Welcome Guest
You last visited June 19, 2018, 11:30 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Fooled by Randomness

Topic closed. 297 replies. Last post 8 years ago by jimmy4164.

 Page 9 of 20

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2010, 11:04 am - IP Logged

Wrong again jimmy boy.

You think that I am choosing numbers based on what has happened.  If I pick 1 without

reguard to anything I can expect to be correct about 1 in every ten selections.  However If I

select one in the same manner not to play than I will be correct in not playing it 90% of the

time.  Do the test for your self and test it.

One cannot exist without the other and if the draw process is fair than the odds never change

for any one selection.  I will always have a raito of 1 in 10 which will always lead me to discard

my first selection when selecting in this manner.  Sure there are days when my method will

fail but these can be calculated to.  If I remove the first selection and then select another without

reguard to anything then I have a 1 in 9 of being correct.

the Fallacy of the "Gambler's Fallacy"

You cannot use your methode to prove your point and then ignore the same results when applied to make my point,

Well I guess you can because you do it all the time.   Do a fair test and prove it to your self as I think this could settle

it once and for all.  Anyone at home can do this and find the results.  I have never said this will ensure a win but it

will reduce the odds.

.

RL

RL said:  "Wrong again jimmy boy."

Jimmy4164 says: I don't think so.

Reading your reply for the second time, I've come to the conclusion that you either believe what you're saying or have a vested interest (a hope of future software sales) in others believing it.  If it's the former, you are fooling yourself.  If it's the latter, I don't know how you sleep at night.  I hope it's the former, because there is then a possibility that you will eventually understand the error in your thinking.

Also, the examples above in others' replies allegedly showing that there are predictable patterns allowing people to win consistently are not showing that.  What they are showing is lucky winners!  Even the guy who won 7 jackpots does not prove his system works.  Note in the article about him that he also won "thousands" of smaller prizes.  Most people here I'm sure are aware of how many "tens of thousands" of tickets must be purchased to have that many winning ones.  And even this does not preclude the possibility of a first time lottery player hitting the Powerball Jackpot with one QP!  That's the nature of the beast.

RL,

"You think that I am choosing numbers based on what has happened.  If I pick 1 without

reguard to anything I can expect to be correct about 1 in every ten selections.  However If I

select one in the same manner not to play than I will be correct in not playing it 90% of the

time.  Do the test for your self and test it. "

Hilarious! This is a simple example of the fact that "If the probability of an event occurring is P, then the probability of it NOT occuring is (1.0 - P)."   But this is ALWAYS TRUE and gives NO support to your claims!  I joked about this with JonnyBgood earlier.

Here is the correct way to examine this question.

Earlier you suggested I find ten pennies and shake them up before selecting.  Let's do that, but with a little more attention to the realities of lottery play.

0) Gather TWO(2) sets of TEN(10) pennies.  Call one set RL.  That's your set.  Call the other set LC.  That's the set belonging to the Lottery Commission.

1) Label each penny in both sets [ 0 - 9 ].  (White magic marker should work)

2) Apply your system of selection to the set RL.  Assume that you can not afford to bet on all of the numbers 0 thru 9, so you are forced to select a subset.

3) Once you have discarded the pennies whose labels you believe are LESS LIKELY to win, lay those remaining out neatly in front of you - these chosen ones are your bets for the next Draw.

4) Now place the TEN(10) pennies from the LC set in a shaker and commission someone else to shake it well.

5) Commision yet another person to reach into the shaker while blindfolded and select one penny.

(An honest person could reliably do this themselves.)

6The number on this penny is the winning draw!

7) Is the winning number[0-9] one of your set of selections from Set RL?  If so, you won.  if not, you lost.

(Missouri claims around a 60% payout, so let's assume a winner pays \$6, and that you pay 1 Cent for each number you bet on.)

8) Record the results from 7).  Have you done this 100 times?  If not, go to step 2 and repeat.

9) You are done Backtesting your system!  How did you do?

What everyone needs to remember here is that RL removes numbers from the set of available numbers and bets on those remaining.  The Lottery Commissions DO NOT DO THIS!!!!  When the lotteries choose their winning numbers, they choose them from the entire universe of available numbers.

p.s.  RL:  If you really believe what you've been saying here, I TRULY hope you perform this test and report your results here honestly.

p.s.s. Others:  Do this test of your own theories for your own enlightenment, and to keep RL honest!

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2010, 12:08 pm - IP Logged
N.C.
United States
Member #59229
March 9, 2008
331 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2010, 1:34 pm - IP Logged

Im starting to think you are only here to push peoples buttons.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2010, 1:46 pm - IP Logged

Im starting to think you are only here to push peoples buttons.

You are WRONG about why I'm here.

Did you conduct the simple test above, or do you already know what to expect?

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4793 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2010, 4:54 pm - IP Logged

You are WRONG about why I'm here.

Did you conduct the simple test above, or do you already know what to expect?

Jimmy

Take the two bags and use your method and each time the pennies don't match record that

and see how you come out.  You swing back and forth like grass in the wind.  You always

change based on what best fits your idea.  I will run the rest and post the results.

P.S.  I have no software for sale as it has been given away free.  I don't know what you are

doing at a lottery post in the systems section when you don't believe believe that anything can

be done to improve play over QP's.   Your not fooling anyone.

RL

....

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4793 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2010, 7:17 pm - IP Logged

RL said:  "Wrong again jimmy boy."

Jimmy4164 says: I don't think so.

Reading your reply for the second time, I've come to the conclusion that you either believe what you're saying or have a vested interest (a hope of future software sales) in others believing it.  If it's the former, you are fooling yourself.  If it's the latter, I don't know how you sleep at night.  I hope it's the former, because there is then a possibility that you will eventually understand the error in your thinking.

Also, the examples above in others' replies allegedly showing that there are predictable patterns allowing people to win consistently are not showing that.  What they are showing is lucky winners!  Even the guy who won 7 jackpots does not prove his system works.  Note in the article about him that he also won "thousands" of smaller prizes.  Most people here I'm sure are aware of how many "tens of thousands" of tickets must be purchased to have that many winning ones.  And even this does not preclude the possibility of a first time lottery player hitting the Powerball Jackpot with one QP!  That's the nature of the beast.

RL,

"You think that I am choosing numbers based on what has happened.  If I pick 1 without

reguard to anything I can expect to be correct about 1 in every ten selections.  However If I

select one in the same manner not to play than I will be correct in not playing it 90% of the

time.  Do the test for your self and test it. "

Hilarious! This is a simple example of the fact that "If the probability of an event occurring is P, then the probability of it NOT occuring is (1.0 - P)."   But this is ALWAYS TRUE and gives NO support to your claims!  I joked about this with JonnyBgood earlier.

Here is the correct way to examine this question.

Earlier you suggested I find ten pennies and shake them up before selecting.  Let's do that, but with a little more attention to the realities of lottery play.

0) Gather TWO(2) sets of TEN(10) pennies.  Call one set RL.  That's your set.  Call the other set LC.  That's the set belonging to the Lottery Commission.

1) Label each penny in both sets [ 0 - 9 ].  (White magic marker should work)

2) Apply your system of selection to the set RL.  Assume that you can not afford to bet on all of the numbers 0 thru 9, so you are forced to select a subset.

3) Once you have discarded the pennies whose labels you believe are LESS LIKELY to win, lay those remaining out neatly in front of you - these chosen ones are your bets for the next Draw.

4) Now place the TEN(10) pennies from the LC set in a shaker and commission someone else to shake it well.

5) Commision yet another person to reach into the shaker while blindfolded and select one penny.

(An honest person could reliably do this themselves.)

6The number on this penny is the winning draw!

7) Is the winning number[0-9] one of your set of selections from Set RL?  If so, you won.  if not, you lost.

(Missouri claims around a 60% payout, so let's assume a winner pays \$6, and that you pay 1 Cent for each number you bet on.)

8) Record the results from 7).  Have you done this 100 times?  If not, go to step 2 and repeat.

9) You are done Backtesting your system!  How did you do?

What everyone needs to remember here is that RL removes numbers from the set of available numbers and bets on those remaining.  The Lottery Commissions DO NOT DO THIS!!!!  When the lotteries choose their winning numbers, they choose them from the entire universe of available numbers.

p.s.  RL:  If you really believe what you've been saying here, I TRULY hope you perform this test and report your results here honestly.

p.s.s. Others:  Do this test of your own theories for your own enlightenment, and to keep RL honest!

jimmy

Here is what I did.  I built two rng's that use a random seed for each selection.

I named then RL and LC.

next I instructed RL to select 3 different numbers from  0 to 9

next I instructed LC to select 1 number from 0 to 9

next I had the program check LC's random number against RL's 3 random numbers

and counted each time that the two RNG's matched a number.  I ran 10 test with 10,000

selections for each.  I also tracked LC's numbers for reference.  Here are the results.

These are right out of the program and have not been modified in any way.

The expected average matches is 3333.3 and  only one test had a higher than expected

hits of 3366 but would still within the expected standard deviation.  Now if I select 3 random

digits not to play I think it is fair to say that I would be correct around 67% of the time.

I do not use this as a method but used this to show that if you had to make a 1 of 10

selection than the first selection would be incorrect 90% of the time.  I think that this was

a very fair test.

TEST # 1
MATCHED = 2909  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 752    .0752
LC-1 983    .0983
LC-2 1145    .1145
LC-3 884    .0884
LC-4 876    .0876
LC-5 1123    .1123
LC-6 1132    .1132
LC-7 957    .0957
LC-8 1175    .1175
LC-9 973    .0973

TEST # 2
MATCHED = 3399  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 1056    .1056
LC-1 1003    .1003
LC-2 1076    .1076
LC-3 1190    .119
LC-4 1022    .1022
LC-5 945    .0945
LC-6 899    .0899
LC-7 1107    .1107
LC-8 828    .0828
LC-9 874    .0874

TEST # 3
MATCHED = 3079  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 958    .0958
LC-1 1002    .1002
LC-2 897    .0897
LC-3 987    .0987
LC-4 944    .0944
LC-5 927    .0927
LC-6 1075    .1075
LC-7 933    .0933
LC-8 1190    .119
LC-9 1087    .1087

TEST # 4
MATCHED = 2967  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 1002    .1002
LC-1 1033    .1033
LC-2 967    .0967
LC-3 1000    .1
LC-4 1005    .1005
LC-5 1030    .103
LC-6 975    .0975
LC-7 997    .0997
LC-8 1025    .1025
LC-9 966    .0966

TEST # 5
MATCHED = 3038  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 942    .0942
LC-1 965    .0965
LC-2 932    .0932
LC-3 1091    .1091
LC-4 998    .0998
LC-5 976    .0976
LC-6 1049    .1049
LC-7 951    .0951
LC-8 1076    .1076
LC-9 1020    .102

TEST # 6
MATCHED = 2872  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 1009    .1009
LC-1 945    .0945
LC-2 1035    .1035
LC-3 1062    .1062
LC-4 878    .0878
LC-5 1101    .1101
LC-6 1031    .1031
LC-7 1017    .1017
LC-8 869    .0869
LC-9 1053    .1053

TEST # 7
MATCHED = 2798  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 978    .0978
LC-1 1038    .1038
LC-2 897    .0897
LC-3 1017    .1017
LC-4 1139    .1139
LC-5 1068    .1068
LC-6 881    .0881
LC-7 1017    .1017
LC-8 948    .0948
LC-9 1017    .1017

TEST # 8
MATCHED = 3122  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 959    .0959
LC-1 988    .0988
LC-2 1301    .1301
LC-3 1007    .1007
LC-4 1067    .1067
LC-5 899    .0899
LC-6 1012    .1012
LC-7 879    .0879
LC-8 900    .09
LC-9 988    .0988

TEST # 9
MATCHED = 2962  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 966    .0966
LC-1 1054    .1054
LC-2 1018    .1018
LC-3 950    .095
LC-4 1010    .101
LC-5 1012    .1012
LC-6 1005    .1005
LC-7 937    .0937
LC-8 1055    .1055
LC-9 993    .0993

TEST # 10
MATCHED = 3262  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 1033    .1033
LC-1 973    .0973
LC-2 969    .0969
LC-3 1001    .1001
LC-4 911    .0911
LC-5 1103    .1103
LC-6 948    .0948
LC-7 964    .0964
LC-8 1049    .1049
LC-9 1049    .1049

The outcome speaks for it's self, If I had discarded the first 3 selection than I would have correct

in doing so 67% of the time with no reguard for which 3 they were.  However with My digit system

In that the digits 1-2-3 hit in 67% of the draws than why would I discard them.  However If I play

them and only have to select 2 or 3 more digits to play from the 7 remaining digits I could use this

logic to choose maybe one or two not to play.

And My system is still not for sale nor will it ever be.

RL

....

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7743 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2010, 8:13 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

Everything you've observed is within range of the expected.  I guess I need to be more clear about why these results are being reported here.

I am NOT proposing that any of these "Systems" be used by anyone with expectations of making a profit over time.

What I'm hoping is that, at some point, a few people will come to the realization that it really doesn't matter what sort of "System" they use in this PA game.  I am confident that, on average, buying one \$1 Straight ticket per day, they are going to hit for \$500 about four (3.65) times every 10 years or so.  The result on their bottom line will be -\$3650 spent buying tickets, and +\$1825 in winning ticket payoffs.  (I'll let you combine these two \$ amounts.)  Spending more than \$1 per day will increase both these numbers by the same factor.  Anyone who finds themselves ahead of this game at any point should "take their winnings and run" as you did recently and start buying Pick-5, Pick6, or Powerball tickets.  These games have astronomical odds against you winning jackpots, but at least you have a chance, and can dream, which is what this is all about!

--Jimmy4164

"What I'm hoping is that, at some point, a few people will come to the realization that it really doesn't matter what sort of "System" they use in this PA game."

Nick Perry had an interesting system for the PA evening drawning and could have profited \$1.8 million with more preparation, less partners, and less greed.

"I am confident that, on average, buying one \$1 Straight ticket per day, they are going to hit for \$500 about four (3.65) times every 10 years or so.  The result on their bottom line will be -\$3650 spent buying tickets, and +\$1825 in winning ticket payoffs."

Had anyone played any of 25 three digit numbers over the last 5400 PA evening in each drawing for a \$1, they would have a profit. So you better recheck your data before saying "it really doesn't matter what sort of system". The system could be as simple as someone being born on May 27 and playing 527 in every drawing..

"Spending more than \$1 per day will increase both these numbers by the same factor."

That applies equally to a profitable system. While your statistics certainly proved playing the previous drawing or even including one and two drawing skips every day over the long run is a losing proposition, it doesn't prove all methods of play are. I can't play the PA pick-3 so I haven't done any in depth research into the statistics you provided, but it's possible they could be used to create a profitable system.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2010, 1:16 am - IP Logged

"What I'm hoping is that, at some point, a few people will come to the realization that it really doesn't matter what sort of "System" they use in this PA game."

Nick Perry had an interesting system for the PA evening drawning and could have profited \$1.8 million with more preparation, less partners, and less greed.

"I am confident that, on average, buying one \$1 Straight ticket per day, they are going to hit for \$500 about four (3.65) times every 10 years or so.  The result on their bottom line will be -\$3650 spent buying tickets, and +\$1825 in winning ticket payoffs."

Had anyone played any of 25 three digit numbers over the last 5400 PA evening in each drawing for a \$1, they would have a profit. So you better recheck your data before saying "it really doesn't matter what sort of system". The system could be as simple as someone being born on May 27 and playing 527 in every drawing..

"Spending more than \$1 per day will increase both these numbers by the same factor."

That applies equally to a profitable system. While your statistics certainly proved playing the previous drawing or even including one and two drawing skips every day over the long run is a losing proposition, it doesn't prove all methods of play are. I can't play the PA pick-3 so I haven't done any in depth research into the statistics you provided, but it's possible they could be used to create a profitable system.

Stack47,

(It's really getting annoying to have to keep telling you [and others] that the results I'm reporting here are NOT in support of a betting system that I am proposing, or would ever propose.  They are part of a process of understanding LOTTERY SYSTEMS!  If you and RL would stop trying to deny the mathematical conclusions of geniuses over centuries, I could move forward on a FULL backtest of one of your popular systems.  Maybe that's what you're afraid of!)

You said: "Had anyone played any of 25 three digit numbers over the last 5400 PA evening in each drawing for a \$1, they would have a profit."

OK, no problem.  Could you please give us one of these 25 three digit numbers, and how much net profit it made over the last 5400 PA evening drawings?  It will be a simple matter to verify your claim at the PA website.  REMEMBER, playing ONE(1) number Straight 5400 times will cost you \$5400.  To BREAK EVEN your number will have had to hit 11 (10.8) times over this 15 (14.8) year period, since PA only pays \$500 per hit.  This is not surprising at all for Random Drawings with statistics like those I found for this one.  But I'm still curious to see at least one that you found.  Think back.  On August 3, 2010 I posted an in depth analysis of the PA hit frequency.

The number that hit most often was 308.  Do you remember me mentioning that in the post?  I discussed it in the section named: Cross Check Interpretation of the Normal Distribution

The reason why your claim is not surprising is because if 308 could hit 23 times in 33.4 years, and be within expected bounds, there is no reason to doubt that 11 or more of those hits could have occured in the last 14.8 years, IS THERE?  You might recall also that over the 33+ years the number 308, the highest hitter of all, won \$11,500, but the required purchases were approximately \$67 MORE than that, for a NET LOSS!  If 308 is one of your big money makers over the last 15 years, it must have been a big loser in the first 19 years, RIGHT?

At the end of this post are the last 25 entries in a sort of the file of frequency counts that is part of the analysis of the lottery results we're discussing.  Actually, there are more numbers that hit 18 times, but they're irrelevant at this point.  I'm not going to redo my analysis with the last 5400 Draws of my 11,570 Draw database, unless you make some outlandish claim in response to my NEXT 2 questions.

So I'm accepting your claim that 25 numbers "made money" over the last 15 years in the PA Daily Number Game (Evening).

What I would LOVE to know, and others I'm sure, is:

1) DID YOU  PREDICT THESE 25 NUMBERS WITH ONE OF YOUR systems, OR DID YOU MERELY RETRIEVE THEM FROM THE RESULTS, after the fact, LIKE I DID?

2) When you say, "Made Money," JUST HOW MUCH MONEY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

(Remember, I can verify whatever you claim!)

Well STACK47, what have you enlightened us with that we didn't already know?

And oh, BTW, check my FIRST post at this site and you will find that I brought up the Nick Perry FIASCO in Pittsburgh then, so you're kind of late bringing it up here.  That fraudulant draw is a tiny blip on a distant horizon!

--Jimmy4164

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

Draw, #Hits

(Hit frequency of 25 of the highest hitters over the history of the PA Daily Number (Evening))

639 , 18
810 , 18
823 , 18
903 , 18
906 , 18
909 , 18
952 , 18
995 , 18
183 , 19
219 , 19
279 , 19
293 , 19
354 , 19
643 , 19
667 , 19
740 , 19
830 , 19
986 , 19
67 , 20
246 , 20
692 , 20
988 , 20
772 , 21
120 , 22
308 , 23

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2010, 1:46 am - IP Logged

Jimmy

Take the two bags and use your method and each time the pennies don't match record that

and see how you come out.  You swing back and forth like grass in the wind.  You always

change based on what best fits your idea.  I will run the rest and post the results.

P.S.  I have no software for sale as it has been given away free.  I don't know what you are

doing at a lottery post in the systems section when you don't believe believe that anything can

be done to improve play over QP's.   Your not fooling anyone.

RL

RL,

"Take the two bags and use your method and each time the pennies don't match record that

and see how you come out."

Hopefully, someone else will perform the simple simulation I proposed, the one you're ignoring.

"I have no software for sale as it has been given away free."

Since most Pick-5s and 6s pay out jackpots on a parimutuel basis, what will happen to your popularity when jackpots all over the country are not paying much more than matches of 2 or 3 numbers because your software has made thousands of people Jackpot Winners?  And that's not to mention the anger you will have generated by making it routine for Powerball payouts to be divided among hundreds of people.  These are not rhetorical questions; I hope you'll answer them, seriously.

You really think you're the "Smartest Guy in the Room," don't you RL?

I don't think so.

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4793 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2010, 9:57 am - IP Logged

RL,

"Take the two bags and use your method and each time the pennies don't match record that

and see how you come out."

Hopefully, someone else will perform the simple simulation I proposed, the one you're ignoring.

"I have no software for sale as it has been given away free."

Since most Pick-5s and 6s pay out jackpots on a parimutuel basis, what will happen to your popularity when jackpots all over the country are not paying much more than matches of 2 or 3 numbers because your software has made thousands of people Jackpot Winners?  And that's not to mention the anger you will have generated by making it routine for Powerball payouts to be divided among hundreds of people.  These are not rhetorical questions; I hope you'll answer them, seriously.

You really think you're the "Smartest Guy in the Room," don't you RL?

I don't think so.

--Jimmy4164

JIMMY

Far from it, many here are far better programmers and many here have a much better education and many

have better systems based on what they say in their post.  I have also considered the consistent winner

paradox and when or if I ever reach anything close to that it will be trash canned, lost again for the next

person to find.  I think it has been found many times and lost again for the very reasons that you give

above.  This is why I have picked on you a little.  The dreams that some people have is all they have, and

if someone takes that away from them they loose all hope.  Hope is a very real commidity in life and gives

people the strenth to continue through the hard times.  I only ask you to consider this in what you say

here at LP.  Hope, Faith, and having a dream can sometimes lead a person to ignore the impossible and

aim for the stars.  If the lottery is turly random then no one ticket is a bad ticket before the drawing.  If

someone uses even the most outrageous and improbable method of selection it could be as valid as

any set that I could produce.  I have to chuckle at some of the posted systems and often spend much

time trying to get my mind around what they are saying.  I know what humble pie taste like all too well

and you won't find me pulling up a seat at that table to often.  This is all I have left to say, have a  good

day.

RL

....

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2010, 10:03 am - IP Logged

jimmy

Here is what I did.  I built two rng's that use a random seed for each selection.

I named then RL and LC.

next I instructed RL to select 3 different numbers from  0 to 9

next I instructed LC to select 1 number from 0 to 9

next I had the program check LC's random number against RL's 3 random numbers

and counted each time that the two RNG's matched a number.  I ran 10 test with 10,000

selections for each.  I also tracked LC's numbers for reference.  Here are the results.

These are right out of the program and have not been modified in any way.

The expected average matches is 3333.3 and  only one test had a higher than expected

hits of 3366 but would still within the expected standard deviation.  Now if I select 3 random

digits not to play I think it is fair to say that I would be correct around 67% of the time.

I do not use this as a method but used this to show that if you had to make a 1 of 10

selection than the first selection would be incorrect 90% of the time.  I think that this was

a very fair test.

TEST # 1
MATCHED = 2909  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 752    .0752
LC-1 983    .0983
LC-2 1145    .1145
LC-3 884    .0884
LC-4 876    .0876
LC-5 1123    .1123
LC-6 1132    .1132
LC-7 957    .0957
LC-8 1175    .1175
LC-9 973    .0973

TEST # 2
MATCHED = 3399  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 1056    .1056
LC-1 1003    .1003
LC-2 1076    .1076
LC-3 1190    .119
LC-4 1022    .1022
LC-5 945    .0945
LC-6 899    .0899
LC-7 1107    .1107
LC-8 828    .0828
LC-9 874    .0874

TEST # 3
MATCHED = 3079  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 958    .0958
LC-1 1002    .1002
LC-2 897    .0897
LC-3 987    .0987
LC-4 944    .0944
LC-5 927    .0927
LC-6 1075    .1075
LC-7 933    .0933
LC-8 1190    .119
LC-9 1087    .1087

TEST # 4
MATCHED = 2967  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 1002    .1002
LC-1 1033    .1033
LC-2 967    .0967
LC-3 1000    .1
LC-4 1005    .1005
LC-5 1030    .103
LC-6 975    .0975
LC-7 997    .0997
LC-8 1025    .1025
LC-9 966    .0966

TEST # 5
MATCHED = 3038  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 942    .0942
LC-1 965    .0965
LC-2 932    .0932
LC-3 1091    .1091
LC-4 998    .0998
LC-5 976    .0976
LC-6 1049    .1049
LC-7 951    .0951
LC-8 1076    .1076
LC-9 1020    .102

TEST # 6
MATCHED = 2872  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 1009    .1009
LC-1 945    .0945
LC-2 1035    .1035
LC-3 1062    .1062
LC-4 878    .0878
LC-5 1101    .1101
LC-6 1031    .1031
LC-7 1017    .1017
LC-8 869    .0869
LC-9 1053    .1053

TEST # 7
MATCHED = 2798  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 978    .0978
LC-1 1038    .1038
LC-2 897    .0897
LC-3 1017    .1017
LC-4 1139    .1139
LC-5 1068    .1068
LC-6 881    .0881
LC-7 1017    .1017
LC-8 948    .0948
LC-9 1017    .1017

TEST # 8
MATCHED = 3122  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 959    .0959
LC-1 988    .0988
LC-2 1301    .1301
LC-3 1007    .1007
LC-4 1067    .1067
LC-5 899    .0899
LC-6 1012    .1012
LC-7 879    .0879
LC-8 900    .09
LC-9 988    .0988

TEST # 9
MATCHED = 2962  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 966    .0966
LC-1 1054    .1054
LC-2 1018    .1018
LC-3 950    .095
LC-4 1010    .101
LC-5 1012    .1012
LC-6 1005    .1005
LC-7 937    .0937
LC-8 1055    .1055
LC-9 993    .0993

TEST # 10
MATCHED = 3262  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 1033    .1033
LC-1 973    .0973
LC-2 969    .0969
LC-3 1001    .1001
LC-4 911    .0911
LC-5 1103    .1103
LC-6 948    .0948
LC-7 964    .0964
LC-8 1049    .1049
LC-9 1049    .1049

The outcome speaks for it's self, If I had discarded the first 3 selection than I would have correct

in doing so 67% of the time with no reguard for which 3 they were.  However with My digit system

In that the digits 1-2-3 hit in 67% of the draws than why would I discard them.  However If I play

them and only have to select 2 or 3 more digits to play from the 7 remaining digits I could use this

logic to choose maybe one or two not to play.

And My system is still not for sale nor will it ever be.

RL

The Ticket Prices in Step 7) of my proposed simulation Should be \$1, NOT 1¢ !

You missed an opportunity RL!

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

RL,

"Here is what I did......"

Why did you do that?  You, a skeptic of RNGs, uses them to prove they can generate sequences that agree with probability theory, another subject you do not believe in.  You ignored the simulation I described, using Lottery Commission selections from a shaker by a blindfolded human, one which would have demonstrated transparently for everyone whether your claims were TRUE or FALSE.  And I was even suggesting you use your system to pick the discards.

However, since you went to the trouble to execute a simulation,

albeit the wrong one, let's check your results.

I'll give you an edge.  Let's use your best run, the one with 3399 hits.  OK?

TEST # 2
MATCHED = 3399  IN 10000 RANDOM SELECTIONS

LC-0 1056    .1056
LC-1 1003    .1003
LC-2 1076    .1076
LC-3 1190    .119
LC-4 1022    .1022
LC-5 945    .0945
LC-6 899    .0899
LC-7 1107    .1107
LC-8 828    .0828
LC-9 874    .0874

Also, let's repeat your selection and betting rules here, so we don't forget.

>> next I instructed RL to select 3 different numbers from  0 to 9

>> next I instructed LC to select 1 number from 0 to 9

>> next I had the program check LC's random number against RL's 3 random numbers

>> and counted each time that the two RNG's matched a number

>> ............

>> Now if I select 3 random digits not to play I think it is

>> fair to say that I would be correct around 67% of the time.

Only if the Lottery's Pick was one of your Seven, AND you  BOUGHT those Seven!!

Your  RED statement is NOT consistent with your BLUE specifications.

Unfortunately, you failed to include money management.  Perhaps because THAT would have forced you to deal with your inconsistencies, especially the RED statement.  That's easy to fix.  As in my proposed simulation (the one you've ignored) we can just use the dollar amounts proportional to Missouri's Pick-3.  The MO Pick-3 pays \$600 on a \$1 Straight ticket where the odds are 1:1000.  Applying this to your computer simulation gives the following results:

Cost Of Tickets                 \$30,000   (10,000 Draws X 3 Tickets per Draw)

Winnings                          \$20,394   (3399 Wins X \$6 per Win)

NET LOSS                          \$9,606     (Cost - Winnings)

Undoubtedly, you will claim your system would pick 7 numbers to discard that are LESS LIKELY to win, resulting in a win percentage exeeding 30%.  Nowhere in these forums have you ever proved that assertion.  I claim it is impossible!

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2010, 11:15 am - IP Logged

JIMMY

Far from it, many here are far better programmers and many here have a much better education and many

have better systems based on what they say in their post.  I have also considered the consistent winner

paradox and when or if I ever reach anything close to that it will be trash canned, lost again for the next

person to find.  I think it has been found many times and lost again for the very reasons that you give

above.  This is why I have picked on you a little.  The dreams that some people have is all they have, and

if someone takes that away from them they loose all hope.  Hope is a very real commidity in life and gives

people the strenth to continue through the hard times.  I only ask you to consider this in what you say

here at LP.  Hope, Faith, and having a dream can sometimes lead a person to ignore the impossible and

aim for the stars.  If the lottery is turly random then no one ticket is a bad ticket before the drawing.  If

someone uses even the most outrageous and improbable method of selection it could be as valid as

any set that I could produce.  I have to chuckle at some of the posted systems and often spend much

time trying to get my mind around what they are saying.  I know what humble pie taste like all too well

and you won't find me pulling up a seat at that table to often.  This is all I have left to say, have a  good

day.

RL

RL,

Thanks for your honest response.  One of my sons agrees with you completely [in this post.]  In the past I was inclined to agree too, until this article caused me to have some doubts.  It's why I've been encouraging some people here to spend more time staying in shape and learning important areas like Solar Power, which I think have a better chance of helping them realize their dreams than spending hours and days juggling numbers.  If these research findings are valid, those who DO NOT succumb to the Gambler's fallacy, on average, tend to be more depressed, and those who DO are more positive, but in more need of controlling events.  You might find it interesting to determine where you fit in their research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control

I understand your comments about dreams.  I too play the lottery, mostly with QPs.  Just to promote lively conversation in the place where I buy my tickets, I will occassionally buy a Powerball ticket with numbers similar to:

1-2-3-4-5  Powerball - 1

It's fun, and since they're usually busy, the result is never as serious as the comments here.

I'm going to continue to try to publish a Backtest of a full blown system here, FWIW.

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4793 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2010, 2:46 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy

In the post above the three selected were not to be played and yes it is based on a 1 in 10 play.

Lets say that we have three choices and must select 1.  On average I will select the correct one

1 of every 3 attemps.  If I remove one I now have a 50/50 decision to make for 66% chance of being

correct.  The odds of being correct are 1 in 3.3 for all three selections.   The idea here is to lower the

choice pool from which to make a decision.  This example was intended to show that any system will

produce at least as good of odds as random.  I can think of no method or system of play that would

give worse odds than random so with no place to go but up why would any system not be at the very

least as good a way to play when you cannot do any worse than random.   If your concern is that people

would be better off spending there time and money on something else then maybe we could agree.  The

average player plays QP's and spends there time here for leisure.  The system player spends his or her

time here looking for someway to improve play.  I don't see much difference one way or the other as

they are both here and both play.  Keeping the mind active is every bit as important as doing the same

for the body.  I think that very few here do this to make a living and many spend less than \$20.00 per

week on the lottery.

RL

....

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7743 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2010, 3:03 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

(It's really getting annoying to have to keep telling you [and others] that the results I'm reporting here are NOT in support of a betting system that I am proposing, or would ever propose.  They are part of a process of understanding LOTTERY SYSTEMS!  If you and RL would stop trying to deny the mathematical conclusions of geniuses over centuries, I could move forward on a FULL backtest of one of your popular systems.  Maybe that's what you're afraid of!)

You said: "Had anyone played any of 25 three digit numbers over the last 5400 PA evening in each drawing for a \$1, they would have a profit."

OK, no problem.  Could you please give us one of these 25 three digit numbers, and how much net profit it made over the last 5400 PA evening drawings?  It will be a simple matter to verify your claim at the PA website.  REMEMBER, playing ONE(1) number Straight 5400 times will cost you \$5400.  To BREAK EVEN your number will have had to hit 11 (10.8) times over this 15 (14.8) year period, since PA only pays \$500 per hit.  This is not surprising at all for Random Drawings with statistics like those I found for this one.  But I'm still curious to see at least one that you found.  Think back.  On August 3, 2010 I posted an in depth analysis of the PA hit frequency.

The number that hit most often was 308.  Do you remember me mentioning that in the post?  I discussed it in the section named: Cross Check Interpretation of the Normal Distribution

The reason why your claim is not surprising is because if 308 could hit 23 times in 33.4 years, and be within expected bounds, there is no reason to doubt that 11 or more of those hits could have occured in the last 14.8 years, IS THERE?  You might recall also that over the 33+ years the number 308, the highest hitter of all, won \$11,500, but the required purchases were approximately \$67 MORE than that, for a NET LOSS!  If 308 is one of your big money makers over the last 15 years, it must have been a big loser in the first 19 years, RIGHT?

At the end of this post are the last 25 entries in a sort of the file of frequency counts that is part of the analysis of the lottery results we're discussing.  Actually, there are more numbers that hit 18 times, but they're irrelevant at this point.  I'm not going to redo my analysis with the last 5400 Draws of my 11,570 Draw database, unless you make some outlandish claim in response to my NEXT 2 questions.

So I'm accepting your claim that 25 numbers "made money" over the last 15 years in the PA Daily Number Game (Evening).

What I would LOVE to know, and others I'm sure, is:

1) DID YOU  PREDICT THESE 25 NUMBERS WITH ONE OF YOUR systems, OR DID YOU MERELY RETRIEVE THEM FROM THE RESULTS, after the fact, LIKE I DID?

2) When you say, "Made Money," JUST HOW MUCH MONEY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

(Remember, I can verify whatever you claim!)

Well STACK47, what have you enlightened us with that we didn't already know?

And oh, BTW, check my FIRST post at this site and you will find that I brought up the Nick Perry FIASCO in Pittsburgh then, so you're kind of late bringing it up here.  That fraudulant draw is a tiny blip on a distant horizon!

--Jimmy4164

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

Draw, #Hits

(Hit frequency of 25 of the highest hitters over the history of the PA Daily Number (Evening))

639 , 18
810 , 18
823 , 18
903 , 18
906 , 18
909 , 18
952 , 18
995 , 18
183 , 19
219 , 19
279 , 19
293 , 19
354 , 19
643 , 19
667 , 19
740 , 19
830 , 19
986 , 19
67 , 20
246 , 20
692 , 20
988 , 20
772 , 21
120 , 22
308 , 23

"(It's really getting annoying to have to keep telling you [and others] that the results I'm reporting here are NOT in support of a betting system that I am proposing, or would ever propose.  They are part of a process of understanding LOTTERY SYSTEMS!"

"The Quest for a Blockbuster System"

"So, here is our first SYSTEM in the Fooled by Randomness thread!"

Your post on August 3 sure looks you either already have a system or you're trying to create one.

"If you and RL would stop trying to deny the mathematical conclusions of geniuses over centuries, I could move forward on a FULL backtest of one of your popular systems.  Maybe that's what you're afraid of!)"

Conclusions are reached AFTER all the data is examined. You started a poll asking how many hits will (future tense) a three digit number repeat over a 33.4 year period but nobody can give the exact number without a time machine. They can guess or give the probability assuming the answer would fall somewhere in between the standard deviation. Your 33.4 drawing history reflects how many repeats did hit and that number was inside the standard deviation of the mean. From that we only can assume in the next 33.4 years that number of hits will be somewhere in between the standard deviation.

Since most systems are created after back testing there should be no reason for anyone to be afraid of showing it. Somebody playing their birthday could be one of the most popular systems and while it can't show a profit for everyone, someone born on May 27 (527) would have made a profit had they played that three digit number for a \$1 straight in every PA drawing within my 5400 drawing data base.

"OK, no problem.  Could you please give us one of these 25 three digit numbers, and how much net profit it made over the last 5400 PA evening drawings?"

527 hit 12 in the last 5400 drawings; 12 times \$500 = \$6000, \$5400 times 1 = \$600 or a 11.1% net profit. Not a huge profit but considering the fact the PA Lottery keeps 51% of the true odds payoff, any profit is a great accomplishment. Before you start assuming I'm advocating playing birthday numbers, I'll point out someone born on July 27 (727) cashed only one ticket. There are 25 three digit numbers hitting at least 11 times and 21 only hitting 1 time.

"So I'm accepting your claim that 25 numbers "made money" over the last 15 years in the PA Daily Number Game (Evening)."

I don't play pick-3 in PA and the data base I'm using doesn't separate the midday and evening drawings, so it combines them starting on Feb. 11, 2003. You're not a premium member so you can't access LP's data base that does separate or combine the two daily drawings. I used 527 because it was a three digit number with over 11 hits and it neatly fits into a birthday number playing system that someone would play in both drawings. It's a fact the combined results show 25 numbers hitting 11 or more times, but when I get some time, I'll give you the accurate results on the PA evening drawing only.

The number 549 did hit 12 times in past 5400 PA evening drawings.

To be continued........

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2010, 4:53 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy

In the post above the three selected were not to be played and yes it is based on a 1 in 10 play.

Lets say that we have three choices and must select 1.  On average I will select the correct one

1 of every 3 attemps.  If I remove one I now have a 50/50 decision to make for 66% chance of being

correct.  The odds of being correct are 1 in 3.3 for all three selections.   The idea here is to lower the

choice pool from which to make a decision.  This example was intended to show that any system will

produce at least as good of odds as random.  I can think of no method or system of play that would

give worse odds than random so with no place to go but up why would any system not be at the very

least as good a way to play when you cannot do any worse than random.   If your concern is that people

would be better off spending there time and money on something else then maybe we could agree.  The

average player plays QP's and spends there time here for leisure.  The system player spends his or her

time here looking for someway to improve play.  I don't see much difference one way or the other as

they are both here and both play.  Keeping the mind active is every bit as important as doing the same

for the body.  I think that very few here do this to make a living and many spend less than \$20.00 per

week on the lottery.

RL

RL,

I'm glad you've reduced this problem to it's simplest case - 1:3 .

"Lets say that we have three choices and must select 1.  On average I will select the correct one 1 of every 3 attemps."

Correct.  (That is IF we NOW assume the Lottery has the same set of 3 balls in its hopper, and ONLY those.)

"If I remove one I now have a 50/50 decision to make for 66% chance of being correct."

Wrong!  You still ONLY have a 33% chance to win.  You ONLY have a better chance of picking the ball that will match what the lottery is going to select FROM ITS SET OF 3 -- IF YOU HAVE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ONE YOU REMOVED IS NOT GOING TO BE THE ONE THEY SELECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU DON'T HAVE THIS PRIOR KNOWLEDGE!

THIS IS NOT THE MONTY HALL SHOW!!

Monte is not here to assist you by effectively telling you which ball to remove!

If he was, you would be absolutely correct!

Monte KNEW what was behind all 3 doors, REMEMBER?

Now I see your problem!  You are making the mistake that 92% of the population made years ago evaluating the Monte Hall Problem , BUT IN REVERSE!

--Jimmy4164

p.s.  I really hope this a "Eureka Moment" for you!

 Page 9 of 20