Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 21, 2017, 10:16 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Statistical Analysis of Lottery Results

Topic closed. 42 replies. Last post 6 years ago by LANTERN.

Page 2 of 3
PrintE-mailLink
savagegoose's avatar - ProfilePho
adelaide sa
Australia
Member #37136
April 11, 2006
3316 Posts
Offline
Posted: October 15, 2010, 5:15 am - IP Logged

yeah got the win 32 version.

2014 = -1016; 2015= -1409; 2016  = -1171; 2017 = ?  TOT =  -3596

keno historic = -2291 ; 2015= -603; 2016= -424; 2017 = ? TOT = - 3318


    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: October 16, 2010, 11:48 am - IP Logged

    Here is a great source for FREE Statistical Software!

    http://statpages.org/javasta2.html

    Here is an easy to use Combinatorics Calculator

    http://www.vpgenius.com/tools/combin.aspx

      four4me's avatar - gate1
      MD
      United States
      Member #1701
      June 18, 2003
      8394 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: October 16, 2010, 12:12 pm - IP Logged
      Statistical analysis when referring to the lottery could yield many results but it's unclear if it could produce future wins. If you had a complete data base of lottery numbers to work with they could be broken down to their various parts. By separating the pick 3-4-5-6 games and breaking them down.
       
      A couple of those feature exist here on Lottery post deflate, and inspect. Excel is also a great way to formulate analysis to find out certain things you might want to know about the number history.
       
      Simple or complex programs can be written to input various numbers and yield results. But predicting the outcome of a drawing is not what statistical analysis does.

      Big John says. You don't hit the number. The number hits you!!!!

                     I'm not Big John, I'm Four4me, Big John's a friend.
        Avatar
        NASHVILLE, TENN
        United States
        Member #33372
        February 20, 2006
        1044 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: October 16, 2010, 1:53 pm - IP Logged

        What I have noticed, and dissented on, is the belief of many that, "an algorithym which will make playing the lottory profitable" exists. 

        You seem to believe that because an algorithym does not presently exist, that one is not possible.  I guess you and I have to agree to disagree.  I believe that one does exist.  We need to find it.  History is replete with examples of "It can't be done!" with subsequent results proving "It can be done and I did it!".

        There is the old story of Christopher Columbus.  When he challenged some deep thinkers ( the mathematical elite of his day) to balance an egg on one end, they readily took up the challenge.  They could not do it.  The egg always fell off to one side.  Since they could not do it, they declared the feat to be impossible.  Columbus then took the egg in one hand and smashed it on the table.  The flattened end easily kept the egg upstanding.  He then remarked, "Everything is easy once someone shows you how".  (Putting a few grains of salt under the egg also works.)

        Don't rule us lotto wacko's out just yet.  We have yet begun to explore.


          United States
          Member #93947
          July 10, 2010
          2180 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: October 17, 2010, 12:53 am - IP Logged
          Statistical analysis when referring to the lottery could yield many results but it's unclear if it could produce future wins. If you had a complete data base of lottery numbers to work with they could be broken down to their various parts. By separating the pick 3-4-5-6 games and breaking them down.
           
          A couple of those feature exist here on Lottery post deflate, and inspect. Excel is also a great way to formulate analysis to find out certain things you might want to know about the number history.
           
          Simple or complex programs can be written to input various numbers and yield results. But predicting the outcome of a drawing is not what statistical analysis does.

          four4me,

          "Statistical analysis when referring to the lottery could yield many results but it's unclear if it could produce future wins."

          This has been my point all along!  Mathematics and physics will not allow you to turn a lottery game into a profitable venture.  The only possible exception to this would be where fraud is involved, and it is highly likely that only the perpetrators of the fraud would benefit.

          --Jimmy4164

            LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
            Tx
            United States
            Member #4570
            May 4, 2004
            5180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: October 17, 2010, 1:08 am - IP Logged
            Here is a "Must Read" for all those who hope to be able to
            predict future lottery draws.  Chapter 2 contains the most
            applicable information.

            http://ee.stanford.edu/~gray/sp.pdf

            The following excerpts are from the Preface:

            Nothing in nature is random . . . A thing appears random
            only through the incompleteness of our knowledge.
            Spinoza, Ethics I
             
            (An LP Poster uses a paraphrase of this Spinoza quote as
            his signature; I hope he checks out this book.)

            I do not believe that God rolls dice.
            attributed to Einstein

            Laplace  argued to the effect that given complete knowledge
            of the physics of an experiment, the outcome must always be
            predictable. This metaphysical argument must be tempered
            with several facts. The relevant parameters may  not be
            measurable with sufficient precision due to mechanical or
            theoretical limits. For example, the uncertainty principle
            prevents the simultaneous accurate knowledge of both
            position and momentum. The deterministic functions may be
            too complex to compute in finite time. The computer itself
            may make errors due to power failures, lightning, or the
            general perfidy of inanimate objects. The experiment could
            take place in a remote location with the parameters unknown
            to the observer; for example, in a communication link, the
            transmitted message is unknown a priori, for if it were not,
            there would be no need for communication. The results of
            the experiment could be reported by an unreliable witness -
            either incompetent or dishonest. For these and other reasons,
            it is useful to have a theory for the analysis and synthesis of
            processes that behave in a random or unpredictable manner.
            The goal is to construct mathematical models that lead to
            reasonably accurate prediction of the long-term average
            behavior of random processes. The theory should produce
            good estimates of the average behavior of real processes and
            thereby correct theoretical derivations with measurable results.
             
            (Sound Interesting?)
            --Jimmy4164

            "Nothing in nature is random . . . A thing appears random
            only through the incompleteness of our knowledge.
            Spinoza, Ethics I"

            I never before read that, but I in my own came to know it and hardly know anything at all about Math, you only need a kindergarden kind of education to know that much.

            I, on very many of my LP posts have said that.

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


            BibleOnline  ParishesOnline  ChristianRadioOnline   MassOnline   Mass

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


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: October 17, 2010, 1:15 am - IP Logged

              What I have noticed, and dissented on, is the belief of many that, "an algorithym which will make playing the lottory profitable" exists. 

              You seem to believe that because an algorithym does not presently exist, that one is not possible.  I guess you and I have to agree to disagree.  I believe that one does exist.  We need to find it.  History is replete with examples of "It can't be done!" with subsequent results proving "It can be done and I did it!".

              There is the old story of Christopher Columbus.  When he challenged some deep thinkers ( the mathematical elite of his day) to balance an egg on one end, they readily took up the challenge.  They could not do it.  The egg always fell off to one side.  Since they could not do it, they declared the feat to be impossible.  Columbus then took the egg in one hand and smashed it on the table.  The flattened end easily kept the egg upstanding.  He then remarked, "Everything is easy once someone shows you how".  (Putting a few grains of salt under the egg also works.)

              Don't rule us lotto wacko's out just yet.  We have yet begun to explore.

              GASMETERGUY,

              "You seem to believe that because an algorithym does not presently exist, that one is not possible."

              Unless humans learn how to see into the future, I believe this to be true.

              In PA the Evening Daily Number is a 3 digit Base 10 number drawn with 3 ping pong ball machines.  The expected value of playing this game with Straight Win tickets is 50¢ for each $1 wagered, since the odds are 1:1000 but the payout is only $500.  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you found a method of picking these 3 digit numbers that resulted in you winning $1.25 for every $1 wagered, over a long period of time, say 12,000 Draws.  If you actually found such a system, it would clearly be profitable to continue using it.

              Mathematically, how would you explain your success?

              --Jimmy4164

                LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
                Tx
                United States
                Member #4570
                May 4, 2004
                5180 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: October 17, 2010, 1:21 am - IP Logged

                I do not think anyone on this site believes it is possible to mathematicqlly predict the outcome of each and every draw at any given time or place.  Mathemantics deals only wwith repeatable results. 

                What we are looking for is an algorithym which will make playing the lottory profitable.  We fully expect to "not win" most of the time but hope, when the "win" does come, the reward far exceeds the cost.

                Statistics only help us to see the problem we face; not a solution to the problem.  So we try our best, searching, experimenting, backtesting, thinking, and talking with others who share our passions.

                To date, I know of no algorithym which does what we wish.  That is not to say one does not exist.  We do not allow the fact that a successful algorithym has not been found to deter us from our crusade.  We will plod along.  We will succeed.

                I know of an easy way to more often than not filter out 3 boxed digits out of the 10 that are good for both, boxed and straight filtration on the pick 3 game and for straight play on top of that I know of other ways to filter out even 1 or more digits from each of the 3 positions and that is just digits filtration, besides counting everything else, of course I have not posted about everything that I know about nor did I make predictions that use those digits filtering techniques.

                Take into account that if you filter out 2 digits boxed or 2 straight digits for each position you filter out about half of the total pool of pick 3 numbers.

                As I don't have proper stats software those digits filtering techniques are very simple and use relatively few past draws.

                BibleOnline  ParishesOnline  ChristianRadioOnline   MassOnline   Mass

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

                  LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
                  Tx
                  United States
                  Member #4570
                  May 4, 2004
                  5180 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: October 17, 2010, 1:26 am - IP Logged

                  As GASMETERGUY says, no reasonable player would believes it's possible to mathematically predict the outcomes of each drawing every time but I believe it's possible to come up with a system that improves the odds of winning.  I doubt if playing lotteries can ever be profitable without winning a few second prizes or eventually a jackpot.  If such a system or algorithm is ever developed we'll probably read about one person or group winning several lottery jackpots within a year, I doubt if they would be selling or sharing it.

                  As to jackpot kind of games, I have not spent enough time in their study to come up with good enough filtering techniques that can be used with the mediocre filters software that is available now for those kind of games.

                  Jackpots filters software is pityful, that is, very inadequate.

                  BibleOnline  ParishesOnline  ChristianRadioOnline   MassOnline   Mass

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


                    United States
                    Member #93947
                    July 10, 2010
                    2180 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: October 17, 2010, 1:32 am - IP Logged

                    "Nothing in nature is random . . . A thing appears random
                    only through the incompleteness of our knowledge.
                    Spinoza, Ethics I"

                    I never before read that, but I in my own came to know it and hardly know anything at all about Math, you only need a kindergarden kind of education to know that much.

                    I, on very many of my LP posts have said that.

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


                    LANTERN,

                    But what is your reaction to the rest of the book excerpt discussing Laplace's metaphysical way of stating Spinoza's case?

                    --Jimmy4164

                     

                    "Laplace  argued to the effect that given complete knowledge

                    of the physics of an experiment, the outcome must always be
                    predictable. This metaphysical argument must be tempered
                    with several facts. The relevant parameters may  not be
                    measurable with sufficient precision due to mechanical or
                    theoretical limits. For example, the uncertainty principle
                    prevents the simultaneous accurate knowledge of both
                    position and momentum. The deterministic functions may be
                    too complex to compute in finite time. The computer itself
                    may make errors due to power failures, lightning, or the
                    general perfidy of inanimate objects. The experiment could
                    take place in a remote location with the parameters unknown
                    to the observer; for example, in a communication link, the
                    transmitted message is unknown a priori, for if it were not,
                    there would be no need for communication. The results of
                    the experiment could be reported by an unreliable witness -
                    either incompetent or dishonest. For these and other reasons,
                    it is useful to have a theory for the analysis and synthesis of
                    processes that behave in a random or unpredictable manner.
                    The goal is to construct mathematical models that lead to
                    reasonably accurate prediction of the long-term average
                    behavior of random processes. The theory should produce
                    good estimates of the average behavior of real processes and
                    thereby correct theoretical derivations with measurable results."

                      LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
                      Tx
                      United States
                      Member #4570
                      May 4, 2004
                      5180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: October 17, 2010, 1:39 am - IP Logged

                      GASMETERGUY,

                      "You seem to believe that because an algorithym does not presently exist, that one is not possible."

                      Unless humans learn how to see into the future, I believe this to be true.

                      In PA the Evening Daily Number is a 3 digit Base 10 number drawn with 3 ping pong ball machines.  The expected value of playing this game with Straight Win tickets is 50¢ for each $1 wagered, since the odds are 1:1000 but the payout is only $500.  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you found a method of picking these 3 digit numbers that resulted in you winning $1.25 for every $1 wagered, over a long period of time, say 12,000 Draws.  If you actually found such a system, it would clearly be profitable to continue using it.

                      Mathematically, how would you explain your success?

                      --Jimmy4164

                      If you filter out 1 digit for each position you have:

                      729 Straight pick 3 numbers left, if you filter out 2 such digits then:

                      512 Straight, if 3 digits then:

                      343 Straight pick 3 numbers, if 4 digits are filtered out of the 10 then:

                      216 Straight numbers, if 5 then:

                      125 Straight.

                      BibleOnline  ParishesOnline  ChristianRadioOnline   MassOnline   Mass

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

                        LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
                        Tx
                        United States
                        Member #4570
                        May 4, 2004
                        5180 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: October 17, 2010, 1:48 am - IP Logged

                        LANTERN,

                        But what is your reaction to the rest of the book excerpt discussing Laplace's metaphysical way of stating Spinoza's case?

                        --Jimmy4164

                         

                        "Laplace  argued to the effect that given complete knowledge

                        of the physics of an experiment, the outcome must always be
                        predictable. This metaphysical argument must be tempered
                        with several facts. The relevant parameters may  not be
                        measurable with sufficient precision due to mechanical or
                        theoretical limits. For example, the uncertainty principle
                        prevents the simultaneous accurate knowledge of both
                        position and momentum. The deterministic functions may be
                        too complex to compute in finite time. The computer itself
                        may make errors due to power failures, lightning, or the
                        general perfidy of inanimate objects. The experiment could
                        take place in a remote location with the parameters unknown
                        to the observer; for example, in a communication link, the
                        transmitted message is unknown a priori, for if it were not,
                        there would be no need for communication. The results of
                        the experiment could be reported by an unreliable witness -
                        either incompetent or dishonest. For these and other reasons,
                        it is useful to have a theory for the analysis and synthesis of
                        processes that behave in a random or unpredictable manner.
                        The goal is to construct mathematical models that lead to
                        reasonably accurate prediction of the long-term average
                        behavior of random processes. The theory should produce
                        good estimates of the average behavior of real processes and
                        thereby correct theoretical derivations with measurable results."

                        I have not read it, nor will I, but I can tell you that if what produced a particular result is exactly reproduced the outcome might be exactly the same unless, everything created and or what controls it or them has a kind of awareness and control over itself and or over other matter and or energy or what-ever forces there might be.

                        If somebody sees an experiment and or thinks about it, its outcome might also not be the same as it might have been otherwise, that might be another factor also.

                        There might be kinds and or levels of awareness and also of energy controls.

                        You are used to controlling your body to some kind of degree, but if that control could be "Projected" or "Extended" or "Applied" to "Whatever" you will it to do.

                        BibleOnline  ParishesOnline  ChristianRadioOnline   MassOnline   Mass

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


                          United States
                          Member #93947
                          July 10, 2010
                          2180 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: October 17, 2010, 3:35 am - IP Logged

                          I have not read it, nor will I, but I can tell you that if what produced a particular result is exactly reproduced the outcome might be exactly the same unless, everything created and or what controls it or them has a kind of awareness and control over itself and or over other matter and or energy or what-ever forces there might be.

                          If somebody sees an experiment and or thinks about it, its outcome might also not be the same as it might have been otherwise, that might be another factor also.

                          There might be kinds and or levels of awareness and also of energy controls.

                          You are used to controlling your body to some kind of degree, but if that control could be "Projected" or "Extended" or "Applied" to "Whatever" you will it to do.

                          In the case of, say, a Lotto game with a million possible outcomes, wouldn't the cumulative effect of the several hundred thousand people holding differently numbered tickets bringing these kinds of forces to bear on the Ball Machines just sort of turn out to be a "wash," so to speak? Smiley


                            LANTERN's avatar - kilroy 28_173_reasonably_small.jpg
                            Tx
                            United States
                            Member #4570
                            May 4, 2004
                            5180 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: October 17, 2010, 11:33 am - IP Logged

                            In the case of, say, a Lotto game with a million possible outcomes, wouldn't the cumulative effect of the several hundred thousand people holding differently numbered tickets bringing these kinds of forces to bear on the Ball Machines just sort of turn out to be a "wash," so to speak? Smiley


                            Well, yes, but as it is or might be, most of us, don't have any kind of "Faith" not even as much as that of a grain of sand, so we can't move no mountain nor even ping pong balls and if anybody out there can, they probably would not bother to do so.

                            No.

                            No, an experiment can never be exactly reproduced.

                            The Universe is always in motion and a-changing.

                            The World moves and so does the Sun and so does the Galaxy, Etc.

                            Every particle no matter its size is unique to itself, including things such as Electrons, Protons, Atoms and whatever.

                            The same goes for energy, so when you try to reproduce something you can't, the earth has rotated on itself and also around the sun and the sun has also moved, the galaxy is also in another part of space and the time is not the same it has advanced and the atoms and energies used are not the same ones that were used the first or last time that the experiment or whatever was done-made.

                            And then there are always such things as changes in temperature, atmosferic pressure, gravity from selestial bodies such as the Moon the Sun, Etc, Energies such as Cosmic rays, particles such as Tachions, anything that has Mass no matter how small produces a gravity effect towards itself and it is also affected by the gravity produced by other objets, even particles such as electrons are always in motion, motion also produces a kind of gravity effect.

                            The thing is that we can't go back in time unless the Universe reversed itself and can't go forward either as the Universe is not there yet.

                            Maybe we can go back to a "Ghost" that was, but that would not really be going back.

                            BibleOnline  ParishesOnline  ChristianRadioOnline   MassOnline   Mass

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


                              United States
                              Member #93947
                              July 10, 2010
                              2180 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: October 17, 2010, 4:12 pm - IP Logged

                              If you filter out 1 digit for each position you have:

                              729 Straight pick 3 numbers left, if you filter out 2 such digits then:

                              512 Straight, if 3 digits then:

                              343 Straight pick 3 numbers, if 4 digits are filtered out of the 10 then:

                              216 Straight numbers, if 5 then:

                              125 Straight.

                              "Filter out" is a key concept here.  Remember, to break even in most Pick-3s you must hit the jackpot twice for every 1000 tickets purchased.  Unless there are "forces" at work for you that we discussed earlier, this probably won't happen often enough to keep you in the black.  This is especially true when you are discarding 875 (1000-125) of the possible combinations that the ball machines are likely to produce about 87.5% of thetime.

                              I believe that if you buy 125 ($1) tickets every day for a year, using whatever filtering techniques you like, you will spend $45,625, but only win back on average about $22,813.  Statistically, you will have about a 70% chance of your winnings falling between $17,000 and $29,000.  To win more than $45,625, something like "The Force" would definitely have to be with you!  Smiley