Perhaps you can pick up the ball for RL-RANDOMLOGIC and tell us why you thinkdr san is wrong.

--Jimmy4164

Nice to see you're sticking to providing on site links instead of that boring and useless info from the 18th century.

I'm hoping one of these days you'll actually point me into the direction of a post that says something positive about your statistical findings, but I suspect my beard will turn whiter and whiter waiting for that to happen.

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

Posted: January 27, 2011, 12:45 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 27, 2011

Jimmy

I did not reply to dr san because I did not fully understand his point of reference to the concept of

the link he posted. He seems to agree and disagree many times on the same subject matter. I often

have trouble understanding his post and to avoid giving a incorrect responce I don't respond at all.

I like much of what I believe he has posted but many times cannot tell for sure just what he is saying.

What you don't understand is that the lottery is not about MATH..... I know the odds. Your world

seems to be turned upside down when I say a win more then I lose because you cannot find any math

to support my claims. You don't understand my point of view at all, I am not the best best person at

explaining things but I try. If I use the same math as you I could prove myself incorrect while on the

other hand my methods would prove the math incorrect, hmmmmm. Playing a smarter set does not

guarantee a win and I think most people understand this concept. The previous post concerning the

clusters was just an observation and an attempt to explain it. You took this as some sort of expression

or self acknowledgement that I had been guilty of the gamblers fallacy all along. You are like a robot

that has limited functions. The math is correct in general but I refuse to believe that it defines the whole

lottery universe. You can bet the gamming industry uses the stats like a bible thumper uses the bible.

I still read the bible time to time but you would have trouble trying to convince me the earth is 6000 years

old. Is the bible to be rejected because of this, I say no but it's only my opinion. This same logic can

be applied to my view of math and the lottery. There are many tricks to picking numbers that give a

great advantage over a simple QP. If someone wants to believe in luck, chance, dreams, angles, diet

or the a so called fallacy of looking to past draws to pick their numbers, I have no problem with that.

I think that my 5-39 game accounts for less then 3% of sales with scratchers accounting for around 65%

The lotteries seem to be moving away from the jackpot games in general and for reasons I can only guess.

Maybe they figured out that painting a piece of cardboard with flashly colors and pictures of big wads of

cash will draw more attention, or maybe it's as simple as being able to slow down the process and thus

giving the player more bang for the buck. It's all a Game. Most people hate RNG's because it must take

a few milliseconds to pick the numbers vs watching the tumbler toss the balls around waiting for there

numbers to fall out. Why and how people play and who if anyone they share there methods with should

not matter or be an issue to anyone. When selecting SP's the fewer choices that one has to make and

the fewer choices that one has to choose from even if selected at random will always be better then

making a few choices from thousands or millions. A system that can allow for several mistakes and not

remove the second, third and so on lower prizes is key.

RL

RL-RANDOM-LOGIC,

You may not realize it, but when you said, "I did not reply to dr san because I did not fully understand his point of reference to the concept of the link he posted," you SPOKE VOLUMES!

Thanks for being honest.

For anyone else interested, dr san's recent post gets at the crux of the problem:

Perhaps you can pick up the ball for RL-RANDOMLOGIC and tell us why you thinkdr san is wrong. If you agree with him, as I do, your input is also welcome. Please don't be shy.

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 4310 Posts Offline

Posted: January 28, 2011, 8:07 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by dr san on January 25, 2011

Let's define various events:

Event H: "The combination (1,2,3,4,5,6) will come." Event B: "The combination (1,9,20,29,42,49) will come." Event C: "The combination (1,2,3,47,48,49) will come." Event D: "Either B or C will happen." Event E: "The sum will be 10." Event F: "The sum will be 21." Event G: "The sum will be 150."

(I use H instead of "A" because the translation software understands letter "A" wrongly)

What I say is: "Events H, B and C are equally probable."

I don't say: "Event D is equally probable as H." Of course, it's twice more probable, if it has two ways to occur. If D = (B or C), then P(D)=P(B)+P(C)=2*P(B)=2*P(H)

Event E has zero probability, because it has 0 ways to occur. Event F has equal probability as H, because H=F, the combination H is the only way for the sum to be 21. Event G has much bigger probability than B, C or D, because G = (B or C or ...) , so P(G)=P(B)+P(C)+... (many ways to occur) So, if P(G)>P(B) and P(B)=P(H)=P(F), then of course P(G)>P(F).

Of course, you are right, the sum 150 is more probable than 21.

You say: P(G)>P(F). I say: P(H)=P(B)=P(C).

These two statements are in no conflict. And they are both correct. You just need to be methodic and not confuse these things.

By the way, RL, I hope that you understand at least a little English. I just noticed that Google Translate turned your Portuguese sentence: "Cada combinação de seis números não têm chance igual de ocorrência." into English: "Each combination of six numbers have an equal chance of occurrence.". (please see my original text here).

dr san

Sorry, I somehow skipped over or missed reading this post. I have stopped replying to you post

because of the translation errors. It seems that you have picked up a new friend named jimmy and

I must warn you that if he reads many of your post that he will turn on you and accused you of being

a victim of the gamblers fallacy. As for your probability statements above I must agree. Every set in

the entire matrix has the same chance of being drawn and lumping several sets that share some

commonality such as the sum of all numbers within a set will have a greater probability then any

single set or smaller like group. I do not see a question here but I could be missing something. Let's

do a mind experiment for a moment.

Think of the lottery as sets of numbers and not as single numbers being drawn 1 at a time. Next imagine

all the sets are placed into a large container and mixed very well so that very few groups of similar sets are

in the same general area within the container. Now lets say that you reach in and select one of these sets

without looking. What is the (p) that the set will contain the digit 1 and what is the (p) that it will contain

the digit 7? Use a 5-39 matrix.

Before you can answer this question you must know the exact sums of both digits. 1's = 509979 or 88.57%

and 7's =251125 or 43.6%. 33649 or .06% (ROUNDED UP) sets have no 1's and 7's.

Results for the last 750 drawings for my 5-39 game

1's = 656 or 87.5% 88.57 * 750 = 664 difference of -8 over 750 drawings from the expected

7's = 330 or 44% 43.6 * 750 = 327 difference of +3 over 750 drawing from the expected

The more so called random a drawing is the better I like it. If however you were to look at the numbers

for these same digits you will find very different results. Digits Rule the draw and the matrix

rules the digits and the more random the draw the better. It is very true that any set can be drawn

but I count on this when I play. If looking at the numbers that make up the sets you will find a jumbled

mess of skips, repeats, odd's, even's hi-low sums with no reason or pattern in my opinion but with digits

it is a different story. If what I post lacks in methodical steps it is because I intended it as such. I

will never post the a to z's and this has caused a few to attack my methods and I guess that is par for

the course.

PS. I thought that jimmy was referring to another post made a while back, so as usual his assumptions

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

Posted: January 28, 2011, 2:12 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 28, 2011

dr san

Sorry, I somehow skipped over or missed reading this post. I have stopped replying to you post

because of the translation errors. It seems that you have picked up a new friend named jimmy and

I must warn you that if he reads many of your post that he will turn on you and accused you of being

a victim of the gamblers fallacy. As for your probability statements above I must agree. Every set in

the entire matrix has the same chance of being drawn and lumping several sets that share some

commonality such as the sum of all numbers within a set will have a greater probability then any

single set or smaller like group. I do not see a question here but I could be missing something. Let's

do a mind experiment for a moment.

Think of the lottery as sets of numbers and not as single numbers being drawn 1 at a time. Next imagine

all the sets are placed into a large container and mixed very well so that very few groups of similar sets are

in the same general area within the container. Now lets say that you reach in and select one of these sets

without looking. What is the (p) that the set will contain the digit 1 and what is the (p) that it will contain

the digit 7? Use a 5-39 matrix.

Before you can answer this question you must know the exact sums of both digits. 1's = 509979 or 88.57%

and 7's =251125 or 43.6%. 33649 or .06% (ROUNDED UP) sets have no 1's and 7's.

Results for the last 750 drawings for my 5-39 game

1's = 656 or 87.5% 88.57 * 750 = 664 difference of -8 over 750 drawings from the expected

7's = 330 or 44% 43.6 * 750 = 327 difference of +3 over 750 drawing from the expected

The more so called random a drawing is the better I like it. If however you were to look at the numbers

for these same digits you will find very different results. Digits Rule the draw and the matrix

rules the digits and the more random the draw the better. It is very true that any set can be drawn

but I count on this when I play. If looking at the numbers that make up the sets you will find a jumbled

mess of skips, repeats, odd's, even's hi-low sums with no reason or pattern in my opinion but with digits

it is a different story. If what I post lacks in methodical steps it is because I intended it as such. I

will never post the a to z's and this has caused a few to attack my methods and I guess that is par for

the course.

PS. I thought that jimmy was referring to another post made a while back, so as usual his assumptions

are wrong again.

RL

"I do not see a question here but I could be missing something."

Unbelievable!

Your "mind experiment" once again documents your lack of understanding of probability as it relates to intersections of sets, which is what dr san is trying to explain to you.

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 4310 Posts Offline

Posted: January 28, 2011, 6:55 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 28, 2011

"I do not see a question here but I could be missing something."

Unbelievable!

Your "mind experiment" once again documents your lack of understanding of probability as it relates to intersections of sets, which is what dr san is trying to explain to you.

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

Posted: January 29, 2011, 1:15 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 28, 2011

Jimmy

I think you have a big enought dent for us all. I understand what he says I just don't see a question.

Maybe you could be kind enough to ask this unseen question, I read the post and took it at face value.

He is using the same lame probability which really has little if any value to me and my methods of picking

my numbers.

dr San I am not confused at all, I am fully aware of the math behind this and must say that if you are

picking your numbers based this you should buy QP's.

The mind experiment was to open your eyes and I hope that it has. I don't think that you or jimmy

can look beyond the stuff he preaches. How hard is it to say that since no set can have a lower sum

then 21 that a set with a sum of 10 cannot be drawn, and that only one set has a sum of 21 then it's

probability of being drawn is far smaller then sets which have sums of 150 of which there are many.

However the sum 21 set has the same chance of being drawn as any one of the sets with sums of

150. The mind experiment was to show that digits are much more predictible the numbers which they

form. They will hug the expected far closer then the numbers ever will. If I break this down as I have

done in my systems post and proven that there are just as many sets using digits as there are using

numbers, which must have gone unread then so be it. Pick your numbers and I hope you are very

succesful but I think it a false hope. The only way to pick a winning set beyond sheer chance is to

have a method of selection that proves better then chance would account for. If I had to pick numbers

to play then I would not play at all. You will never, ever find this using probability because in probability

it does not exist, you can't get apples from carrots no matter how you slice them. And by the way

JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly, I just don't know how to say I don't care other

then I don't care.

RL

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

You said, "And by the way JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly..."

Sorry RL-RANDOMLOGIC, but you DO NOT understand [ALL OF] what dr san said, and I refuse to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Perhaps dr san will try again.

I had a great vacation in Las Vegas a few months ago with one of my sons that I don't get to see very often. He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop. After a while, he looked at me and said, "Dad, why are you wasting your time on this?" I told him that although there are only a dozen or so active posters challenging everything I write, there are thousands of viewers, and maybe some of them are learning something. He wasn't convinced. I wish I had listened to him; my other projects would be further advanced by now, and I would have enjoyed more quality time with him.

I will continue to post here at LP, but most likely in the Gaming Forum. The posts over there look interesting and the people are in possession of abstract reasoning ability, something in short supply among the most vocal here.

I hope you're keeping a detailed record of your equity line as you play your MO-5 and collect your winnings because as I'm sure you must be aware, WITHOUT A JACKPOT, to stay ahead of that game, you must win MORE than 4X or 5X what you would expect by Chance. Good luck!

When you say, "..., I just don't know how to say I don't care other then I don't care." ...I realize that I've not only wasted a lot of time on you, but I haven't learned anything from you! Maybe I should take consolation in the fact that I HAVE learned one thing, and that is a much better understanding of the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss!"

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 4310 Posts Offline

Posted: January 29, 2011, 9:01 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 29, 2011

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

You said, "And by the way JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly..."

Sorry RL-RANDOMLOGIC, but you DO NOT understand [ALL OF] what dr san said, and I refuse to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Perhaps dr san will try again.

I had a great vacation in Las Vegas a few months ago with one of my sons that I don't get to see very often. He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop. After a while, he looked at me and said, "Dad, why are you wasting your time on this?" I told him that although there are only a dozen or so active posters challenging everything I write, there are thousands of viewers, and maybe some of them are learning something. He wasn't convinced. I wish I had listened to him; my other projects would be further advanced by now, and I would have enjoyed more quality time with him.

I will continue to post here at LP, but most likely in the Gaming Forum. The posts over there look interesting and the people are in possession of abstract reasoning ability, something in short supply among the most vocal here.

I hope you're keeping a detailed record of your equity line as you play your MO-5 and collect your winnings because as I'm sure you must be aware, WITHOUT A JACKPOT, to stay ahead of that game, you must win MORE than 4X or 5X what you would expect by Chance. Good luck!

When you say, "..., I just don't know how to say I don't care other then I don't care." ...I realize that I've not only wasted a lot of time on you, but I haven't learned anything from you! Maybe I should take consolation in the fact that I HAVE learned one thing, and that is a much better understanding of the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss!"

--Jimmy4164

Jimbo

I do understand exactly what dr san said. you cannon get it through your head that

there are other methods then probability. I see you raised your son in your own image,

poor kid. I have a predictor based very loosely on bayes that does use some probability

but other then that N-O P-R-O-B-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y. Tell me here, for all the world to see just

how you invision dr san's post as providing me with any information that will help me win

the lottery. He, like yourself somehow assumes that I am confused, that I am grouping the

digits from many different numbers or sets and then applying a larger probability instead of

using the probability for each. This is your fallacy not mine. I have no problem with the fact

that every set has the same odds in a single draw. Your continued harping on this is like

someone insisting that water is wet when I am talking about grains of sand in the desert.

This is your shoe box approach that I detest. First both you and dr san are incorrect in your

assumptions. While it could be easy to assume this you have missed the point by a lightyear.

You are so fixated on being right that you have never even considerded what I am saying

about the digit system. Your total lack of depth in this area still leads me to think that the

only knowledge you possess comes from the web. I disdain your megar attemps to explain

away something you don't understand while using your webpage knowledge in an attemp

to make you look smart while all the while looking more and more like the village idoit. Let

me say it loud and clear, probability is given no place in my digit selection and your assumption

that I am using probability incorrectly is absurd. Maybe someday you will understand how

simple this really is but I doubt it as it would require thinking instead of your one approach

fits all. Your concern about the world seeing this may be the reason that you dare not make

an attempt to understand it but rest assured that I would say that not more then a few

hundred people have or will ever see this, and I also think that if they were looking for math

instruction they would not come here to learn. This is just another cop-out on your behalf.

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 4310 Posts Offline

Posted: January 29, 2011, 10:55 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 29, 2011

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

You said, "And by the way JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly..."

Sorry RL-RANDOMLOGIC, but you DO NOT understand [ALL OF] what dr san said, and I refuse to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Perhaps dr san will try again.

I had a great vacation in Las Vegas a few months ago with one of my sons that I don't get to see very often. He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop. After a while, he looked at me and said, "Dad, why are you wasting your time on this?" I told him that although there are only a dozen or so active posters challenging everything I write, there are thousands of viewers, and maybe some of them are learning something. He wasn't convinced. I wish I had listened to him; my other projects would be further advanced by now, and I would have enjoyed more quality time with him.

I will continue to post here at LP, but most likely in the Gaming Forum. The posts over there look interesting and the people are in possession of abstract reasoning ability, something in short supply among the most vocal here.

I hope you're keeping a detailed record of your equity line as you play your MO-5 and collect your winnings because as I'm sure you must be aware, WITHOUT A JACKPOT, to stay ahead of that game, you must win MORE than 4X or 5X what you would expect by Chance. Good luck!

When you say, "..., I just don't know how to say I don't care other then I don't care." ...I realize that I've not only wasted a lot of time on you, but I haven't learned anything from you! Maybe I should take consolation in the fact that I HAVE learned one thing, and that is a much better understanding of the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss!"

--Jimmy4164

Jim

PS

I think you would be correct in moving to the Gaming Forum if it's any consolation because

there your probability could help improve ones play for many games. The lottery is static

in nature and one only needs to calculate these values once. They will never change unless

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7498 Posts Offline

Posted: January 29, 2011, 11:41 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 29, 2011

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

You said, "And by the way JIMBOB I do understand what he was saying exactly..."

Sorry RL-RANDOMLOGIC, but you DO NOT understand [ALL OF] what dr san said, and I refuse to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Perhaps dr san will try again.

I had a great vacation in Las Vegas a few months ago with one of my sons that I don't get to see very often. He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop. After a while, he looked at me and said, "Dad, why are you wasting your time on this?" I told him that although there are only a dozen or so active posters challenging everything I write, there are thousands of viewers, and maybe some of them are learning something. He wasn't convinced. I wish I had listened to him; my other projects would be further advanced by now, and I would have enjoyed more quality time with him.

I will continue to post here at LP, but most likely in the Gaming Forum. The posts over there look interesting and the people are in possession of abstract reasoning ability, something in short supply among the most vocal here.

I hope you're keeping a detailed record of your equity line as you play your MO-5 and collect your winnings because as I'm sure you must be aware, WITHOUT A JACKPOT, to stay ahead of that game, you must win MORE than 4X or 5X what you would expect by Chance. Good luck!

When you say, "..., I just don't know how to say I don't care other then I don't care." ...I realize that I've not only wasted a lot of time on you, but I haven't learned anything from you! Maybe I should take consolation in the fact that I HAVE learned one thing, and that is a much better understanding of the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss!"

--Jimmy4164

"He looked over my shoulder in the hotel one night as I composed one of my futile rebuttals here on my laptop."

You were on vacation in a city that's open 24 hours with thousands of things you could be doing with your son you seldom see yet you choose to spend your time posting useless information.

United States Member #83701 December 13, 2009 225 Posts Offline

Posted: January 31, 2011, 12:17 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by stef on December 28, 2010

I am sure that all of you realise that lotto numbers often come out with a balance of even/odd numbers (e.g. 2-4,3-3,4-2) about 75% of the time. The same thing for small/big numbers. I was wondering if there was a statistical/probabilty explanation to this. For any ball drawn, isn't the probabilty of it being even or odd the same? Is this tendency explained by the small probabilty increase that the next ball will be odd if previous balls drawn are even?

Yeah the statistical and probability reason for it is that it's completely random. All you're doing is rephrasing conditions and then you're wondering why it's 75%. It's like flipping two coins and wondering why 75% of the flips are not both heads up. The reason why is that it's random and you would only expect 25% of the flips to be both heads up. It's the same issue with the even odd balance crap, it only seems to be more than would be justified by randomness but is in fact perfectly justified by randomness. If you worked through all the attempts to exploit what people perceive as a pattern, you'll find that they've really haven't found any advantage at all but of course you'll never convince anybody of that.

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

Posted: January 31, 2011, 12:45 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jwhou on January 31, 2011

Yeah the statistical and probability reason for it is that it's completely random. All you're doing is rephrasing conditions and then you're wondering why it's 75%. It's like flipping two coins and wondering why 75% of the flips are not both heads up. The reason why is that it's random and you would only expect 25% of the flips to be both heads up. It's the same issue with the even odd balance crap, it only seems to be more than would be justified by randomness but is in fact perfectly justified by randomness. If you worked through all the attempts to exploit what people perceive as a pattern, you'll find that they've really haven't found any advantage at all but of course you'll never convince anybody of that.

"If you worked through all the attempts to exploit what people perceive as a pattern, you'll find that they've really haven't found any advantage at all but of course you'll never convince anybody of that."

bgonÃ§alves Brasil Member #92564 June 9, 2010 2228 Posts Offline

Posted: January 31, 2011, 1:14 pm - IP Logged

olá RL-randomlogic=

so you have the probabilities, I checked the calculations.

509977 with 1's or 88,58% 251125 with 7's or 43,62% 33649 without any 1 or 7, or 6%,

So what? What benefit does this bring to you? You can't bet on digits. Just like you can't bet on the sums, central trios and so on. You can only bet on numbers.

I'm not talking about 100% guarantee here, I'm saying that you can not make any difference at all. Not 80%, not anything.

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 4310 Posts Offline

Posted: February 1, 2011, 3:47 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by dr san on January 31, 2011

olá RL-randomlogic=

so you have the probabilities, I checked the calculations.

509977 with 1's or 88,58% 251125 with 7's or 43,62% 33649 without any 1 or 7, or 6%,

So what? What benefit does this bring to you? You can't bet on digits. Just like you can't bet on the sums, central trios and so on. You can only bet on numbers.

I'm not talking about 100% guarantee here, I'm saying that you can not make any difference at all. Not 80%, not anything.

dr san

I know the odds for each digit hitting in any one drawing and most of the remarks made by the staticians

are a insult. There continued repetitious comparisons to probability shows a complete lack of any attemp

to understand what I have said. I say that I am able to predict the digits with a greater then expected

average when I play. I receive in return is the same old song and dance which is getting really old. Picking

from a list of 10 is much easier then picking from a list of 39 or more.

My software can easily assemble the winning set if the digits selected are correct. Give me the correct

digits to play and I can produce the winning set 100% of the time. The very fact that I have copies of

tickets which show I beat the odds far more then chance can account for should be enough. Others here

have seen these tickets and so when you tell me I can't do this then I have to laugh. You are asking me

to deny what I can see with my own eyes, How absurd.........