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

Posted: January 30, 2011, 4:25 pm - IP Logged

Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

"When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19050 Posts Online

Posted: January 30, 2011, 6:53 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 30, 2011

Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

"When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control

Fact is people generally respect their own opinions more than those of others who they consider no more intelligent or knowledgeable than themselves.

The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets.

Fact is less than 3% of the possible lottery combinations will win anything for any particular drawing and most players if they have to pay for a losing ticket prefer it be one of their choosing however players still value a free QP that some lotteries offer as a promotion, I know I do. Some clerks have been caught stealing customers free QPs, so they value them too.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * * your best chance for winning a lottery jackpot is to buy a ticket *

Dallas, Texas United States Member #4549 May 2, 2004 1384 Posts Offline

Posted: January 30, 2011, 7:15 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 30, 2011

Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

"When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

Nope. Didn't click it. Don't have too. It is an extreme hypothesis written in such a manner as to establish some weird human failure since the experimenters needed something to do and couldn't understand the words "my choice."

I drink the coffee I like, because I like it.

I eat the oatmenal I eat because I like it.

I prepare it the way I want becasue I like it that way.

I eat it out of my favorite bowl because it is my favorite bowl.

I use the same spoon because I like it.

I use the toilet paper I use because I like it.

I buy the dog food I buy because......the dog likes it. Yes, even animals demonstrate a preference!

Naturally these experimenters/psychlogists, whomever they were, had to find a problem with the test subjects since they are unable to find fault with their premise. But the study was so scientific it failed to account for the very human element it was 'designed to eliminate.' AMAZING!

Interestingly enough, the relevance to this study, establishes that you CHOOSE to use the links you do because they support your way of thinking, not because they have any scientific basis. And it follows that that anyone propose a link not in keeping with your thinking, you dismiss it as "pathetic, unproven, conjecture, childish, without basis, juvenile, etc."

Yep. I like what I like, I buy what I like, I eat what I like, because I like it. No science involved. No math studies necessary. And like most people, I don't believe everything I read on the internet that claims it is proven.

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

Posted: January 30, 2011, 11:30 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 30, 2011

Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

"When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

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

Posted: January 30, 2011, 11:58 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 30, 2011

Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

"When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

However the study presumed that the quick pick tickets have actually the same probability as the same number of tickets chosen by the player and that is not entirely true. Because the quick pick, chooses the number randomly (or as near to random as a computer can be), there is a small but finite probability that multiple quickpicks would be the same numbers or share some of the same numbers, two tickets with exactly the same numbers have half the chance of two tickets with different numbers, two tickets that share three numbers have one less chance at a three number win. The difference is very very slight but calculable, when purchasing more than one ticket, a player can have better odds over an equal number of quickpicks by ensuring the number combinations are not repeated.

I will give them the point that people over estimate the probability of a positive result.

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

Posted: January 31, 2011, 12:26 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 30, 2011

Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

"When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

When you say, "two tickets with exactly the same numbers have half the chance of two tickets with different numbers, two tickets that share three numbers have one less chance at a three number win," you're forgetting that when these tickets do win, the holders are rewarded with multiple payoffs. Regardless, this doesn't detract from their observation of the effects of the "Illusion of Control." And I don't think this was an issue in the study.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 6097 Posts Offline

Posted: January 31, 2011, 11:36 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 30, 2011

Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

"When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

"Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:"

Is this topic about the math used in determining the odds against winning a particular prize in lotto game because every state lottery website show the odds against matching 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 numbers?

Is there a difference between knowing why the PB odds are 195 million to 1 than just taking their word for it?

"The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975)"

The only lotto type game I recall in 1975 was the Irish Sweepstakes and I don't know if I could have chosen my own numbers because I didn't live in Ireland.

It's a shame I can't predict lottery numbers as easily as I can predict that Jimmy will offers more useless information.

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 2662 Posts Offline

Posted: January 31, 2011, 12:16 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jwhou on January 30, 2011

However the study presumed that the quick pick tickets have actually the same probability as the same number of tickets chosen by the player and that is not entirely true. Because the quick pick, chooses the number randomly (or as near to random as a computer can be), there is a small but finite probability that multiple quickpicks would be the same numbers or share some of the same numbers, two tickets with exactly the same numbers have half the chance of two tickets with different numbers, two tickets that share three numbers have one less chance at a three number win. The difference is very very slight but calculable, when purchasing more than one ticket, a player can have better odds over an equal number of quickpicks by ensuring the number combinations are not repeated.

I will give them the point that people over estimate the probability of a positive result.

jwhou

I purchased a $5.00 QP for my 5-39 which only had 13 total numbers in 5 lines. I have found similar number

tickets quite often and is why I don't like QP's. This is also one of the reason I believe that QP's seem to

have clusters of similar numbered sets.

Humans are creatures of habit and most people purchase tickets on there way to or from work which

leads to many tickets being purchased within a small window of time. Since many RNG's use some measure

of time I think this would be expected.

What I don't understand about the probability / statsicital preacher is this. In a fixed game such as a

numbered lottery the probability is fixed. No matter how one dices, slices, tumbles, fumbles, stumbles

or picks there numbers the probability for the game remains the same. To some this means that any

amount of analysis regardless of methods used, is a total waste of time. While the odds can be used

to predict the overall expected they often fail for the single player. You seem to be a very level headed

person able to think outside the box so I would like your opinion on my system. I posted a system that

requires selecting digit to play instead of selecting numbers. This gives no better probability then selecting

numbers overall but consider this. When I first began to work up this system I ran the probs and was

unable to come up with any mathematical reason to focus on digits instead of numbers. However in my

many attemps I found something that seemed to stick out regardless of which RNG used or the sets

generated for testing. I found that the overall sets when broken down mimicked in proportion the whole

universe of sets. This was very simple and was one of those things we see but look over.

This lead to an interesting finding that any small random sample mimicked the larger matrix in such detail

that something must be happening at a regular and somewhat predictable basis. If selecting numbers

one has to deal with the aspect that some numbers may go many many drawings without showing. So

while trying to predict which numbers will show in the next draw one has a jumbed mess of skips and hits

that in my opinion defy attemps to sort into any reasonable expectation. However digits do not have this

same problem.

Most times digits have a skip rate of less then 4 draws on average, with digits 1-2-3 having a skip rate

of less then 1 for my 5-39. This however does not make the process a win/win option. Selecting lets say

5 or 6 digits for a 5 number game hits most because that's where the most sets fall. However the big-bang

came when I found that many simi-related values follow the same tight hit/skip rates which can also be

found in the mini and whole matrix with equal proportion. These values are equaly distributed with hit rates

equal to the digits but are not limited to the digits used in most cases. Fewer choices will always mean

fewer mistakes.

My system has come under scrutiny from a few well meaning but misinformed people in my opinion. My

method of play is to wait for the most optimun time for many of these simi-related values to fall within a

certain range. Think of it a a series of timming gears that all sink up on a regular basis. I do not mean

that all the values that sink are static as some change with every draw. It is based on the fact that the

mini matrix will mimic the whole matrix, which it does. This took years to develop and I won't give the

formulas I use for timming but should allow you see where I am comming from. I know the sums for each

value for every filter, digit/ digits and everything else from both the matrix and the draw history for all

the games I play. I can then look at values from the last 5, 10, 30, 50 ect... draws and compare each

against the entire matrix along with other random samples to track how close the game follows the

whole matrix. Using a few simple rules and simple math I can then make my selection for what I think

will happen next. So I guess you could say that I begin with the assigned probability and bias it with a

(game to matrix ratio). The program then assembles this information into sets to play.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 6097 Posts Offline

Posted: January 31, 2011, 12:34 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on January 30, 2011

When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control

Fact is people generally respect their own opinions more than those of others who they consider no more intelligent or knowledgeable than themselves.

The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets.

Fact is less than 3% of the possible lottery combinations will win anything for any particular drawing and most players if they have to pay for a losing ticket prefer it be one of their choosing however players still value a free QP that some lotteries offer as a promotion, I know I do. Some clerks have been caught stealing customers free QPs, so they value them too.

"Fact is people generally respect their own opinions more than those of others who they consider no more intelligent or knowledgeable than themselves."

It's more realistic to assume if a player has $10 to spend on a lottery game and decides to choose their own numbers, they already made the choice between self picks and quick picks. The only way to compare the value of the two wagers is to purchase a like number of QPs but that suggestion ignores the fact the player only planned on spending $10.

I've played QPs with SPs on the same playslip many times and saw many other players doing the same. Never heard anyone say they place more value on either method when buying them together.

The only thing interesting about this topic so far is what type of study was conducted in 1975 when there were very few lotto games and only available to a small number of players.

Denver, Co United States Member #103046 December 29, 2010 546 Posts Offline

Posted: January 31, 2011, 1:48 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 30, 2011

Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:

"When presented with a purely stochastic situation,people tend to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome over which they feel they have control. The classic example is the demonstration by Langer (1975) that subjects valued a lottery ticket they selected themselves more highly than one given to them by the experimenter, even though they knew the expected value (real probability of winning times the prize) was the same for both tickets. Although it did not affect the outcome of the gamble, the act of choosing seemed to activate the hypothesized control probability algorithm, increasing the subjectively estimated probability of winning."

"Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:"

For those of us who are not endowed with mathematical skills, why should we think about this before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

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

Posted: January 31, 2011, 3:46 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by ameriken on January 31, 2011

"Before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games, here is something to think about:"

For those of us who are not endowed with mathematical skills, why should we think about this before proceeding with a breakdown of the odds in one of the popular Lotto games? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

ameriken,

The beauty of Lotterypost.com is that there is something here for everyone. Given that fact, it's puzzling to me that someone like yourself, who proclaims they "are not endowed with mathematical skills," would click on the Mathematical Forum, and then proceed to make comments in a Topic which contains "Mathematical" in its Title. I'm sure you can find a Forum and Topic here that you'll be more comfortable with. For starters, why not check out one of the most popular Topics at this site:

Denver, Co United States Member #103046 December 29, 2010 546 Posts Offline

Posted: January 31, 2011, 4:52 pm - IP Logged

Yes, the beauty of Lotterypost.com is that there is something here for everyone. Another beauty is that there are good people here who are willing to help and share with others who are willing to learn. Unfortunately, there are people like you as well.

Third, you obviously lack certain skills as well, otherwise you would easily understand why I would click on the Mathematical Forum. However, since you do find it so puzzling, perhaps you can find the answer in a Forum and Topic that may help you unlock the key to the puzzle: http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/158188

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19050 Posts Online

Posted: January 31, 2011, 6:47 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 31, 2011

ameriken,

The beauty of Lotterypost.com is that there is something here for everyone. Given that fact, it's puzzling to me that someone like yourself, who proclaims they "are not endowed with mathematical skills," would click on the Mathematical Forum, and then proceed to make comments in a Topic which contains "Mathematical" in its Title. I'm sure you can find a Forum and Topic here that you'll be more comfortable with. For starters, why not check out one of the most popular Topics at this site:

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

Posted: February 1, 2011, 12:11 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on January 31, 2011

This way, those of us who have some training and interest in mathematics could get on with our discussion.

What discussion?

RJOh,

You said, "What discussion?"

Good question.

Since my opening post, all that's been posted here are inane remarks, and that includes yours. The attacks on the 1975 study as out of date don't even confirm that the article was read, since it was merely a reference that was mentioned in the paragraph I included as an excerpt. If you aren't careful, it won't be long before the slowest people here figure out what your real purpose is in these Forums.

--Jimmy4164

P.S. No need to bother reminding me you didn't comment on the 1975 study. I know that.