Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 11, 2016, 8:42 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Applications of Probability and Statistics

Topic closed. 38 replies. Last post 6 years ago by RL-RANDOMLOGIC.

Page 2 of 3
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7325 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 29, 2011, 12:47 pm - IP Logged

It's curious to me why someone who claims to "already know" what I've been posting here would bother to take the time to read my posts and then put forth considerable effort to try to discredit them.  Hhmm...

BTW, who are you referring to when you say "we?"

Are any of them posting here in 225692?

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225692

"Are any of them posting here in 225692? "

It looks like a large number of posters are doing exactly what I said; trying to create a system that produces hits.

As for the "We", that post was a reply to RJ and I never saw RJ say they learned something from you they didn't already know. I suppose I could include several of the Challenge players that said they already knew betting $3168 twice a week for a year would be stupid too.

Statistics might show that more baseball players had 50 home run seasons when they rolled their pants legs up to their knees, but that's useless information to an American League pitcher or banjo hitting second baseman. Statistics may show where 80% of all MM jackpot winners are from large cities, but that too was useless information to the last MM jackpot winner from a little town in Idaho.

Probabilities like 99% of the millions of MM and PB players will never hit the jackpot fall on deaf ears because they already know it's a game of chance and they are simply taking a chance.

But you'll continue to tell us what we already know hoping someone believes you're a superior intellect.

    ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
    Denver, Co
    United States
    Member #103046
    December 29, 2010
    546 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 29, 2011, 3:59 pm - IP Logged

    Some pathetic claims are being made about Randomness, Probability, and Statistics in other topics here.  I thought it might be a good idea to establish this topic as a place to discuss these issues.

    For starters, those who feel Probability and Statistics are a waste of time and/or can not be used to evaluate methods of picking lottery numbers should be aware of other extremely important areas where scientists routinely employ them in Engineering and Physics to solve problems and make decisions that affect all of our lives.

    http://www.springer.com/physics/quantum+physics/book/978-0-7354-0636-0

    Anyone who really believes that their theories preempt the currently accepted ones of the scientific community should make the effort to organize their ideas and submit a paper for the next conference at  Växjö.  Short of that, they should at least put their ideas before the gatekeepers at Wikipedia!

    I truly hope that some of the "beliefs" espoused elsewhere in the Mathematics Forum are not those of university students who might somehow slip through the cracks of their school's grading system, graduate, and end up designing buildings, airplanes, or weapons that our children and grandchildren might someday come in contact with.

    Here is a great source for FREE Statistical Software!

    http://statpages.org/javasta2.html

    --Jimmy4164

    I'm not sure what you're trying to do with this thread. You named it ''Application of Probabilities and Statistics" and said it would be a good idea to 'discuss these issues'. Great idea...as a new member and as someone trying to learn everything he can about playing these games, your title attracted me to the thread.

    However as I read through your first post, I see comments like 'pathetic claims being made'; and 'those who feel P & S are a waste of time'; 'anyone who really believes that their theories....', and 'not of those of university students', blah blah blah. You're subsequent posts are more of the same. Other than a couple of links, there is nothing in the way of a discussion of statistics and probabilities, and the thread seems more like a putdown of everyone who has their own ideas that may not concur with your own. 

    Having said that, are you actually going to 'establish this topic as a place to discuss these issues', or continue with the pissing match?

      garyo1954's avatar - garyo
      Dallas, Texas
      United States
      Member #4549
      May 2, 2004
      1739 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 29, 2011, 5:00 pm - IP Logged

      I'm not sure what you're trying to do with this thread. You named it ''Application of Probabilities and Statistics" and said it would be a good idea to 'discuss these issues'. Great idea...as a new member and as someone trying to learn everything he can about playing these games, your title attracted me to the thread.

      However as I read through your first post, I see comments like 'pathetic claims being made'; and 'those who feel P & S are a waste of time'; 'anyone who really believes that their theories....', and 'not of those of university students', blah blah blah. You're subsequent posts are more of the same. Other than a couple of links, there is nothing in the way of a discussion of statistics and probabilities, and the thread seems more like a putdown of everyone who has their own ideas that may not concur with your own. 

      Having said that, are you actually going to 'establish this topic as a place to discuss these issues', or continue with the pissing match?

      Don't feel discouraged. Having a discussion with jimmy ranks as one of the great mysteries of mankind.

      Rumor has it NASA took up the daunting task of establishing there WOULD be a discussion.

      Unfortunately, once it was established the possibility was near the nano level (.000000000), jimmy started a new thread, ultimately destroying the data.

      Rumor also says jimmy was once nominated for the cover of the Who's Who of FAIL. IMHO he ranks right up there with the guy who worked diligently protesting Excel's inclusion of "New Rules" under the "Custom Format" option.

      Jimmy's greatest strength is also his weakness. With the great foundation he has in statistics and probablilty one would think he would have calculated his chances of changing a single a mind.

        ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
        Denver, Co
        United States
        Member #103046
        December 29, 2010
        546 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 31, 2011, 1:55 pm - IP Logged

        Don't feel discouraged. Having a discussion with jimmy ranks as one of the great mysteries of mankind.

        Rumor has it NASA took up the daunting task of establishing there WOULD be a discussion.

        Unfortunately, once it was established the possibility was near the nano level (.000000000), jimmy started a new thread, ultimately destroying the data.

        Rumor also says jimmy was once nominated for the cover of the Who's Who of FAIL. IMHO he ranks right up there with the guy who worked diligently protesting Excel's inclusion of "New Rules" under the "Custom Format" option.

        Jimmy's greatest strength is also his weakness. With the great foundation he has in statistics and probablilty one would think he would have calculated his chances of changing a single a mind.

        I guess you are right.

        There is no answer to my question so it appears that the idea of actually having a discussion was not a serious request.

          garyo1954's avatar - garyo
          Dallas, Texas
          United States
          Member #4549
          May 2, 2004
          1739 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 31, 2011, 10:43 pm - IP Logged

          Jimmy is really okay. He's just a bad parody of what he sees as a bad math professor. I sorta look at jimmy as the LP troll. Every forum has a troll, some are really bad. But jimmy.....

          Well, he stays in this little corner, he's not costing anything, and we don't have to feed him, walk him, water him, or bathe him. I think it is a pretty fair trade off to poke him one in while to make sure he is still alive. 

          I learned to never expect an answer.  I spent a minutes reading one of his posts and 45 minutes explaining why it didn't address anything he was talking about, and he ignored it. You do that a couple of tiem and your realize, it's not woth the effort.

          Just pat him on the head, tell him he is a good boy, and buy him a snow cone and he'll be happy.

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7325 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 1, 2011, 11:20 pm - IP Logged

            Jimmy is really okay. He's just a bad parody of what he sees as a bad math professor. I sorta look at jimmy as the LP troll. Every forum has a troll, some are really bad. But jimmy.....

            Well, he stays in this little corner, he's not costing anything, and we don't have to feed him, walk him, water him, or bathe him. I think it is a pretty fair trade off to poke him one in while to make sure he is still alive. 

            I learned to never expect an answer.  I spent a minutes reading one of his posts and 45 minutes explaining why it didn't address anything he was talking about, and he ignored it. You do that a couple of tiem and your realize, it's not woth the effort.

            Just pat him on the head, tell him he is a good boy, and buy him a snow cone and he'll be happy.

            Apparently Jimmy has abandon this topic in favor of "What will it take to win (mathematically speaking?)" by quoting psychological theories. And after two pages, still no discussion on the topic he started.


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 5, 2011, 12:30 am - IP Logged

              Some pathetic claims are being made about Randomness, Probability, and Statistics in other topics here.  I thought it might be a good idea to establish this topic as a place to discuss these issues.

              For starters, those who feel Probability and Statistics are a waste of time and/or can not be used to evaluate methods of picking lottery numbers should be aware of other extremely important areas where scientists routinely employ them in Engineering and Physics to solve problems and make decisions that affect all of our lives.

              http://www.springer.com/physics/quantum+physics/book/978-0-7354-0636-0

              Anyone who really believes that their theories preempt the currently accepted ones of the scientific community should make the effort to organize their ideas and submit a paper for the next conference at  Växjö.  Short of that, they should at least put their ideas before the gatekeepers at Wikipedia!

              I truly hope that some of the "beliefs" espoused elsewhere in the Mathematics Forum are not those of university students who might somehow slip through the cracks of their school's grading system, graduate, and end up designing buildings, airplanes, or weapons that our children and grandchildren might someday come in contact with.

              Here is a great source for FREE Statistical Software!

              http://statpages.org/javasta2.html

              --Jimmy4164

              No Stack47, not abandoned.

              Just patiently waiting for someone to seriously reply to the opening post.

              Hint: Someone who believes Probability is not useful for predicting what you will most likely win or lose in the lottery could try to explain how this is consistent with the fact that it is so valuable in the sciences.

                butch2030's avatar - DiscoBallGlowing
                The KEY ingredient is Combos & Patterns
                Elgin, IL
                United States
                Member #68867
                January 1, 2009
                1221 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 19, 2011, 12:44 pm - IP Logged

                "The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific."

                This statement is true.

                However, the kinds of fallacious reasoning that is used to concoct some of these unscientific lottery theories could have a serious effect on our future!  If someone doesn't call attention to the absurdity of some of the VooDoo suggested by some here, there are those who will [illogically] assume their theory is logical!  How will our country compete on the world stage when students in Asia are running circles around ours in the sciences?  The lotteries are Random!  Randomness is a powerful concept which helps solve complex problems in engineering and science.  It would have been helpful if you had thought about what you read in my opening post to this thread before making your comment.

                In the above statement you state the "kinds of fallacious reasoning that is used to concoct some of these unscientific lottery theories".  And then, you have the nerve to say "The lotteries are Random!"  They are not truely random.  The only time that they would be random is if they were drawn in a vacumn.  The machines are man made, the balls are man made, they are put into the machines in a given order, the entire process of turning on the machine & having the balls come out is less than 15 seconds.  I have found combinations & patterns in too many Lottery games and I will tell you for a FACT that the lotteries are not Random. 

                Take the Wisconsin Badger 5 game - odds of hitting 5 of 5 - is 1:169.911.  Yet within a range of 2,673 drawnings - there were 39 sets of 5 of 5 hitting two times each in the range of the 2,673 drawnings &  1 set of 5 of 5 hitting three times.

                For your info the three drawning containing the same numbers were.

                2003-02-26610212228
                2006-10-03610212228
                2008-08-08610212228

                 

                P.S. I have also found a number of combos & patterns in games that use the RNG.

                  Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
                  Zeta Reticuli Star System
                  United States
                  Member #30470
                  January 17, 2006
                  10356 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 19, 2011, 5:06 pm - IP Logged

                  No Stack47, not abandoned.

                  Just patiently waiting for someone to seriously reply to the opening post.

                  Hint: Someone who believes Probability is not useful for predicting what you will most likely win or lose in the lottery could try to explain how this is consistent with the fact that it is so valuable in the sciences.

                  jimmy4164,

                  Using the game of casino Blackjack as an example, every book out there will tell you never to take insurance. This is based on computer generated results of millions of hands. But you're not going to pay millions of hands, or millions of drawings.

                  So the night you go out and play comes and you hit a little streak and now you're betting greens and maybe blacks ($25 and $100 chips). You're usually a $1-$5 bettor but like I said you're "on a roll".

                  So you've got $200 bet and some sweet young thing of a dealer looks at you and says, "Insurance?"

                  "There's nobody I enjoy beating more than someone who just got a degree in probabilities. Especially if they're from Providence".

                  -Old time Las Vegas boxman.

                  The reference to Providence meant Ivy League.

                  Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

                  Lep

                  There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.


                    United States
                    Member #93947
                    July 10, 2010
                    2180 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 20, 2011, 1:48 am - IP Logged

                    In the above statement you state the "kinds of fallacious reasoning that is used to concoct some of these unscientific lottery theories".  And then, you have the nerve to say "The lotteries are Random!"  They are not truely random.  The only time that they would be random is if they were drawn in a vacumn.  The machines are man made, the balls are man made, they are put into the machines in a given order, the entire process of turning on the machine & having the balls come out is less than 15 seconds.  I have found combinations & patterns in too many Lottery games and I will tell you for a FACT that the lotteries are not Random. 

                    Take the Wisconsin Badger 5 game - odds of hitting 5 of 5 - is 1:169.911.  Yet within a range of 2,673 drawnings - there were 39 sets of 5 of 5 hitting two times each in the range of the 2,673 drawnings &  1 set of 5 of 5 hitting three times.

                    For your info the three drawning containing the same numbers were.

                    2003-02-26610212228
                    2006-10-03610212228
                    2008-08-08610212228

                     

                    P.S. I have also found a number of combos & patterns in games that use the RNG.

                    You seem to be telling us that your theory is that when lottery draws result in repeats, it proves the draws are not random.  And, if the draws are not random, and the lottery claims they are, I guess we must conclude that there is fraud involved in some way.  Let's think about this.  Someone at the lottery wants to rig the draw by forcing an outcome known to them in advance so they can be sure to bet on it.  If you were this person, would you choose a set that had already been drawn, knowing this would cause thousands of people like you to scrutinize the draw?  When the 3rd repeat occurred on 2008-08-08, was an investigation called for?  Was one initiated?  Was this a computerized draw?  On each day there was a repeat, was there any consensus regarding an alternative that would have been a much more likely draw?  For example, what set do you think would have been more likely on 2008-08-08?

                    What is your explanation for how these repeats occurred?

                    By the way, if 39 cases of repeats are too many for you in 2,673 draws, how many WOULD be acceptable?  Have you calculated the probability in this many draws of having 1, 2, 3, 4, , , 39 repeats?  How about the odds of having NO repeats in 2,673 draws?  And what would they represent in terms of standard deviations from the mean expected?

                    And what does this have to do with the opening Post in this Topic?

                    http://www.springer.com/physics/quantum+physics/book/978-0-7354-0636-0


                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 20, 2011, 2:07 am - IP Logged

                      jimmy4164,

                      Using the game of casino Blackjack as an example, every book out there will tell you never to take insurance. This is based on computer generated results of millions of hands. But you're not going to pay millions of hands, or millions of drawings.

                      So the night you go out and play comes and you hit a little streak and now you're betting greens and maybe blacks ($25 and $100 chips). You're usually a $1-$5 bettor but like I said you're "on a roll".

                      So you've got $200 bet and some sweet young thing of a dealer looks at you and says, "Insurance?"

                      "There's nobody I enjoy beating more than someone who just got a degree in probabilities. Especially if they're from Providence".

                      -Old time Las Vegas boxman.

                      The reference to Providence meant Ivy League.

                      Does this mean that Las Vegas boxmen know more about probability than people with degrees in mathematics?

                      "There's nobody I enjoy beating more than someone who just got a degree in probabilities. Especially if they're from Providence".

                      This is a psychologically revealing quote.  Why do you think they so "enjoy" beating someone with [presumably] more formal education than them?  Could it be that they share the same anti-intellectual mindset as the auto mechanics who think they know more about engine design than the metallurgists and mechanical engineers in Detroit?


                        truecritic's avatar - PirateTreasure
                        Michigan
                        United States
                        Member #22395
                        September 24, 2005
                        1583 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 20, 2011, 6:06 am - IP Logged

                        jimmy4164,

                        Using the game of casino Blackjack as an example, every book out there will tell you never to take insurance. This is based on computer generated results of millions of hands. But you're not going to pay millions of hands, or millions of drawings.

                        So the night you go out and play comes and you hit a little streak and now you're betting greens and maybe blacks ($25 and $100 chips). You're usually a $1-$5 bettor but like I said you're "on a roll".

                        So you've got $200 bet and some sweet young thing of a dealer looks at you and says, "Insurance?"

                        "There's nobody I enjoy beating more than someone who just got a degree in probabilities. Especially if they're from Providence".

                        -Old time Las Vegas boxman.

                        The reference to Providence meant Ivy League.

                        Has there ever been a game more publicized at being beaten than Black Jack?  (maybe roulette if you include Thorp). 

                        The "Old time Las Vegas boxman" would of never had the chance to say that when the M.I.T. team was in their prime.

                          time*treat's avatar - radar

                          United States
                          Member #13130
                          March 30, 2005
                          2171 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 20, 2011, 6:43 am - IP Logged

                          Has there ever been a game more publicized at being beaten than Black Jack?  (maybe roulette if you include Thorp). 

                          The "Old time Las Vegas boxman" would of never had the chance to say that when the M.I.T. team was in their prime.

                          One of the lessons learned by the M.I.T. team was that when the casino beats you, it's all good -- when you are beating the casino, it's a thorough body search by casino security, in a back room -- followed by a ban from the property.

                          In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
                          Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

                            Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
                            Zeta Reticuli Star System
                            United States
                            Member #30470
                            January 17, 2006
                            10356 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 20, 2011, 9:27 am - IP Logged

                            Does this mean that Las Vegas boxmen know more about probability than people with degrees in mathematics?

                            "There's nobody I enjoy beating more than someone who just got a degree in probabilities. Especially if they're from Providence".

                            This is a psychologically revealing quote.  Why do you think they so "enjoy" beating someone with [presumably] more formal education than them?  Could it be that they share the same anti-intellectual mindset as the auto mechanics who think they know more about engine design than the metallurgists and mechanical engineers in Detroit?


                            jimmy4164,

                            No, this meant that the casino guys had seen people with degrees in probabilitis come up to the game with their pencils and notebooks get slaughteredd by a pair of dice.

                            And by the way, nothing to do with an anti-intellectual mindset. It had more to do with telling intellectual after intellectual the dice were "frozen" or chopping and they didn't want that particular table but the eggheads, with their statistics,  just had to be the ones to prove the dice wrong. Yeah, sure.

                            Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

                            Lep

                            There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

                              butch2030's avatar - DiscoBallGlowing
                              The KEY ingredient is Combos & Patterns
                              Elgin, IL
                              United States
                              Member #68867
                              January 1, 2009
                              1221 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 20, 2011, 10:52 am - IP Logged

                              Does this mean that Las Vegas boxmen know more about probability than people with degrees in mathematics?

                              "There's nobody I enjoy beating more than someone who just got a degree in probabilities. Especially if they're from Providence".

                              This is a psychologically revealing quote.  Why do you think they so "enjoy" beating someone with [presumably] more formal education than them?  Could it be that they share the same anti-intellectual mindset as the auto mechanics who think they know more about engine design than the metallurgists and mechanical engineers in Detroit?


                              Back in 1960, when Ford put out the Ford Falcon & the Mercury Comet, they had a major problem with their rocker arm assembly in their engines.   It seems, they had to be replaced every few thousands of miles because they kept burning out.  It was an auto mechanic that had to tell Ford that the hole they bore in the engine was too small for the oil to be pumped from the oil pan to the rocker arm assembly.  When the oil got alittle dirty, it would pulg the hole which prevented oil getting to the rocker arm assembly which would burn out for lack of oil.   So much for the anti-intellectual midset as the auto mechanics who think they know more about engine design than the metallurgist and mechanical engineers in Detroit............................ In some cases - They do !!!

                              P.S. I had a Mercury Comet - cost new - $2,000.00  - Rocker arm assy - $100.00  or 1/20 the cost of the car & I was pissed at Ford.