- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 9:02 am
You last visited
April 19, 2024, 7:43 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Statistics around the balance of even/odd and small/big numbersPrev TopicNext Topic
-
Quote: Originally posted by Mayday on Jan 15, 2011
In a sense ,it's likr those post that I read that in a pick 6 game 1'2'3'4'5'6 can be a winning combination...Sure It can..Though when and if it happens good luck and congratulation to the winner..I sure not going to wait around,,Just because (evens) hold a advantage be it big or small at any particular time am I going to wait around choosng 4 odd numbers because all things tend to even out or their are more odd numbers in a particular game..Just look at Mega for the last few drawings.. numbers between(1-9)
8-6-4-1/4-2 thats 5 to 1
and their are 5 odd/4 even numbers
So go ahead and choose all odds between (1-9) for Mega over the next few drawings and let me know how it turns out.
MAYDAY,
I did a scan of the PA Cash-5 results over the life of the game. There have been 5,460 Draws between 04/23/1992 and tonight, 01/15/2011. Here are the dates and numbers drawn in two installments: 1st all the ODDS, then all the EVENs. Note the difference between the total hit counts.
--Jimmy4164
All ODD Number Sets Drawn
Pennsylvania CASH-5
04/23/1992 Thru 01/15/2011
Date Occur (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
7/30/1992 1 9 13 15 31 33
5/3/1993 2 1 11 17 27 37
5/6/1993 3 1 5 9 15 27
8/2/1993 4 13 29 33 35 39
10/11/1993 5 3 7 15 21 23
9/5/1994 6 9 21 23 29 39
12/5/1994 7 11 13 19 23 33
4/6/1995 8 1 15 29 31 39
12/4/1995 9 1 27 29 31 33
4/4/1996 10 1 7 9 17 19
7/15/1996 11 1 3 11 23 39
8/28/1996 12 1 5 21 37 39
10/16/1996 13 7 13 15 29 33
10/27/1996 14 1 25 29 37 39
12/5/1996 15 1 3 11 33 37
8/21/1997 16 1 7 15 25 33
11/10/1997 17 15 19 21 29 35
12/18/1997 18 5 9 13 31 33
1/29/1998 19 3 11 25 27 35
3/16/1998 20 11 15 21 23 39
3/19/1998 21 1 23 29 37 39
3/25/1998 22 11 13 15 27 37
4/16/1998 23 5 9 21 31 39
5/7/1998 24 7 11 25 27 39
6/13/1998 25 7 11 17 21 37
6/27/1998 26 7 13 17 21 33
8/1/1998 27 5 25 27 31 33
8/6/1998 28 9 19 23 35 37
8/29/1998 29 7 9 17 33 39
10/6/1998 30 5 21 23 25 39
10/15/1998 31 1 11 17 21 23
11/2/1998 32 11 21 27 37 39
12/20/1998 33 1 3 5 25 27
5/4/1999 34 9 13 19 23 35
5/16/1999 35 1 5 17 21 27
6/15/1999 36 1 15 17 31 35
9/1/1999 37 9 11 13 21 31
10/8/1999 38 3 7 23 31 33
11/19/1999 39 15 17 21 23 39
12/2/1999 40 3 5 17 31 35
3/13/2000 41 3 11 13 29 39
3/16/2000 42 7 9 17 29 31
4/13/2000 43 9 13 15 17 35
5/1/2000 44 1 3 7 11 27
5/3/2000 45 3 5 23 27 31
6/29/2000 46 13 19 23 25 29
7/11/2000 47 5 7 9 23 37
8/4/2000 48 11 19 21 33 39
10/9/2000 49 21 23 25 29 33
2/10/2001 50 19 21 33 37 39
2/14/2001 51 5 11 21 23 39
5/12/2001 52 1 3 23 27 37
6/11/2001 53 1 9 15 25 33
6/16/2001 54 3 5 21 27 33
9/21/2001 55 15 17 27 35 37
10/5/2001 56 5 15 27 29 39
11/11/2001 57 7 17 31 35 37
4/18/2002 58 13 15 17 21 29
5/9/2002 59 3 5 17 23 39
6/18/2002 60 5 9 17 21 23
6/29/2002 61 7 11 21 25 29
8/20/2002 62 5 15 19 31 37
9/2/2002 63 11 13 23 25 29
11/25/2002 64 3 5 13 17 21
12/4/2002 65 3 9 11 13 35
12/15/2002 66 5 7 11 21 37
12/26/2002 67 1 19 25 33 35
1/16/2003 68 7 17 33 37 39
1/23/2003 69 13 21 29 35 37
1/30/2003 70 7 11 27 29 33
2/19/2003 71 1 3 5 17 29
3/21/2003 72 5 21 25 29 35
3/29/2003 73 3 11 17 21 35
5/16/2003 74 3 5 7 21 25
7/1/2003 75 19 21 27 29 35
8/4/2003 76 19 25 31 35 37
8/11/2003 77 3 7 27 35 37
9/1/2003 78 15 17 25 37 39
12/16/2003 79 1 5 7 13 17
1/8/2004 80 7 11 13 17 27
3/5/2004 81 17 19 21 23 31
4/1/2004 82 3 21 29 31 37
4/2/2004 83 1 23 27 31 33
5/2/2004 84 3 7 17 23 31
5/29/2004 85 5 7 13 23 37
8/12/2004 86 1 5 9 11 29
8/17/2004 87 5 9 17 25 27
9/12/2004 88 1 17 25 31 35
9/16/2004 89 3 13 15 27 31
10/1/2004 90 1 5 9 19 37
10/20/2004 91 7 11 13 25 39
11/27/2004 92 15 17 21 33 35
1/23/2005 93 1 7 9 13 23
2/5/2005 94 3 5 21 23 25
2/26/2005 95 5 11 13 21 31
2/27/2005 96 17 21 23 27 39
3/26/2005 97 5 11 15 31 39
4/5/2005 98 3 15 23 31 35
4/24/2005 99 15 17 19 25 31
4/25/2005 100 11 15 27 33 35
5/17/2005 101 9 13 19 25 35
5/22/2005 102 1 19 33 37 39
8/25/2005 103 5 21 23 27 35
9/8/2005 104 3 11 15 21 25
10/30/2005 105 5 21 25 27 37
1/2/2006 106 19 23 25 31 33
1/17/2006 107 1 3 19 21 33
1/24/2006 108 17 25 29 37 39
4/19/2006 109 9 11 17 19 33
4/21/2006 110 17 21 25 29 39
4/24/2006 111 5 9 15 29 35
5/21/2006 112 7 17 21 31 37
6/4/2006 113 1 5 9 17 29
7/1/2006 114 13 19 21 31 37
7/18/2006 115 1 3 5 23 39
7/23/2006 116 3 11 15 31 39
7/26/2006 117 3 19 23 25 35
8/17/2006 118 1 9 29 31 35
9/30/2006 119 11 17 23 31 35
11/5/2006 120 7 23 25 33 37
12/22/2006 121 7 9 17 25 31
1/5/2007 122 1 19 21 25 35
2/15/2007 123 11 17 23 25 35
3/9/2007 124 1 19 25 27 33
3/15/2007 125 5 7 15 27 35
3/16/2007 126 3 13 31 33 37
4/16/2007 127 13 17 19 31 33
4/25/2007 128 11 19 23 29 33
5/13/2007 129 9 15 19 37 39
5/29/2007 130 19 23 33 35 37
6/11/2007 131 5 11 31 35 39
6/13/2007 132 5 7 15 33 37
8/20/2007 133 1 5 17 19 29
8/27/2007 134 21 23 29 37 39
9/5/2007 135 1 3 15 17 21
10/15/2007 136 1 9 29 31 33
11/24/2007 137 5 9 11 19 27
1/7/2008 138 1 19 23 35 39
1/10/2008 139 9 13 17 31 35
1/16/2008 140 5 7 15 25 27
2/11/2008 141 3 11 19 33 43
5/9/2008 142 7 13 19 31 37
8/25/2008 143 5 23 31 39 41
11/30/2008 144 1 11 13 23 27
12/11/2008 145 11 21 33 37 39
12/22/2008 146 5 9 19 35 39
2/15/2009 147 5 13 21 35 37
5/24/2009 148 1 21 29 35 37
10/29/2009 149 1 9 27 33 41
11/13/2009 150 17 27 33 35 41
12/25/2009 151 3 11 13 21 29
12/28/2009 152 7 15 27 33 41
1/3/2010 153 17 23 25 35 39
2/21/2010 154 7 11 23 29 39
4/7/2010 155 19 21 23 27 37
5/18/2010 156 1 5 13 27 39
5/30/2010 157 9 17 25 33 39
6/2/2010 158 1 19 21 31 35
6/4/2010 159 1 3 23 35 37
8/14/2010 160 3 7 13 31 39
8/17/2010 161 3 11 13 21 27
9/3/2010 162 7 25 27 31 35
9/4/2010 163 7 11 13 21 25
10/7/2010 164 5 27 29 33 39
10/14/2010 165 1 21 27 33 43
12/3/2010 166 1 7 21 33 41
12/24/2010 167 1 15 17 23 27
1/9/2011 168 5 17 25 31 37
All EVEN Number Sets Drawn
Pennsylvania CASH-5
04/23/1992 Thru 01/15/2011
Date Occur (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
8/20/1992 1 4 8 14 20 32
6/14/1993 2 4 18 22 24 26
9/23/1993 3 14 20 24 28 32
11/15/1993 4 6 12 14 24 32
4/14/1994 5 4 8 10 18 22
10/27/1994 6 8 20 26 32 34
6/26/1995 7 12 22 30 32 34
11/13/1995 8 10 12 30 32 36
12/22/1995 9 2 6 8 18 22
4/17/1996 10 10 12 16 20 36
2/12/1997 11 2 16 20 32 36
3/5/1997 12 24 26 28 34 36
6/30/1997 13 6 8 24 32 36
8/4/1997 14 2 8 12 14 16
2/8/1998 15 4 14 22 36 38
2/28/1998 16 6 20 24 34 36
4/5/1998 17 4 8 12 14 24
4/30/1998 18 2 6 14 26 34
5/14/1998 19 2 20 22 34 36
10/29/1998 20 10 18 24 28 30
11/22/1998 21 4 8 10 24 34
12/28/1998 22 6 10 14 36 38
2/13/1999 23 4 8 10 14 26
2/23/1999 24 2 24 28 32 38
3/6/1999 25 2 12 26 28 32
5/11/1999 26 6 12 18 26 36
7/3/1999 27 8 12 24 26 36
10/15/1999 28 8 10 26 30 38
12/26/1999 29 6 16 24 30 34
12/29/1999 30 4 24 28 32 36
9/1/2000 31 14 18 26 34 38
9/28/2000 32 10 18 22 28 36
11/12/2000 33 6 10 16 34 38
12/3/2000 34 4 8 10 28 36
1/21/2001 35 8 14 22 26 30
1/25/2001 36 2 6 16 34 38
4/10/2001 37 6 12 16 28 32
7/16/2001 38 2 16 26 28 34
7/27/2001 39 6 10 18 20 30
8/29/2001 40 2 6 16 20 24
12/10/2001 41 2 4 8 22 32
12/21/2001 42 4 14 16 26 34
3/30/2002 43 6 12 16 26 28
4/22/2002 44 4 14 24 34 38
4/28/2002 45 2 20 24 28 34
9/15/2002 46 12 14 22 26 36
9/23/2002 47 2 14 16 26 36
10/1/2002 48 4 18 20 24 28
12/31/2002 49 6 8 14 18 20
1/19/2003 50 4 10 20 26 30
6/5/2003 51 2 14 20 22 30
9/17/2003 52 2 6 12 22 38
10/1/2003 53 4 8 24 30 32
11/14/2003 54 2 12 20 22 36
1/4/2004 55 6 8 22 24 38
2/8/2004 56 6 14 24 26 28
3/31/2004 57 4 10 24 28 36
4/23/2004 58 2 16 20 26 28
5/5/2004 59 4 20 32 36 38
5/15/2004 60 6 30 32 34 38
7/31/2004 61 10 22 26 36 38
11/5/2004 62 2 4 6 10 32
12/21/2004 63 10 12 26 28 36
1/25/2005 64 4 14 32 34 36
3/28/2005 65 2 4 10 24 32
5/7/2005 66 6 14 16 18 22
7/27/2005 67 10 12 22 30 32
8/29/2005 68 4 8 16 32 38
10/17/2005 69 2 14 16 22 32
4/12/2006 70 8 10 12 26 36
4/13/2006 71 2 4 18 22 32
7/6/2006 72 2 8 20 28 30
8/22/2006 73 2 6 18 20 26
9/11/2006 74 2 10 14 24 36
10/3/2006 75 2 4 10 26 28
3/28/2007 76 2 8 18 22 38
5/22/2007 77 10 20 26 28 30
8/10/2007 78 6 10 12 32 36
8/21/2007 79 12 26 28 30 32
8/25/2007 80 4 18 20 26 38
9/8/2007 81 12 14 16 32 34
10/6/2007 82 6 20 26 36 38
1/23/2008 83 12 14 16 32 38
3/2/2008 84 4 24 26 38 42
5/12/2008 85 2 24 28 30 36
5/23/2008 86 6 10 14 30 32
6/13/2008 87 8 26 28 30 38
9/14/2008 88 10 14 20 26 40
9/15/2008 89 2 12 18 34 40
9/27/2008 90 6 8 10 32 42
9/30/2008 91 10 12 26 34 40
11/4/2008 92 4 12 16 26 32
12/6/2008 93 2 14 18 20 36
12/10/2008 94 2 6 8 20 32
2/28/2009 95 22 28 30 34 40
3/15/2009 96 10 14 28 40 42
3/16/2009 97 8 12 14 16 34
5/2/2009 98 8 10 14 24 26
6/21/2009 99 2 4 16 18 42
2/11/2010 100 8 34 36 40 42
4/9/2010 101 2 10 16 30 34
5/13/2010 102 2 8 10 26 42
7/7/2010 103 8 10 18 36 42
8/4/2010 104 10 18 24 32 36
11/19/2010 105 12 16 22 40 42
12/13/2010 106 10 14 16 26 42
12/28/2010 107 4 6 18 22 30------------EOF--------------
-
5-43 matrix
Totals
26334 * 5 odd number sets
20349 * 5 even number sets
Overall
26334 + 20349 = 46683
26334 / 46683 = 56% 5 odd expected +/- SD
20349 / 46683 = 44% 5 even expected +/- SD
Actual draws
168 * 5 odd numbers
107 * 5 even numbers
Actual draws
107 + 168 = 275
107 / 275 = 39%
168 / 275 = 61%
all even 5% lower then expected +/- SD
all odd 5% higher then expected +/- SD
Nice Bias!
Which would prove that if stef played more odd the even then his chances of winning more
smaller prizes is confirmed while still not decreasing his chances for a jackpot.
RL
-
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Jan 15, 2011
5-43 matrix
Totals
26334 * 5 odd number sets
20349 * 5 even number sets
Overall
26334 + 20349 = 46683
26334 / 46683 = 56% 5 odd expected +/- SD
20349 / 46683 = 44% 5 even expected +/- SD
Actual draws
168 * 5 odd numbers
107 * 5 even numbers
Actual draws
107 + 168 = 275
107 / 275 = 39%
168 / 275 = 61%
all even 5% lower then expected +/- SD
all odd 5% higher then expected +/- SD
Nice Bias!
Which would prove that if stef played more odd the even then his chances of winning more
smaller prizes is confirmed while still not decreasing his chances for a jackpot.
RL
I knew I wouldn't have to make those calculations!
"Which would prove that if stef played more odd the even then his chances of winning more smaller prizes is confirmed while still not decreasing his chances for a jackpot."
Wrong!
The Expected Values are 149 ODD, and 115 EVEN.
Versus the 168 and 107 Actual values.
Anyone who thinks the statistical significance of these deviations is sufficient to claim an "edge" over 5460 Draws is delusional!
And should definitly read:
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf
This study documents how humans tend to make these kinds of judgement errors when making probability estimations.
-
Right!
"Anyone who thinks the statistical significance of these deviations is sufficient to claim an "edge" over 5460 Draws is delusional!"
Define "statistical significance"
You prove my point again that statistics has no significance here at
all, Not now not ever. The 5-43 matrix is biased by the one extra
odd number and playing more odd then even will win more often then
more even then odd. Just a fact!
RL
-
The observed distributions of the difference in frequency counts of ODD numbers versus EVEN in a SET, the SUMS of the five numbers, OR the number of unique occurences of (0-9) digits in a set, etc, etc, etc, are of NO VALUE in trying to determine an "EDGE" in selecting numbers in a lottery.
Let's PRETEND for a minute. Let's pretend that special paint has been developed that allows one to spray the [let's say] 39 ping pong balls with colors that allow their underlying numbers be read when necessary. OK?
And let's let some very young children, who can't yet count beyond the number of fingers on one hand, play with the numbered balls and separate 1/3 of them (13) from the other 26. In other words, let's RANDOMLY select 13 balls of the 39. OK?
Now, let's spray paint the 13 balls RED, and the 26 balls BLUE. OK? (Now each ball has TWO identifying characteristics, NUMBER and COLOR.) OK?
If we turn on the ball machine and RECORD the ball COLORS and NUMBERS resulting from repeatedly selecting 5 balls WITHOUT REPLACEMENT, only returning the 5 balls after each set has been drawn, we will end up with a record something like:
05(B) 15(B) 23(R) 32(B) 36(R)
10(R) 12(B) 24(R) 29(B) 30(B)
15(B) 25(R) 26(B) 36(R) 39(B)
etc
etc
You get the idea, RIGHT?
Now, I would be shocked, if after several hundred or thousand drawings of sets of 5 balls, that SOME HUMAN BEING would claim that there would NOT be a preponderance of BLUE balls! In fact, it should not take long before the number of BLUE balls drawn [divided by] the number of RED balls drawn would approach a value of TWO(2). OK? ARE YOU SURE?
BUT WAIT!
These sets of five balls have numbers imprinted on them underneath the RED and BLUE paint, the NUMBERS which will be used to determine the winning tickets!
AND GUESS WHAT? A lottery commission has agreed to pay people holding tickets with the results of these drawings REAL MONEY, BUT, based on the numbers (1-39) printed on them, WITH NO REGARD FOR THE PAINT COLORS!
So, if you can think of the RED and BLUE colors as identifiers for ODD / EVEN NUMBERS, or some other attribute, it should be CLEAR that the winnings you earn will have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the assignmemt of the COLORS to the balls, which could have been made by children playing, or some other RANDOM PROCESS.
In fact, each of the balls COULD have been assigned a unique hieroglyphic, with NO reference to ANY NUMBER SYSTEM!!!
I KNOW, you're wondering! But the Colors in our ODD/EVEN case were not assigned randomly, but based on the REMAINDER resulting from dividing the ball number by 2. When that remainder was ZERO, it was called EVEN; when it was ONE, it was called ODD. However, whether a ball is painted RED because it has an EVEN number on it, or because a child threw it out of a box, or because its hieroglyphic refers to the male gender, it:
1) Will not FEEL any different to the ball machine!
2) Does NOT weigh any more or less than any other ball
3) Has no more resistance to the air currents in the machine than any other ball
4) Does NOT bounce any higher than any other ball
..... ETC., ETC.,,,,,,,
(To repeat the opening line above:)
The observed distributions of the difference in frequency counts of ODD numbers versus EVEN in a SET, the SUMS of the five numbers, the number of unique occurences of (0-9) digits in a set, etc, etc, etc, are of NO VALUE in trying to determine an "EDGE" in selecting numbers in a lottery...
BECAUSE...
THE ASSIGNMENT OF ODD / EVEN, DIGIT COUNT, or SUM of a set, etc., HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING CONNECTED TO THE FORCES WHICH CAUSE A PARTICULAR BALL TO EMERGE FROM THE MACHINE, BECAUSE THESE ASSIGNMENTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN...
LABELS,
LABELS,
LABELS,
LABELS,
--Jimmy4164
It is principally at games of chance that a multitude of illusions
support hope and sustain it against unfavourable chances.
(Laplace, 1796) -
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Jan 16, 2011
Right!
"Anyone who thinks the statistical significance of these deviations is sufficient to claim an "edge" over 5460 Draws is delusional!"
Define "statistical significance"
You prove my point again that statistics has no significance here at
all, Not now not ever. The 5-43 matrix is biased by the one extra
odd number and playing more odd then even will win more often then
more even then odd. Just a fact!
RL
A result has Statistical Significance if it is beyond what would be expected by chance.
"The 5-43 matrix is biased by the one extra
odd number and playing more odd then even will win more often then
more even then odd. Just a fact!"
This is the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Please read the analysis in my post immediately above, and then study to thoroughly understand the work pointed to here, before posting again, PLEASE!
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf
-
jimmy
My state uses RNG's to pick numbers so nothing you said about the balls makes any difference
to me and I don't follow that logic anyway. I don't fault the math or even your resoning. Lets
say that the drawing used small particles that were encoded with a 5 number code.
There are 575757 particles in the drum from which only one would be selected. There are 29,241
particles with more odd then even numbers. This would show no real statical advantage that
could be used except that these patricles will be drawn more often, about 5% more on average.
I checked the (FY-2010) stats for show me 5 and found that the total ticket sales were $26,700,000
for the game. MO. runs it's games 7 days a week 365 days a year so they sell around $73,150 tickets
each day on average. The probability for a 4 of 5 match is 1 in 3386.8 so on average 21.5 match 4
tickets are sold for each draw. Some days only have 7 or 8 while others go as high as 25 to 30. The
problem I have with statictics is this.
The only way to make it work is to add everything up and average it out over a long period of time.
On a day to day analysis as I have showed the results fluctuate wildly. One would think this is attributed
to ticket sales but that is not always the case.
When better then expected results are thrown into the pot and averaged over the course of a year then
what happends, "NO Statistical Significance." If no advantage could be found then I would have quit
programming lottery software long ago. I do have bad days and sometimes bad months but I still beat
the odds overall for what I play doing better then statictics would suggest possible.
Breakdown of 5-39 matrix
sets with more odd then even = 302,499 52.5%
sets with more even then odd = 273, 258 47.5%
P.S. I still think that no amount of Statistical Analysis will ever help me win a jackpot and so it has
nothing useful to offer me when picking my sets.
rl
-
Quote: Originally posted by time*treat on Jan 14, 2011
We all had to start somewhere.
Several years ago I found what I thought was a neat little pattern in the numbers and set about writing code that would do the grunt work without making mistakes. It turned out that the little pattern worked just fine, but produced an unplayable total number of combos. That is -- the "winner" fit the pattern, but so did oodles of "losers".
Years ago I downloaded a free wheeling program and had lots of fun trying to filter all the possible combos in a 5/39 game down to a playable size. when I got it down to about 9000 combos and add one more filter, I'd get "0" combs and an error code saying I used conflicting filters. The lowest I ever got was about 3500 combos which is not my idea of a playable size.
As for systems that actually work, a co-worker of mine keyed on three numbers and played them with ten other numbers for $5. He had showed me his tickets and about I week later I saw where all three of his numbers were drawn along with the number "1" that I had remembered being on his tickets. I called him and asked if he'd played and said "yes" but hadn't checked what was drawn. After I told him what numbers were drawn, there was a moment of silence followed by some screaming by his wife; he just won $100,000!
Tiggs would probably say "it was pure luck" and maybe he's right, but there are methods of play where jackpots can be won for small wagers.
-
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Jan 16, 2011
jimmy
My state uses RNG's to pick numbers so nothing you said about the balls makes any difference
to me and I don't follow that logic anyway. I don't fault the math or even your resoning. Lets
say that the drawing used small particles that were encoded with a 5 number code.
There are 575757 particles in the drum from which only one would be selected. There are 29,241
particles with more odd then even numbers. This would show no real statical advantage that
could be used except that these patricles will be drawn more often, about 5% more on average.
I checked the (FY-2010) stats for show me 5 and found that the total ticket sales were $26,700,000
for the game. MO. runs it's games 7 days a week 365 days a year so they sell around $73,150 tickets
each day on average. The probability for a 4 of 5 match is 1 in 3386.8 so on average 21.5 match 4
tickets are sold for each draw. Some days only have 7 or 8 while others go as high as 25 to 30. The
problem I have with statictics is this.
The only way to make it work is to add everything up and average it out over a long period of time.
On a day to day analysis as I have showed the results fluctuate wildly. One would think this is attributed
to ticket sales but that is not always the case.
When better then expected results are thrown into the pot and averaged over the course of a year then
what happends, "NO Statistical Significance." If no advantage could be found then I would have quit
programming lottery software long ago. I do have bad days and sometimes bad months but I still beat
the odds overall for what I play doing better then statictics would suggest possible.
Breakdown of 5-39 matrix
sets with more odd then even = 302,499 52.5%
sets with more even then odd = 273, 258 47.5%
P.S. I still think that no amount of Statistical Analysis will ever help me win a jackpot and so it has
nothing useful to offer me when picking my sets.
rl
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
Your observation of the difference in the frequency of sets with more or less odd or even numbers is analogous to observing that the sum of the 5 numbers in a majority of sets falls into a minority of the total range of possible sums. The same is true for observing the number of unique digits in a set, or the average "spread" between the numbers. None of these patterns have anything to do with the probability of any particular set emerging.
They just ARE!
I thought my pointing out that the balls could be labeled with hieroglyphs, thus eliminating any reference to number systems at all, would make the above clear. Apparently not. Let's label all of your 575757 particles with unique hieroglyphs, where each "particle" refers to 5 hieroglyphs from a different set of 39. If this doesn't help you to see that the ARBITRARY assignment of numbers from an ARBITRARILY [BASED] number system is of NO CONSEQUENCE in this situation, I have only one other suggestion:
As a programmer, you should be able to see what I'm telling you is true if you write a simulation which generates random [1...39] sets, using your criteria for what you think are more likely combinations. E.G., you could generate a random set, and reject it if its number of ODD numbers falls below a certain threshhold. Once you've chosen a set you like, read the next ACTUAL DRAW result from a file, and score the resulting comparison. You will have to program it to recognize and record all the small prizes because there are not yet enough lottery results available to expect many jackpots! Do this for all the draw data you've got, and see what happens. I think you will be disappointed.
With the program thus written, you could then follow up by disabling the rejection procedure, accepting any and all RNG generated sets, letting the program function otherwise in the same way. If you use all the data from [say] Missouri, I think you will find the totals will look much the same as those obtained above selecting more ODDs. With a little tinkering, you could also test your other hypotheses, the digit frequencies and so on. You could also ignore the Actual Draw dataset and generate Random Draws. This way you could simulate centuries of results!
I'm serious. There were PhD mathematicians who could not be convinced to "Switch" doors in the Monty Hall Problem until they wrote their own [simple] computer simulation and observed the results.
I believe an ANALOGY can be drawn between the problem featured in this video, and our problem at hand. Besides, it's a fun video to watch. Let's try to be friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhlc7peGlGg
--JIMMY4164
-
The central limit theorem (CLT)
-
olá RL =
For your purpose, you are far from dealing with so big numbers, so you
must take the difference between impossible and improbable much more
seriously. E.g., the chances for number 3 to be drawn in 10 consecutive
drawings may be very small, but they are not exactly zero. And if it
happens, it has no impact on whether the 11-th time number 3 will be
drawn again. But of course, the 11-th time, just like any time before,
drawing of number 3 is not certain. And that is the only reason why
getting number 3 now 11 times in a row is less probable then getting it
10 times. And getting it 12 times is even less probable and so on. But
there is no sharp limit, beyond which it is impossible.
There is no absolute limit, it’s all about probabilities and these
change as you get more information. Once you know that number 3 was
already drawn 9 times in a row, it makes no sense to say that it is
“almost impossible” to get a line of 10. You are only one drawing
away from it and that drawing knows nothing of the other 9.
Probability is always about what you don’t know, not about what you
know. Calculating a probability for something that involves already
known parameters as if all values for those parameters were still
possible is simply based on a wrong assumption.
The central limit theorem (CLT) makes no promise that the drawings in
the future will compensate for any improbable events in the past, they
don’t care for the past. They will lead to normal distribution all
right, but not by compensating for the past, rather by dwarfing the past
(if there is enough of them, of course), and that is a difference. It
still means that the past gives you no useful information about the
future, as you would like.
Using complicated math like trigonometry etc. can’t change this basic
fact. It’s a classic mistake in science, especially statistics, when
people think that if you use complicated math and do the numbers right,
you can’t be wrong. Unfortunately, with oversimplified interpretation
of results, it can all be useless. -
Jimmy
Your observation of the difference in the frequency of sets with more or less odd or even numbers is analogous to observing that the sum of the 5 numbers in a majority of sets falls into a minority of the total range of possible sums. The same is true for observing the number of unique digits in a set, or the average "spread" between the numbers. None of these patterns have anything to do with the probability of any particular set emerging.
They just ARE!
No problems here, exactly how I see it.
I thought my pointing out that the balls could be labeled with hieroglyphs, thus eliminating any reference to number systems at all, would make the above clear. Apparently not. Let's label all of your 575757 particles with unique hieroglyphs, where each "particle" refers to 5 hieroglyphs from a different set of 39. If this doesn't help you to see that the ARBITRARY assignment of numbers from an ARBITRARILY [BASED] number system is of NO CONSEQUENCE in this situation, I have only one other suggestion:
Here is a bump in the road. Nothing in my way of thinking has anything to do with what can or
cannot be drawn. The lottery drawing process in my opinion can never be calculated with any
certainty and that's that. However, when building a set of numbers to play it only makes since to
incorporate information that best mimics the the largest sample of possibilities within the matrix
and then play from that pool. I have to make choices even if it is a choice to purchase a QP.
My system of play requires me to make on most days 5 or 6 main choices out of 10. This
gives me far fewer choices then making 5 of 39. Three of these choices are no brainers most
days and so I only need to make 2 or 3 choices from the remaining 7. 1 in 21 or 1 in 35 for the
final 2 or 3 selections. There is no certainty that these choices will be correct and the final 2 or 3
are nothing more then my best guess that is made from viewing the bias for different time frames
within the past drawing which are then compared to the entire matrix.
Here is another example that I think will allow you to understand my thinking as to the selection
process. Forget the balls, numbers, colors, ect, ect, ect. What if the lottery required picking one
number from 000001 to 575757. This is really no different then the way the lottery picks its
numbers. Pick-3 and pick-4 games are also the same thing. P3 =000 to 999 and P4 = 0000 to
9999. The drums are for intertainment only and without them many would not play and that is why
the state lotteries that use RNG's build software replicas of mechanical drawing machines
so that people can watch their numbers being drawn. How exiciting is watching a random number
generator draw one set? Lets say that I select "193456" to play, which = set 03 19 24 35 36 for
those interested. I could just selected my number at random but this also would be boaring and I
would not play. I once posted a reply to you about going to a ball game to watch my local team
and spent over 100 bucks for a little fun. I would have gave $500.00 to get to play 2nd base for
a couple innings just to particapate. Back to the lottery, If the lottery ever decides to convert to
selecting the winning ticket by the method above then you can bet I would be breaking the number
down into 6 digits and make my best effort to pick them. My efforts have no effect on what is
drawn but from my own experience I make better choices then random chance would account for
using as much data as I can.
As a programmer, you should be able to see what I'm telling you is true if you write a simulation which generates random [1...39] sets, using your criteria for what you think are more likely combinations. E.G., you could generate a random set, and reject it if its number of ODD numbers falls below a certain threshhold. Once you've chosen a set you like, read the next ACTUAL DRAW result from a file, and score the resulting comparison. You will have to program it to recognize and record all the small prizes because there are not yet enough lottery results available to expect many jackpots! Do this for all the draw data you've got, and see what happens. I think you will be disappointed.
All of the test you mentioned above I have already made and I run them very often as I make
changes to my program. I don't ever try to match number for number but look at the results
from the point of sets vs matrix.
I have a program that builds a random database of the same amount of draws with all filters that
are included in my software.
When compared to the actual database there is very little difference and many times filter value
totals are less then +/- .06% overall. This leads me to believe that I am correct in my assumptions
that what happends most is a result of the draws following the matrix and is unrelated to the device
used to pick the numbers. While the sets picked are suffency random in nature the information
contained within them is somewhat predictable. Not so much day to day but within blocks of
drawings which leads me to the watch and wait method of playing. I have tried many times to
backtest this system and it cannot be done because it requires the human element. If I run a
static backtest using random generated variables then the program becomes random in nature
and gives expected results. My software is a tool and even the bayesian tool returns a suggested
set of values that are ranged from best to worst gotten from two sorces, the matrix and many blocks
of actual data that when compared is evaluated for it's consistency. Like using the DNA from one
person to link another. How close the match the higher it goes on the list.
There is nothing that predicts anything as it only accepts inputs from the user to build the sets.
The generator goes through every possible set and only accepts sets that pass the users inputs.
I posted a video of my software to show how few choices are needed to reduce over 5 million
to less then 20 sets. Some settings will produce many more but on those days I don't play. I
cannot explain the results I get using any math known to me and thus the anomaly must be the
human element.
RL
-
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Jan 16, 2011
Jimmy
Your observation of the difference in the frequency of sets with more or less odd or even numbers is analogous to observing that the sum of the 5 numbers in a majority of sets falls into a minority of the total range of possible sums. The same is true for observing the number of unique digits in a set, or the average "spread" between the numbers. None of these patterns have anything to do with the probability of any particular set emerging.
They just ARE!
No problems here, exactly how I see it.
I thought my pointing out that the balls could be labeled with hieroglyphs, thus eliminating any reference to number systems at all, would make the above clear. Apparently not. Let's label all of your 575757 particles with unique hieroglyphs, where each "particle" refers to 5 hieroglyphs from a different set of 39. If this doesn't help you to see that the ARBITRARY assignment of numbers from an ARBITRARILY [BASED] number system is of NO CONSEQUENCE in this situation, I have only one other suggestion:
Here is a bump in the road. Nothing in my way of thinking has anything to do with what can or
cannot be drawn. The lottery drawing process in my opinion can never be calculated with any
certainty and that's that. However, when building a set of numbers to play it only makes since to
incorporate information that best mimics the the largest sample of possibilities within the matrix
and then play from that pool. I have to make choices even if it is a choice to purchase a QP.
My system of play requires me to make on most days 5 or 6 main choices out of 10. This
gives me far fewer choices then making 5 of 39. Three of these choices are no brainers most
days and so I only need to make 2 or 3 choices from the remaining 7. 1 in 21 or 1 in 35 for the
final 2 or 3 selections. There is no certainty that these choices will be correct and the final 2 or 3
are nothing more then my best guess that is made from viewing the bias for different time frames
within the past drawing which are then compared to the entire matrix.
Here is another example that I think will allow you to understand my thinking as to the selection
process. Forget the balls, numbers, colors, ect, ect, ect. What if the lottery required picking one
number from 000001 to 575757. This is really no different then the way the lottery picks its
numbers. Pick-3 and pick-4 games are also the same thing. P3 =000 to 999 and P4 = 0000 to
9999. The drums are for intertainment only and without them many would not play and that is why
the state lotteries that use RNG's build software replicas of mechanical drawing machines
so that people can watch their numbers being drawn. How exiciting is watching a random number
generator draw one set? Lets say that I select "193456" to play, which = set 03 19 24 35 36 for
those interested. I could just selected my number at random but this also would be boaring and I
would not play. I once posted a reply to you about going to a ball game to watch my local team
and spent over 100 bucks for a little fun. I would have gave $500.00 to get to play 2nd base for
a couple innings just to particapate. Back to the lottery, If the lottery ever decides to convert to
selecting the winning ticket by the method above then you can bet I would be breaking the number
down into 6 digits and make my best effort to pick them. My efforts have no effect on what is
drawn but from my own experience I make better choices then random chance would account for
using as much data as I can.
As a programmer, you should be able to see what I'm telling you is true if you write a simulation which generates random [1...39] sets, using your criteria for what you think are more likely combinations. E.G., you could generate a random set, and reject it if its number of ODD numbers falls below a certain threshhold. Once you've chosen a set you like, read the next ACTUAL DRAW result from a file, and score the resulting comparison. You will have to program it to recognize and record all the small prizes because there are not yet enough lottery results available to expect many jackpots! Do this for all the draw data you've got, and see what happens. I think you will be disappointed.
All of the test you mentioned above I have already made and I run them very often as I make
changes to my program. I don't ever try to match number for number but look at the results
from the point of sets vs matrix.
I have a program that builds a random database of the same amount of draws with all filters that
are included in my software.
When compared to the actual database there is very little difference and many times filter value
totals are less then +/- .06% overall. This leads me to believe that I am correct in my assumptions
that what happends most is a result of the draws following the matrix and is unrelated to the device
used to pick the numbers. While the sets picked are suffency random in nature the information
contained within them is somewhat predictable. Not so much day to day but within blocks of
drawings which leads me to the watch and wait method of playing. I have tried many times to
backtest this system and it cannot be done because it requires the human element. If I run a
static backtest using random generated variables then the program becomes random in nature
and gives expected results. My software is a tool and even the bayesian tool returns a suggested
set of values that are ranged from best to worst gotten from two sorces, the matrix and many blocks
of actual data that when compared is evaluated for it's consistency. Like using the DNA from one
person to link another. How close the match the higher it goes on the list.
There is nothing that predicts anything as it only accepts inputs from the user to build the sets.
The generator goes through every possible set and only accepts sets that pass the users inputs.
I posted a video of my software to show how few choices are needed to reduce over 5 million
to less then 20 sets. Some settings will produce many more but on those days I don't play. I
cannot explain the results I get using any math known to me and thus the anomaly must be the
human element.
RL
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
I was considering commenting on Dr San's discussion of the Central Limit Theorem (Nice Summary Dr San), to say that your methods might not be ignoring it and that you might not be committing the Gambler's or Hot Hand fallacies, but coming to false conclusions through some other as yet undefined fallacy. However, after reading this, your latest post, I must return to my earlier suspicions. Based on your own words, you clearly are making decisions based on previous draw history, even if only with a few days worth.
I say this because of statements like:
"My system of play requires me to make on most days 5 or 6 main choices out of 10."
"There is nothing that predicts anything as it only accepts inputs from the user to build the sets. The generator goes through every possible set and only accepts sets that pass the users inputs. I posted a video of my software to show how few choices are needed to reduce over 5 million to less then 20 sets. Some settings will produce many more but on those days I don't play. I cannot explain the results I get using any math known to me and thus the anomaly must be the human element." (And a little LUCK?)
The statements above, especially the underlined phrases, reveal that your methods definitely require knowlege of the past history of the game's draws. Otherwise, the "users inputs" would not need to vary from one day to the next. The only other reasons that could require you to choose different sets of 5 numbers on one day, versus another, would have to be in the realm of future forecasting, or some sort of voodoo! I don't remember you ever mentioning anything in that regard, so I must assume you are looking back, and consequently, you are committing either the Gambler's Fallacy, or the Hot Hand Fallacy, or both, further complicated by your erroneos assumptions about the significance of the frequencies of various numerological labeling phenomena.
"I have tried many times to backtest this system and it cannot be done because it requires the human element."
The heuristics required to simulate the types of systems we're talking about here are elementary compared to what's being done in the fields of Robotics, Systems Engineering, Operations Research, and Artificial Intelligence in general today. You must know this. I'm sorry RL, but your claim is what is usually referred to as a "cop out." As long as you hide behind the claim that your system can't be backtested, you will continue to delude yourself into thinking that you have a better chance than others to win a jackpot. Take another look at my two 2010 summaries of MadDog's Powerball Challenge, one broken out by Player, the other by Date.
There is one thing we can probably agree on -- your methods will NOT cause you to LOSE any more than QP players while you wait for your ship to come in. Our binoculars are just as good as yours as we scan that horizon for our "Cargo!"
Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
--Jimmy4164
-
Jimmy
Should you ever grow a brain of your own then maybe you will see through your misconceptions.
The fallcy you mention stems from a belief that you think, I think that past draws have something
to do with the future draws, Not so. I do not think you understand what I mean when I say that
the draws will follow the matrix. The Bayesian program could be given those attributes but you
must first consider that it is not looking at the numbers but data that is gotten from the entire matrix.
You have proven that you do not understand the fallacy you speak of. If you were trying to make a
stock choice based on any gained knowledge then you would be guilty of the fallacy yourself according
to your reply and any wager or any bet by any other person would fall under the same fallacy that
was not selected at random.
Lets go back to the odd/even lession, Lets say that the you have six stocks in your portfolio labeled
as
zeroodd
oneodd
twoodd
threeodd
fourodd
fiveodd
Each time the set drawn has zero odd numbers then the price for zeroodd remains unchanged meaning
that you money is doing nothing, and each time the zero odd hits then the stock rises one point. You
evaluate your portfolio and see that twoodd and threeodd has out performed all the others by at least
2 to 1. My question is which stocks would you keep and which would you sell. What is the chance that
zeroodd, oneodd, fourodd and fiveodd will ever perform at the same level as twoodd and threeodd.
Again lets say that you find 6 more stocks named prime0, prime1, prime2, prime3, prime4 and prime5.
prime1 has out performed prime5 by 276 to 1. You do a little research and you find out why prime5 has
performed so badly compared to prime1.
Now a little math.
for a 5-39 matrix
there are 792 sets with 5 prime numbers
there are 210600 sets with 1 prime number
5 primes has been drawn one time
1 primes has been drawn 276 times
1 / 729 = .001262626
276 / 210600 = .001310541
NO real Statical Difference! so I guess that you would buy the prime5 stock anyway. I don't play what
will happen based on what has happened but what can and will happen most.
Backtest
Lets say that I play 2 to 3 odd most days because of the matrix, I make a run and because of the
digits and other setting I have used I get too many numbers to play. I decide to play 3 odd instead
of 2 to 3 so that I can reduce my sets. again lets say that I still have too many numbers to play, I
may change the digits or other filters I have selected and rerun. Write me a program that can make
a logical selection based on the best information that can be gotten and I will be glad to run and test
it for you. The fact that I win more then the odds would suggest is proof enough and requires no other
testing in my opinion.
If this falls into the fallacy then so be it. And If playing digits 1-2-3 along with my best choice of 2 or 3
more is a fallacy then so be it. The way you see it every selection that anyone could make regarding
anything falls into the fallacy and that includes the markets, horse races, blackjack, poker, driving to work,
eating at a restaurant, flying on a plane, going to the doctor, taking a prescription, jogging, walking down
stairs, kissing, and everything else from birth to the grave. I have to make a decision to get out of bed
in the morning, I guess I should just flip a coin and take the work out of it kind of like buying a QP.
Luck does not exist but Chance however does. When I
win more often then Chance can account for then it is
no longer chance so what is it. That should send your
brain into an endless loop because it does not compute,
does not compute, does not compute, does not compute,
does not compute, does not compute, does not compute.....
RL
-
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Jan 17, 2011
Jimmy
Should you ever grow a brain of your own then maybe you will see through your misconceptions.
The fallcy you mention stems from a belief that you think, I think that past draws have something
to do with the future draws, Not so. I do not think you understand what I mean when I say that
the draws will follow the matrix. The Bayesian program could be given those attributes but you
must first consider that it is not looking at the numbers but data that is gotten from the entire matrix.
You have proven that you do not understand the fallacy you speak of. If you were trying to make a
stock choice based on any gained knowledge then you would be guilty of the fallacy yourself according
to your reply and any wager or any bet by any other person would fall under the same fallacy that
was not selected at random.
Lets go back to the odd/even lession, Lets say that the you have six stocks in your portfolio labeled
as
zeroodd
oneodd
twoodd
threeodd
fourodd
fiveodd
Each time the set drawn has zero odd numbers then the price for zeroodd remains unchanged meaning
that you money is doing nothing, and each time the zero odd hits then the stock rises one point. You
evaluate your portfolio and see that twoodd and threeodd has out performed all the others by at least
2 to 1. My question is which stocks would you keep and which would you sell. What is the chance that
zeroodd, oneodd, fourodd and fiveodd will ever perform at the same level as twoodd and threeodd.
Again lets say that you find 6 more stocks named prime0, prime1, prime2, prime3, prime4 and prime5.
prime1 has out performed prime5 by 276 to 1. You do a little research and you find out why prime5 has
performed so badly compared to prime1.
Now a little math.
for a 5-39 matrix
there are 792 sets with 5 prime numbers
there are 210600 sets with 1 prime number
5 primes has been drawn one time
1 primes has been drawn 276 times
1 / 729 = .001262626
276 / 210600 = .001310541
NO real Statical Difference! so I guess that you would buy the prime5 stock anyway. I don't play what
will happen based on what has happened but what can and will happen most.
Backtest
Lets say that I play 2 to 3 odd most days because of the matrix, I make a run and because of the
digits and other setting I have used I get too many numbers to play. I decide to play 3 odd instead
of 2 to 3 so that I can reduce my sets. again lets say that I still have too many numbers to play, I
may change the digits or other filters I have selected and rerun. Write me a program that can make
a logical selection based on the best information that can be gotten and I will be glad to run and test
it for you. The fact that I win more then the odds would suggest is proof enough and requires no other
testing in my opinion.
If this falls into the fallacy then so be it. And If playing digits 1-2-3 along with my best choice of 2 or 3
more is a fallacy then so be it. The way you see it every selection that anyone could make regarding
anything falls into the fallacy and that includes the markets, horse races, blackjack, poker, driving to work,
eating at a restaurant, flying on a plane, going to the doctor, taking a prescription, jogging, walking down
stairs, kissing, and everything else from birth to the grave. I have to make a decision to get out of bed
in the morning, I guess I should just flip a coin and take the work out of it kind of like buying a QP.
Luck does not exist but Chance however does. When I
win more often then Chance can account for then it is
no longer chance so what is it. That should send your
brain into an endless loop because it does not compute,
does not compute, does not compute, does not compute,
does not compute, does not compute, does not compute.....
RL
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
You said, "Lets say that I play 2 to 3 odd most days because of the matrix, I make a run and because of the digits and other setting I have used I get too many numbers to play."
What sorts of events or observations prompt you to make one setting over another in your various parameters? And what would compel you to use different settings today, from those you used yesterday?
--Jimmy4164