Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 12:55 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Statistics around the balance of even/odd and small/big numbers

Topic closed. 142 replies. Last post 6 years ago by RL-RANDOMLOGIC.

Page 6 of 10
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7313 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 26, 2011, 4:19 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

Whew!  Couldn't you make your point[s] in a sentence or two?  Don't bother, however; you've said this all before, and I've replied to it.

Try dr san's approach:

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1930632

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 26, 2011, 4:57 pm - IP Logged

    Stack47,

    Whew!  Couldn't you make your point[s] in a sentence or two?  Don't bother, however; you've said this all before, and I've replied to it.

    Try dr san's approach:

    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1930632

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

    --Jimmy4164

       ???

      RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

      United States
      Member #59354
      March 13, 2008
      3972 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 27, 2011, 7:04 am - IP Logged

      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


        United States
        Member #93947
        July 10, 2010
        2180 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 27, 2011, 12:45 pm - IP Logged

        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:

        http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1930632

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

        --Jimmy4164


          RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

          United States
          Member #59354
          March 13, 2008
          3972 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 28, 2011, 8:07 am - IP Logged

          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

                are wrong again. 

          RL


            United States
            Member #93947
            July 10, 2010
            2180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 28, 2011, 2:12 pm - IP Logged

            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.

            Perhaps someone else can make a dent...

            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/223006/1836232

              RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

              United States
              Member #59354
              March 13, 2008
              3972 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 28, 2011, 6:55 pm - IP Logged

              "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.

              Perhaps someone else can make a dent...

              http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/223006/1836232

              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


                United States
                Member #93947
                July 10, 2010
                2180 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 29, 2011, 1:15 am - IP Logged

                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!"

                --Jimmy4164

                  RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                  United States
                  Member #59354
                  March 13, 2008
                  3972 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 29, 2011, 9:01 am - IP Logged

                  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.

                   

                  RL

                    RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                    United States
                    Member #59354
                    March 13, 2008
                    3972 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 29, 2011, 10:55 am - IP Logged

                    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

                    the game changes.

                    RL

                      Avatar
                      Kentucky
                      United States
                      Member #32652
                      February 14, 2006
                      7313 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 29, 2011, 11:41 am - IP Logged

                      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.

                      That really says it all!

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #83701
                        December 13, 2009
                        225 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 31, 2011, 12:17 am - IP Logged

                        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

                          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."

                          Truer words were never spoken!

                            Avatar
                            bgonçalves
                            Brasil
                            Member #92564
                            June 9, 2010
                            2122 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.

                              RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                              United States
                              Member #59354
                              March 13, 2008
                              3972 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 1, 2011, 3:47 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.

                              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.........

                                 
                                Page 6 of 10