket = \$1.00.

Buy 1 ticket/ Bet \$1   - Odds are 1 in 1000

Buy 2 tickets/ Bet \$2 - Odds are now 2 in 1000 or 1 in 500

etc;

Buy 1000 tickets/ Bet \$1000 - Odds are now 1000 in 1000 or 1:1

Winnipeg
Member #14974
May 7, 2005
3639 Posts
Online
 Posted: August 29, 2010, 7:42 pm - IP Logged

"...every number should show within in its curcumfrence of time but this doesnt happen much."

Before you can decide whether numbers are showing within the limits you are specifying, you must have knowledge of the distribution of these numbers, either actual, or expected.  For example, after 1st reading your reply, I remembered the PA Cash 5 "Did my number ever hit before" link.  If you were to start entering sets of 5 from (1..43), you would soon tire looking for a hit.  The only sure way to get a hit in a reasonable period of time would be to retrieve a known winning set and plug it in.  Should this be a surprise?  Does this prove something is amiss?  No.  What it illustrates is how few of the possible sets of 43 numbers taken 5 at a time have been drawn thus far.  What's operating is the fact that there are 962,598 possible combinations of 43 numbers, 5 at a time.  If the lottery were to draw a different set every day, it will be 4617 before the last one is drawn!

Trying to prove a negative challenges you with a very "tough row to how!"

Amazon.com is a joke. Stuff that is pathetic(movies..books..etc) all seem to get 5 stars. I'm sure it's the folks that work there praising all the items so they sell..sell...sell...

i read the reveiw for the blue ray dvd...barkada?? barrada or some crap. 1 of those big wig movie critics sISKEL OR eBERT made it sound like it was the greatest visual ever made. I bought it..it's utter garbage. I tried to return it, but they said they can't take it back just cause it's garbage.

NO ONE BUY IT..IT'S CRAP. I was actually waiting the whole movie..thinking ok when is it gonna start. I know must of it was just pictures, but a bit of other pathEtic crap....amazon.com.....BUYER BEWARE!!!

I'm an N.S.A.

A Numerical Statistics Analyst.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 29, 2010, 10:57 pm - IP Logged

Amazon.com is a joke. Stuff that is pathetic(movies..books..etc) all seem to get 5 stars. I'm sure it's the folks that work there praising all the items so they sell..sell...sell...

i read the reveiw for the blue ray dvd...barkada?? barrada or some crap. 1 of those big wig movie critics sISKEL OR eBERT made it sound like it was the greatest visual ever made. I bought it..it's utter garbage. I tried to return it, but they said they can't take it back just cause it's garbage.

NO ONE BUY IT..IT'S CRAP. I was actually waiting the whole movie..thinking ok when is it gonna start. I know must of it was just pictures, but a bit of other pathEtic crap....amazon.com.....BUYER BEWARE!!!

Thanks for the heads up, tungsten chef.

I take it you don't think much of Taleb's work.

Obviously, experiences at Amazon.com will "vary."

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 29, 2010, 11:19 pm - IP Logged

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered.

Wrong.  Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered.  The ODDS remain the same, no matter what you bet.

====================================================

If you are talking pick 3 - straight bets for \$1 each the odds change by how many tickets you purchase or another way of saying that is by how much you bet.  Since 1 ticket = \$1.00.

Buy 1 ticket/ Bet \$1   - Odds are 1 in 1000

Buy 2 tickets/ Bet \$2 - Odds are now 2 in 1000 or 1 in 500

etc;

Buy 1000 tickets/ Bet \$1000 - Odds are now 1000 in 1000 or 1:1

truecritic,

OK.  Thanks for the clarification.  Stack47 apparently wasn't in error on THAT particular point.  Semantics can be a problem.  I think my way of differentiating between "Odds" and "Payoff Amounts" avoids these pitfalls, but to each his own.  Besides, that misunderstanding does not detract from any of the other comments I made.  I'm getting ready to throw in the towel here.  The Gambler's Fallacy reigns supreme!  All I can hope for is that a majority of the several thousand [estimate] people who have viewed this thread don't share the beliefs of the few vocal posters who are really confused.  If this is not the case, I'm afraid our country is headed for an even larger disparity with other countries in math and science.

--Jimmy4164

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19816 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 29, 2010, 11:37 pm - IP Logged

truecritic,

OK.  Thanks for the clarification.  Stack47 apparently wasn't in error on THAT particular point.  Semantics can be a problem.  I think my way of differentiating between "Odds" and "Payoff Amounts" avoids these pitfalls, but to each his own.  Besides, that misunderstanding does not detract from any of the other comments I made.  I'm getting ready to throw in the towel here.  The Gambler's Fallacy reigns supreme!  All I can hope for is that a majority of the several thousand [estimate] people who have viewed this thread don't share the beliefs of the few vocal posters who are really confused.  If this is not the case, I'm afraid our country is headed for an even larger disparity with other countries in math and science.

--Jimmy4164

You probably have read that ping pong balls have no memory and therefore can't effect future drawings.  Well the same is true for randomness, it can't actively confuse anyone.  It's just a name to describe the chaos of balls or numbers being mixed and picked.  Lottery players trying to define it and use it to improve their odd of winning doesn't spell dome for the country.  Who knows, they may discover something new about math that we didn't know.  Every day people are discovering things that couldn't even been dreamed a year earlier.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 29, 2010, 11:38 pm - IP Logged

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered.

Wrong.  Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered.  The ODDS remain the same, no matter what you bet.

====================================================

If you are talking pick 3 - straight bets for \$1 each the odds change by how many tickets you purchase or another way of saying that is by how much you bet.  Since 1 ticket = \$1.00.

Buy 1 ticket/ Bet \$1   - Odds are 1 in 1000

Buy 2 tickets/ Bet \$2 - Odds are now 2 in 1000 or 1 in 500

etc;

Buy 1000 tickets/ Bet \$1000 - Odds are now 1000 in 1000 or 1:1

P.S.

We forgot to specify what numbers we are betting on with multiple purchases.  Buying 3 tickets numbered 123 gives us a (1:1000) chance to win \$1500.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 29, 2010, 11:55 pm - IP Logged

You probably have read that ping pong balls have no memory and therefore can't effect future drawings.  Well the same is true for randomness, it can't actively confuse anyone.  It's just a name to describe the chaos of balls or numbers being mixed and picked.  Lottery players trying to define it and use it to improve their odd of winning doesn't spell dome for the country.  Who knows, they may discover something new about math that we didn't know.  Every day people are discovering things that couldn't even been dreamed a year earlier.

You're mixing "apples and oranges" RJOh.  Ping pong balls are plastic items that you can see and touch and blow around with air.  Randomness is a concept.

"It's just a name to describe the chaos of balls or numbers being mixed and picked."

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19816 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 30, 2010, 12:10 am - IP Logged

You're mixing "apples and oranges" RJOh.  Ping pong balls are plastic items that you can see and touch and blow around with air.  Randomness is a concept.

"It's just a name to describe the chaos of balls or numbers being mixed and picked."

Now you're getting confused, I never said randomness was like apples and oranges, but as a concept you can conceive it any way you want to.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 30, 2010, 1:02 am - IP Logged

Now you're getting confused, I never said randomness was like apples and oranges, but as a concept you can conceive it any way you want to.

"Mixing Apples and Oranges" is a metaphor for inappropriately assigning "Ping Pong Balls" and "Randomness" to the same "basket."

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 30, 2010, 5:15 am - IP Logged

P.S.

We forgot to specify what numbers we are betting on with multiple purchases.  Buying 3 tickets numbered 123 gives us a (1:1000) chance to win \$1500.

Ha!

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 30, 2010, 12:31 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

If the previous number was 739 and if any other digit but 7 is drawn in the first position, 739 can't repeat.

Of course!  But so what?  Once a number other than 7 pops out of the first machine, 729 is a dead horse.  However, BEFORE the first machine was cycled, the odds of 729 being drawn were 1 in 1000, the same as for all the other 999 possibilities.

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered.

Wrong.  Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered.  The ODDS remain the same, no matter what you bet.

I suggested as a possible strategy using the repeat digit with 1 and 2 skip digits in each position which creates 27 three digit numbers. \$500 minus \$27 equals a \$473 profit and \$473 divided by \$27 the wager equals 17. 5 to 1. In each position the odds against are 7 to 3 or 2.33 to 1 so the odds against matching all three are 12.7 to 1 (2.33 X 2.33 X 2.33).

This borders on double talk.  Bernoulli would roll over in his grave if he could read your paragraph above.  If you really had such an incredible edge in Pick-3, rather than trying to convince me,  I think you would be busy establishing confederates in all lottery states to prepare for the greatest take down of the lottery in history!

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run.

Wrong.  What you should have noticed, but apparently haven't, is that NO MATTER WHAT SCHEME we devise to pick numbers in a FAIR Pick-3 game, the average number of hits of Straight bets in 33.5 years is going to be clustered mostly in the range [8...16].

Did you actually play the same amount of money on the same number every day for 33 years and just now figure out it would have to defy all probability by averaging 2 hits every 1000 drawings just to break even?

No.  By the time the PA Daily Number game was started in 1977, 16 years had already elapsed since my first college level course in Probability & Statistics.  I knew in advance it was a bad bet.

It's a beautiful day - I'm 'outta here!

--Jimmy4164

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run. But it's old news because one only has to look at the long term probability of the same thing happening to know what's a bad bet.

"Wrong.  What you should have noticed, but apparently haven't, is that NO MATTER WHAT SCHEME we devise to pick numbers in a FAIR Pick-3 game, the average number of hits of Straight bets in 33.5 years is going to be clustered mostly in the range [8...16]."

You just repeated what I said only worded it differently; I know making the same bet on the same number for 33.5 or 67 years is a bad bet as is making the same bet on 2, 10, or 100 numbers. Tell us something we don't already know!

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered.

"Wrong.  Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered."

This time you're saying I'm wrong because I inadvertently left out the "d" on determined?

"No. By the time the PA Daily Number game was started in 1977, 16 years had already elapsed since my first college level course in Probability & Statistics."

I thought you had a sound understanding of mathematics when I said if you wager \$27 on one drawing and cash a ticket for \$500 the payoff odds would be 17.5 to 1 and showed why. The actual win is \$473 so you get \$17.50 for every dollar you wagered.

For some reason you keep assuming all players make the same wager on the same number in every drawing making it impossible to show a profit and keep on showing the same statistics. I'm not an everyday pick-3 player but when I do play, I don't play the same number over and over again and I don't think very many everyday player do either.

From the PA pick-3 predictions:

Highest Lifetime Prize Ratio

Member  Prize Ratio  Wagers  Winnings
1.RodsPicks2316.98%\$530\$1,680
2.milo405303.92%\$204\$620
3.gpollard263.63%\$660\$1,740
4.fastscratcher10226.56%\$128\$290
5.Blessed77111212.64%\$174\$370
6.getmoney007173.72%\$236\$410
7.C.A.167.52%\$388\$650
8.astr8today70155.45%\$9,874\$15,350
9.diamondpalace153.03%\$14,356\$21,970
10.fletcherprez138.66%\$4,774\$6,620

Don't know if Diamondplace or asr8today70 played the same three digit numbers every day but they certainly could have made a profit playing for real!

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 30, 2010, 1:27 pm - IP Logged

truecritic,

OK.  Thanks for the clarification.  Stack47 apparently wasn't in error on THAT particular point.  Semantics can be a problem.  I think my way of differentiating between "Odds" and "Payoff Amounts" avoids these pitfalls, but to each his own.  Besides, that misunderstanding does not detract from any of the other comments I made.  I'm getting ready to throw in the towel here.  The Gambler's Fallacy reigns supreme!  All I can hope for is that a majority of the several thousand [estimate] people who have viewed this thread don't share the beliefs of the few vocal posters who are really confused.  If this is not the case, I'm afraid our country is headed for an even larger disparity with other countries in math and science.

--Jimmy4164

"All I can hope for is that a majority of the several thousand [estimate] people who have viewed this thread don't share the beliefs of the few vocal posters who are really confused."

You certainly made your point playing the same amount on the same number in every drawing for 33.5 years is a bad bet. And hopefully you have stopped that one foolish player out of several thousands that actually considered playing the same amount on the same number in every drawing for the next 33.5 years from making that bad bet.

"Thanks for the clarification.  Stack47 apparently wasn't in error on THAT particular point."

If you take a closer look what I said, you'll see I agreed on most of your points because they were all based on the same type of bad bets. Betting that a three digit number will repeat, it will skip 1 drawing, skip 2, betting your birthday, or any other three digit number for 33.5 years are all the same type of bad bets.

"I'm getting ready to throw in the towel here."

If you keep on assuming you're the only person here that knows a bad bet and keep on showing the same type of bad bets, that's an excellent idea.

 Page 14 of 20