Welcome Guest
You last visited December 10, 2016, 2:50 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Fooled by Randomness

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

 Page 4 of 20

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 11, 2010, 9:23 pm - IP Logged

when random is clean,you will see scenarios in which a given position is 1 more than a recent Play4..example..it was no mystery to me the middle digit in NC last night had to be an 8..notice how it cleanly is one more than the recent P4

Tue, Aug 10, 2010 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 Sun, Aug 8, 2010 Sat, Aug 7, 2010 Drawing Date Pick 3 Pick 4 Midday Evening Midday Evening 1-8-5 4-8-5 6-8-4-8 7-2-1 8-0-1 0-0-3-4 xxxx 5-0-1 7-7-3 5-3-0 3-8-3-1 7-7-4 3-0-6 2-2-2-4 0-6-5 2-5-1 2-9-9-7

JonnyBgood07,

when random is clean,you will see scenarios in which a given position is 1 more than a recent Play4..example..it was no mystery to me the middle digit in NC last night had to be an 8..notice how it cleanly is one more than the recent P4

It just "had to be an 8" eh?

And how many times have you observed this to be true over, say, the last five years' draws?

--Jimmy4164

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 11, 2010, 9:33 pm - IP Logged

when random is clean,you will see scenarios in which a given position is 1 more than a recent Play4..example..it was no mystery to me the middle digit in NC last night had to be an 8..notice how it cleanly is one more than the recent P4

Tue, Aug 10, 2010 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 Sun, Aug 8, 2010 Sat, Aug 7, 2010 Drawing Date Pick 3 Pick 4 Midday Evening Midday Evening 1-8-5 4-8-5 6-8-4-8 7-2-1 8-0-1 0-0-3-4 xxxx 5-0-1 7-7-3 5-3-0 3-8-3-1 7-7-4 3-0-6 2-2-2-4 0-6-5 2-5-1 2-9-9-7

Could you explain exactly how you calculated that?

You are saying that the number 485 had to be an 8 for the 2nd digit.  Why the 2nd digit?  What recent pick 4 did you use to figure that?  And how did you figure it from the pick 4?

I don't understand the significance of the digits in yellow?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 11, 2010, 10:00 pm - IP Logged

"I see says the blind man"

"It definitely does NOT support the assertion of any sort of cause and effect relationship among any of the things we're discussing here!"

Because the same probability applies had the poll asked how many times should 811 or any other three digit number be drawn in the last 33 years and based on some of the replies, I wrong assumed you were going in that direction.  And I should have known better because of what I was talking about in the other thread.

How many three digit numbers repeated within the next three drawings?

How many three digit numbers repeated within the next three drawings?

Tomorrow.  Must generalize the program.  No time tonight.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 11, 2010, 11:28 pm - IP Logged

RL,

"If I begin with odds of 1 in 64  or if I play two patterns that gives 1 in 32 odds..."

You don't "begin" with odds of 1:64 when you throw out 936 possibilities; the odds are still 1:1000.

Your fallacy in asserting 1:64 odds is based on the erroneous assumption that the probability is 1.0

that the winning number is NOT in the discarded set.     Get it?

"...then I think that my odds have improved."

I don't think so.

--Jimmy4164

Correction:

In the above post I tried to convince you of your error mostly with words, and I screwed it up!

It's not totally wrong, but misleading.  "the odds are still 1:1000" is referring to ONE(1) ticket!

Let's do it now by the numbers.

You have used your proprietary methods to select a subset of the 1000 possibilites, 64 numbers.

Assuming you will buy 64 tickets with unique 3 digit numbers, the probability you will win is either:

a) 64 /1000, which is the #tickets divided by the total possibilities, OR...

b) Since 0.936 is the probability the winner is one of the discarded 936...

1.000 - 0.936, is the probability the winning number is NOT in the discarded set.

As you can see, both ways of looking at it result in 0.064, which is 64 times 1:1000.

Sorry for the screw up!

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  Of course, you may not agree since you believe your proprietary methods are discarding numbers

which are less likely to be drawn, a theory which I feel is not supported by a short term "pattern" in

the draws which can be easily explained with probability.  As Nicholas Taleb says, humans are often

"Fooled by Randomness!"

Houston
United States
Member #62319
June 24, 2008
242 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 2:56 am - IP Logged

Nicholas Taleb may be right (by his title) regarding 99% of professional lottery players ----- not me, though.  I have been saying all along, the key is understanding the patterns and the overlapping of it in a "tricky cycle" quite difficult to decipher to the untrained eyes. The way to begin, you first have to get it out of your thick head that statistical analysis and the "conscienceous" of probablities is the first "hook" the lottery uses to lead the mind to captivity. Once you're cement into that thinking, it supports the popular saying: "Stupid is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Now, I'm not going to sit here and talk this stuff all over again. The last time I tried, the board crucify me real good. To tell you the truth, I haven't won a major jackpot yet ( so you can take further solace in me suffering), however, I have been enjoying the game and what I know. To put an analogy on it......

It's like courting the most beautiful girl in the world; in all her sexiness, all her womanness but the fact she's playing hard-to-get prompts you to step up your game. You study her, learn her likes and dislikes. You look into her, learn her power and weakness. You admire her, learn her soul and heart. With that knowledge, it just a matter of time. A matter of time. And I'm still waiting; having learned all I needed to know.

Pennsylvania
United States
Member #74096
May 2, 2009
22968 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 7:09 am - IP Logged

Could you explain exactly how you calculated that?

You are saying that the number 485 had to be an 8 for the 2nd digit.  Why the 2nd digit?  What recent pick 4 did you use to figure that?  And how did you figure it from the pick 4?

I don't understand the significance of the digits in yellow?

+1111

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 10:57 am - IP Logged

Nicholas Taleb may be right (by his title) regarding 99% of professional lottery players ----- not me, though.  I have been saying all along, the key is understanding the patterns and the overlapping of it in a "tricky cycle" quite difficult to decipher to the untrained eyes. The way to begin, you first have to get it out of your thick head that statistical analysis and the "conscienceous" of probablities is the first "hook" the lottery uses to lead the mind to captivity. Once you're cement into that thinking, it supports the popular saying: "Stupid is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Now, I'm not going to sit here and talk this stuff all over again. The last time I tried, the board crucify me real good. To tell you the truth, I haven't won a major jackpot yet ( so you can take further solace in me suffering), however, I have been enjoying the game and what I know. To put an analogy on it......

It's like courting the most beautiful girl in the world; in all her sexiness, all her womanness but the fact she's playing hard-to-get prompts you to step up your game. You study her, learn her likes and dislikes. You look into her, learn her power and weakness. You admire her, learn her soul and heart. With that knowledge, it just a matter of time. A matter of time. And I'm still waiting; having learned all I needed to know.

Mega-ThinkTank,

Assuming you have kept a running total of your equity while observing and acting on these "tricky cycle"s, where does your ROI (Return On Investment) stand today, and over what period of time?

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3985 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 11:14 am - IP Logged

Correction:

In the above post I tried to convince you of your error mostly with words, and I screwed it up!

It's not totally wrong, but misleading.  "the odds are still 1:1000" is referring to ONE(1) ticket!

Let's do it now by the numbers.

You have used your proprietary methods to select a subset of the 1000 possibilites, 64 numbers.

Assuming you will buy 64 tickets with unique 3 digit numbers, the probability you will win is either:

a) 64 /1000, which is the #tickets divided by the total possibilities, OR...

b) Since 0.936 is the probability the winner is one of the discarded 936...

1.000 - 0.936, is the probability the winning number is NOT in the discarded set.

As you can see, both ways of looking at it result in 0.064, which is 64 times 1:1000.

Sorry for the screw up!

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  Of course, you may not agree since you believe your proprietary methods are discarding numbers

which are less likely to be drawn, a theory which I feel is not supported by a short term "pattern" in

the draws which can be easily explained with probability.  As Nicholas Taleb says, humans are often

"Fooled by Randomness!"

Jimmy

Fact.  One of the 64 patterns will be drawn, This I am 100% certain

Fact   If one selects the correct pattern then the winning set is produced, 100% certain.

Fact.  The greatest odds for any one pattern being drawn is 1 in 64, 100% certain.

Remember I only have 64 choices to begin with.

The only way to remove this 100% certainty is to go back to the 1 in 1000 odds way of

looking at the game and ignore the method.  I can reverse what you have said using this

method and we are right back to a 1 in 64 odds.

I am not fooled by random, Now if the next drawing produced the set "-75-687.495-324.55869-.07-33"

then I would say "WOW, now thats what I call a random drawing",  but I will say with near 100%

certainty that this will never happen.  The lottery drawing is simply picking one set from a number of

sets that the players try to match.  The system player tries to find clues from the past drawings that

will help them in the next draw.   The QP's players let a RNG do the work for them.  I always find

it funny that many who hate RNG's and also don't believe in systems buy QP's which are RNG's which

are also systems and then they swear by them as being the most effective.

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 12, 2010, 12:27 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy

Fact.  One of the 64 patterns will be drawn, This I am 100% certain

Fact   If one selects the correct pattern then the winning set is produced, 100% certain.

Fact.  The greatest odds for any one pattern being drawn is 1 in 64, 100% certain.

Remember I only have 64 choices to begin with.

The only way to remove this 100% certainty is to go back to the 1 in 1000 odds way of

looking at the game and ignore the method.  I can reverse what you have said using this

method and we are right back to a 1 in 64 odds.

I am not fooled by random, Now if the next drawing produced the set "-75-687.495-324.55869-.07-33"

then I would say "WOW, now thats what I call a random drawing",  but I will say with near 100%

certainty that this will never happen.  The lottery drawing is simply picking one set from a number of

sets that the players try to match.  The system player tries to find clues from the past drawings that

will help them in the next draw.   The QP's players let a RNG do the work for them.  I always find

it funny that many who hate RNG's and also don't believe in systems buy QP's which are RNG's which

are also systems and then they swear by them as being the most effective.

RL

RL,

I thought we were talking about a Pick-3 lottery, so I will continue to assume that here.  I will also assume that when you say a "pattern being drawn" what you mean is a number which is a member of a "SET" of numbers DERIVED from a "pattern."

1000 / 64 equals 15.625, which I will round up to 16.

It's easy to construct 64 sets of 3 digit numbers. I don't really care how you do it.  If you want or need exactly 64 sets, they will not all contain 16 members, but that is of no consequence.

Now we have 64 sets of potential numbers to play, and since every member of the universe [000-999] can be found in at least one of these 64 sets, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT,  >>IF<< one selects the correct set, it's a certainty that you will hold a winning ticket!

But what does this revelation and \$3 get you in Starbucks?

I claim, about \$2920 in losses over a year!  This is based on the assumption that you buy an average of sixteen \$1 Straight tickets per day at a cost of \$5840 and that you get 5.84 hits over the year netting you \$500 each, or about \$2920.

Unless you can demonstrate with transparent backtests that you can choose the correct pattern, or set, more than one time out of 64 with any consistency, this will be your fate.  If you are lucky, and do better, you had best quit while you are ahead.  If you come out ahead after one year and feel confident to continue, it is VERY likely that in the 2nd or 3rd subsequent years the Lottery Commission will reclaim it's losses to you because it has a very strong supporter, Probability Theory!

Those here who dismiss what I've been saying should at least take this advice from me:

Don't ever admit your beliefs during a job interview for any position dealing with the management of game odds and profitability at a Las Vegas Casino!  They are NOT Fooled by Randomness!

--Jimmy4164

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 1:11 pm - IP Logged

+1111

Thanks dr...not sure how that guarantees an 8 for the 2nd digit?

Houston
United States
Member #62319
June 24, 2008
242 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 2:44 pm - IP Logged

Mega-ThinkTank,

Assuming you have kept a running total of your equity while observing and acting on these "tricky cycle"s, where does your ROI (Return On Investment) stand today, and over what period of time?

--Jimmy4164

......and assuming Nicolos Taleb (and you for that matter) have kept a total of his equity while observing and acting on his expertise, where does his ROI stands today? If he can claim lottery players are fooled by randomness; was he ever a fool, initially, before he penned his Great Big Bang Theory? That knowledge had to come from somewhere, otherwise, how does he know what he's talking about?

How do you know what you're talking about to stand as you're Holier Than Thou and telling players their "errors" and that patterns doesn't exist? Was you a bonehead Fool before you became an intellectual genius? Please explain yourself.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 3:30 pm - IP Logged

......and assuming Nicolos Taleb (and you for that matter) have kept a total of his equity while observing and acting on his expertise, where does his ROI stands today? If he can claim lottery players are fooled by randomness; was he ever a fool, initially, before he penned his Great Big Bang Theory? That knowledge had to come from somewhere, otherwise, how does he know what he's talking about?

How do you know what you're talking about to stand as you're Holier Than Thou and telling players their "errors" and that patterns doesn't exist? Was you a bonehead Fool before you became an intellectual genius? Please explain yourself.

Mega-ThinkTank,

Often, when people find themselves unable to defend their position, rather than either admit it, or keep quiet, they strike out with personal attacks or claims of prejudice.  You shouldn't take this so personally.  You are not alone.  I have a friend with a college degree who got so confused over this issue that he actually agreed to exchange 10 Pick-3 tickets numbered [000-111-222-333-444-555-666-777-888-999] for seven of his specification that he thought were more random and more likely to hit.  He gulped and laughed when I reminded him that he was paying \$10 for seven tickets that he could buy at the store himself for \$7, but he still insisted that a ticket like, say, 327, was more likely to win than 222.  All you needed to say in response to my question was, "I haven't kept track, and anyway, I don't care.  I'm here to Hit The Jackpot, and I'm willing to pay for the chance."

It's been quite a while since I read Taleb's FBR and I can't remember if he even mentioned lotteries.  Actually, you might get more out of another book of his, The Black Swan.

Don't beat up on yourself, and...

Don't worry, be happy!

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 3:40 pm - IP Logged

......and assuming Nicolos Taleb (and you for that matter) have kept a total of his equity while observing and acting on his expertise, where does his ROI stands today? If he can claim lottery players are fooled by randomness; was he ever a fool, initially, before he penned his Great Big Bang Theory? That knowledge had to come from somewhere, otherwise, how does he know what he's talking about?

How do you know what you're talking about to stand as you're Holier Than Thou and telling players their "errors" and that patterns doesn't exist? Was you a bonehead Fool before you became an intellectual genius? Please explain yourself.

P.S.  I just went to Nicholas Taleb's Home Page and found it's been updated and talks a lot about the Black Swan.  I think you will benefit from at least reading the first screenful.  I hope you'll read further.  His website address is the name of this Thread, without the spaces, and with the USUAL prefix and suffix.

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3985 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 3:55 pm - IP Logged

RL,

I thought we were talking about a Pick-3 lottery, so I will continue to assume that here.  I will also assume that when you say a "pattern being drawn" what you mean is a number which is a member of a "SET" of numbers DERIVED from a "pattern."

1000 / 64 equals 15.625, which I will round up to 16.

It's easy to construct 64 sets of 3 digit numbers. I don't really care how you do it.  If you want or need exactly 64 sets, they will not all contain 16 members, but that is of no consequence.

Now we have 64 sets of potential numbers to play, and since every member of the universe [000-999] can be found in at least one of these 64 sets, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT,  >>IF<< one selects the correct set, it's a certainty that you will hold a winning ticket!

But what does this revelation and \$3 get you in Starbucks?

I claim, about \$2920 in losses over a year!  This is based on the assumption that you buy an average of sixteen \$1 Straight tickets per day at a cost of \$5840 and that you get 5.84 hits over the year netting you \$500 each, or about \$2920.

Unless you can demonstrate with transparent backtests that you can choose the correct pattern, or set, more than one time out of 64 with any consistency, this will be your fate.  If you are lucky, and do better, you had best quit while you are ahead.  If you come out ahead after one year and feel confident to continue, it is VERY likely that in the 2nd or 3rd subsequent years the Lottery Commission will reclaim it's losses to you because it has a very strong supporter, Probability Theory!

Those here who dismiss what I've been saying should at least take this advice from me:

Don't ever admit your beliefs during a job interview for any position dealing with the management of game odds and profitability at a Las Vegas Casino!  They are NOT Fooled by Randomness!

--Jimmy4164

Jimmy

I claim, about \$2920 in losses over a year!  This is based on the assumption that you buy an average of sixteen \$1 Straight tickets per day at a cost of \$5840 and that you get 5.84 hits over the year netting you \$500 each, or about \$2920.

First your assumption is wrong.  I would never play any set or pattern 365 days a year,  Maybe 5 or 6

at most.  You cannot get it through your head that any advantage can be gained.  Second I am talking

about carefully constructed sets not just random sets of 16.  Some have a few as 8 sets.  I would never

pay \$1.00 for any single ticket / chance on a P-3 game.  And I will say that I have spent less then \$20.00

on P-3 in my whole lifetime.

You admittted in another post to spending \$6.00 per week on the lottery.  If Playing powerball  and if you

talk your children into using your method and they pass this same method to there children and continue

this for many many generations then I would assume that in 10,000 years your families losses would

be in the range of around \$3,100,000.00 and in this time frame they would have purchased only 1.5%

of the 195,249,054 tickets and anything you would have won would have gone right back into the pot.

You might win a jackpot in the next game but the odds against it are so great that if you really believed

in your logic you would quit playing.  At least I believe in what I am doing and it has paid off so far.

I don't think that you have or will convince anyone that has a had winning system in the past that it

cannot be done.  And most systems don't last forever so why test them against all the draws.  I don't

need 33 years of data as I could have predicted everything you posted here without a single draw ever

having been drawn.  I had a member pass me some information that allows for a 50% reduction of sets

with a 70% hit rate using only one value.  I have tested it on several lotteries and found the same

results.  This is another tool that is going in my tool box for sure.

I pitty you if you think that you have researched every possible method of play that can reduce sets

and beat the odds.  I have been doing this for many years and have overlooked many things.   There

are many people working with me and some are finding many good ideas that can be tested.  The best

will be kept and some will be discarded.  Some look good at first and then prove later to fade in thier

effectiveness but often they lead to another discovery.   I have to retune and adjust at least once a

month on average.  Most days When I play I wait until I have a very high level of certainty before

buying tickets.  I have played no more than 5 times since May and won on three of those attemps.

I missed MO Lotto a week ago by a couple of mouse clicks.  I had every digit and number trapped

and all but 1 or 2 filters correct.  I would have won 2.8 mil. on 6 sets that cost .50  each or \$3.00

total.  I have hit 3 5of6 on MO. lotto and play it no more than 10 times a year.  You can say all you

want about Probability Theory and it is correct in general but can't explain everything.

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 12, 2010, 4:06 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy

I claim, about \$2920 in losses over a year!  This is based on the assumption that you buy an average of sixteen \$1 Straight tickets per day at a cost of \$5840 and that you get 5.84 hits over the year netting you \$500 each, or about \$2920.

First your assumption is wrong.  I would never play any set or pattern 365 days a year,  Maybe 5 or 6

at most.  You cannot get it through your head that any advantage can be gained.  Second I am talking

about carefully constructed sets not just random sets of 16.  Some have a few as 8 sets.  I would never

pay \$1.00 for any single ticket / chance on a P-3 game.  And I will say that I have spent less then \$20.00

on P-3 in my whole lifetime.

You admittted in another post to spending \$6.00 per week on the lottery.  If Playing powerball  and if you

talk your children into using your method and they pass this same method to there children and continue

this for many many generations then I would assume that in 10,000 years your families losses would

be in the range of around \$3,100,000.00 and in this time frame they would have purchased only 1.5%

of the 195,249,054 tickets and anything you would have won would have gone right back into the pot.

You might win a jackpot in the next game but the odds against it are so great that if you really believed

in your logic you would quit playing.  At least I believe in what I am doing and it has paid off so far.

I don't think that you have or will convince anyone that has a had winning system in the past that it

cannot be done.  And most systems don't last forever so why test them against all the draws.  I don't

need 33 years of data as I could have predicted everything you posted here without a single draw ever

having been drawn.  I had a member pass me some information that allows for a 50% reduction of sets

with a 70% hit rate using only one value.  I have tested it on several lotteries and found the same

results.  This is another tool that is going in my tool box for sure.

I pitty you if you think that you have researched every possible method of play that can reduce sets

and beat the odds.  I have been doing this for many years and have overlooked many things.   There

are many people working with me and some are finding many good ideas that can be tested.  The best

will be kept and some will be discarded.  Some look good at first and then prove later to fade in thier

effectiveness but often they lead to another discovery.   I have to retune and adjust at least once a

month on average.  Most days When I play I wait until I have a very high level of certainty before

buying tickets.  I have played no more than 5 times since May and won on three of those attemps.

I missed MO Lotto a week ago by a couple of mouse clicks.  I had every digit and number trapped

and all but 1 or 2 filters correct.  I would have won 2.8 mil. on 6 sets that cost .50  each or \$3.00

total.  I have hit 3 5of6 on MO. lotto and play it no more than 10 times a year.  You can say all you

want about Probability Theory and it is correct in general but can't explain everything.

RL

I am getting weary of this.  I only read your first paragraph.  I stopped as soon as I read "I would never play any set or pattern 365 days a year," when nowhere in my post did I suggest this.  I clearly stated that the number of members in the 64 sets would vary, and that I didn't even care how you calculated them.

www.FooledByRandomness.com

 Page 4 of 20