United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 15, 2011, 8:00 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Mayday on January 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.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 16, 2011, 12:35 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 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!

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 16, 2011, 2:39 am - IP Logged

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)

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 16, 2011, 2:51 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 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 thatstatistics 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!

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7546 Posts Offline

Posted: January 16, 2011, 11:27 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by time*treat on January 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.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 16, 2011, 12:20 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 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.

bgonÃ§alves Brasil Member #92564 June 9, 2010 2264 Posts Offline

Posted: January 16, 2011, 4:46 pm - IP Logged

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.

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 4322 Posts Offline

Posted: January 16, 2011, 8:54 pm - IP Logged

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

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 17, 2011, 2:27 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 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 LOSEany 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!"

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 17, 2011, 1:17 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 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?