Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 7:21 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

What Does It Take To Win (Mathematically Speaking?)

Topic closed. 134 replies. Last post 6 years ago by Stack47.

Page 4 of 9
51
PrintE-mailLink
garyo1954's avatar - garyo
Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1675 Posts
Online
Posted: March 18, 2011, 1:46 pm - IP Logged

What about the question of pseudo-random vs [attempted] truly-random computerized drawings?  The report-card page doesn't address that.

Wouldn't overthink this since what we term 'true' random numbers are only 'true' random if they fit the expected perception of statistical randomness. Random ends whenever we determine something must pass a statistical analysis to be random.

That's not to say you can't take a set of random numbers and determine parameters, but you can't go in with the idea that random must fit the prameters you decide prior. It wouldn't be random if it did.

The curiosity of discussing pseudo-random and 'true' random is the difficulty determining the difference between the two. In either case, there is an outside influence that triggers the output.

It seems then, the only difference we accept is that 'true' random can be put through a battery of tests that prove they fit in the box we have decided 'true' random would fit.

    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
    mid-Ohio
    United States
    Member #9
    March 24, 2001
    19822 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 18, 2011, 3:18 pm - IP Logged

    From a strictly practical perspective the lottery administration is doing a sufficient job if players can't predict the results of future draws to gain advantages over other players.  If anyone anywhere is able to do that they've kept it well hidden.  A few repeated jackpot winners are around and one of them has a PHD in math.  If she has anything more than a a luckier streak than other players she doesn't admit to it and she hasn't been in the news lately.  Some of her wins were high value scratchers.  The last I've seen about her involved whether a retailer in Texas could mail tickets to her at her residence in Nevada.  For a while I thought the scratchers had to be pure luck until the recent news item that someone in the northeastern US found a flaw in tictacktoe scratchers.

    The issue of whether lottery draws are random might be less important than the question of whether anyone anywhere can predict the results with sufficient accuracy to allow them to win.  I read a post on this or the lottery systems forum a few days ago claiming Gail Howard has won several pick 6 draws.  If true and she is sharing some secret way to predict lottery results it shouldn't be long before pick 6 lotteries are discontinued.

    Sometime back I also read about Gail Howard winning so many lotteries that she allowed her winning tickets to accumulate before cashing them so I reasoned that they must have been small wins.  I've never read about her winning any jackpots. 

    I assume when lottery systems sellers like Gail Howard, Steve Players and others need to have a bunch of winning tickets to sell their systems, they can afford to buy a large group of tickets and write their loses off as a business expense.  They obviously don't make their money playing lotteries but rather selling lottery systems to players.

     * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
       
                 Evil Looking       


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 18, 2011, 3:38 pm - IP Logged

      From a strictly practical perspective the lottery administration is doing a sufficient job if players can't predict the results of future draws to gain advantages over other players.  If anyone anywhere is able to do that they've kept it well hidden.  A few repeated jackpot winners are around and one of them has a PHD in math.  If she has anything more than a a luckier streak than other players she doesn't admit to it and she hasn't been in the news lately.  Some of her wins were high value scratchers.  The last I've seen about her involved whether a retailer in Texas could mail tickets to her at her residence in Nevada.  For a while I thought the scratchers had to be pure luck until the recent news item that someone in the northeastern US found a flaw in tictacktoe scratchers.

      The issue of whether lottery draws are random might be less important than the question of whether anyone anywhere can predict the results with sufficient accuracy to allow them to win.  I read a post on this or the lottery systems forum a few days ago claiming Gail Howard has won several pick 6 draws.  If true and she is sharing some secret way to predict lottery results it shouldn't be long before pick 6 lotteries are discontinued.

      JosephusMinimus,

      You said, "From a strictly practical perspective the lottery administration is doing a sufficient job if players can't predict the results of future draws to gain advantages over other players.  If anyone anywhere is able to do that they've kept it well hidden. "

      It must have slipped your mind, because fairly recently, it's been claimed and well publicized:

      "For the record, I win between $500.00 to $1000.00 per year more then I spend.  I play between 25 and 35 times a year and play between 8 and 15 lines.  I normally hit three or four 4 of 5's each year but have hit three in one day.  I win many 3 of 5's which pays $10.00 and 2 of 5's which pays $1.00."  RL-RANDOMLOGIC, February 25, 2011

      If you do the math and read more of the details, you'll learn that this person allegedly has picked non-jackpot winners at a rate that is approximately eleven (11) times better than QuickPick players, year over year, for many years.

      http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/227950/1967589

      Even though he has trained disciples, somehow the game has survived the assault!

      --Jimmy4164

        Avatar

        United States
        Member #986
        January 5, 2003
        280 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 18, 2011, 3:46 pm - IP Logged

        "For the record, I win between $500.00 to $1000.00 per year more then I spend.  I play between 25 and 35 times a year and play between 8 and 15 lines.  I normally hit three or four 4 of 5's each year but have hit three in one day.  I win many 3 of 5's which pays $10.00 and 2 of 5's which pays $1.00."  RL-RANDOMLOGIC, February 25, 2011

        Boy do you need a life, you don't give up.  You like pushing buttons and then hide behind LP's "Chief Bottle Washer"  Geesh, your poor soul.


          United States
          Member #93947
          July 10, 2010
          2180 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 18, 2011, 4:04 pm - IP Logged

          "For the record, I win between $500.00 to $1000.00 per year more then I spend.  I play between 25 and 35 times a year and play between 8 and 15 lines.  I normally hit three or four 4 of 5's each year but have hit three in one day.  I win many 3 of 5's which pays $10.00 and 2 of 5's which pays $1.00."  RL-RANDOMLOGIC, February 25, 2011

          Boy do you need a life, you don't give up.  You like pushing buttons and then hide behind LP's "Chief Bottle Washer"  Geesh, your poor soul.

          During the time that I made 814 posts at this website, you made 9.  Who's been hiding?

            Avatar

            United States
            Member #105312
            January 29, 2011
            435 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 18, 2011, 4:32 pm - IP Logged

            JosephusMinimus,

            You said, "From a strictly practical perspective the lottery administration is doing a sufficient job if players can't predict the results of future draws to gain advantages over other players.  If anyone anywhere is able to do that they've kept it well hidden. "

            It must have slipped your mind, because fairly recently, it's been claimed and well publicized:

            "For the record, I win between $500.00 to $1000.00 per year more then I spend.  I play between 25 and 35 times a year and play between 8 and 15 lines.  I normally hit three or four 4 of 5's each year but have hit three in one day.  I win many 3 of 5's which pays $10.00 and 2 of 5's which pays $1.00."  RL-RANDOMLOGIC, February 25, 2011

            If you do the math and read more of the details, you'll learn that this person allegedly has picked non-jackpot winners at a rate that is approximately eleven (11) times better than QuickPick players, year over year, for many years.

            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/227950/1967589

            Even though he has trained disciples, somehow the game has survived the assault!

            --Jimmy4164

            Jimmie:  I don't know what RL did do nor what he didn't do.  Neither do you.  He hasn't posted in a while and from the time he quit a lot of others have made claims of their own about the systems they are working on.  If you miss the daily warfare with RL you might consider one of those.  Firing your ammunition at the space RL occupied can't damage him.   Live targets are out there you can be unpleasant and demeaning toward.


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 18, 2011, 5:24 pm - IP Logged

              Jimmie:  I don't know what RL did do nor what he didn't do.  Neither do you.  He hasn't posted in a while and from the time he quit a lot of others have made claims of their own about the systems they are working on.  If you miss the daily warfare with RL you might consider one of those.  Firing your ammunition at the space RL occupied can't damage him.   Live targets are out there you can be unpleasant and demeaning toward.

              You're probably right with your unoccupied space metaphor.  However, I don't think I was being demeaning.  I thought my references quoted above were appropriate, given your statement that such claims must be "well hidden."  If I'm guilty of anything, it's pointing out an "Inconvenient Truth!"  The quotes above speak for themselves.  They were, "For the Record."

              I don't desire "warfare."  If it appears that way, it's because I'm not a pacifist.  When I'm attacked, I retaliate.  My goal is to pursue truth, wherever it may lead.

                Avatar

                United States
                Member #105312
                January 29, 2011
                435 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 18, 2011, 5:27 pm - IP Logged

                RJOH:  I might have misread the post.  Or maybe the person who made the post misread what he or she thought was claimed.  Thanks for correcting me.  I didn't intend to convey belief or disbelief about the original claim, but I actually didn't believe it.

                On the other hand, the Texas news has said a lot about the Ex-Texas woman with a PHD in math and her winnings in Texas.  I don't doubt her wins and I haven't seen anything quoting her as saying she had a system.

                  Avatar

                  United States
                  Member #105312
                  January 29, 2011
                  435 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 18, 2011, 5:38 pm - IP Logged

                  You're probably right with your unoccupied space metaphor.  However, I don't think I was being demeaning.  I thought my references quoted above were appropriate, given your statement that such claims must be "well hidden."  If I'm guilty of anything, it's pointing out an "Inconvenient Truth!"  The quotes above speak for themselves.  They were, "For the Record."

                  I don't desire "warfare."  If it appears that way, it's because I'm not a pacifist.  When I'm attacked, I retaliate.  My goal is to pursue truth, wherever it may lead.

                  Jimmie:  I don't find what you believe to be truth inconvenient.  I don't place enough value on it to care.

                  Nobody is attacking you.  I didn't say anything about RL in my post.  I didn't say anything about you in my post.

                  On to matters about lotteries and related subjects, are you able to examine a set of lottery draws and determine by one means or another whether they were the result of a pseudo-RNG, any RNG, or dropped balls?

                  I ask because you made a distinction and seemed to consider it important.


                    United States
                    Member #93947
                    July 10, 2010
                    2180 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 18, 2011, 5:56 pm - IP Logged

                    Jimmie:  I don't find what you believe to be truth inconvenient.  I don't place enough value on it to care.

                    Nobody is attacking you.  I didn't say anything about RL in my post.  I didn't say anything about you in my post.

                    On to matters about lotteries and related subjects, are you able to examine a set of lottery draws and determine by one means or another whether they were the result of a pseudo-RNG, any RNG, or dropped balls?

                    I ask because you made a distinction and seemed to consider it important.

                    I didn't feel attacked by your post.  I just happen to think that new readers may have been mislead by your statement that no one was claiming big wins with system play.  Why do you feel such a need to defend the person who left the empty space?

                    I happen to agree with you that the lotteries are sufficiently random for the number of objects they manipulate.  But you must be aware that there are many here who believe the computerized draws are rigged in a way that they can be predicted.  Not too far above here in this thread, you will see why I brought up the question of truly vs pseudo random.  It was in my reply to nelson1's post of March 14th.

                    BTW, if my reply to you earlier today made you feel under attack, I'm sorry.  It was not my intention.


                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 18, 2011, 6:58 pm - IP Logged

                      pseudo-random vs [attempted] truly-random

                      How would you know the difference even if the details of the computer program were known? 

                      I looked at the last 598 MegaMillions drawings which used ball machines for five years and 600 MM combinations generated by the LP QP generator in a few seconds and both groups had numbers that had hitted 50% more than others and number distribution patterns that were more popular than others which were unique to each group.

                      According to Todd, http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/228235 'Other Web sites have "randomizers", but very few are like Lottery Post's, because Lottery Post uses an advanced cryptographic library to generate numbers that are more truly random.'

                      I have no doubts that Todd used every resource to make the LP QP generator as truly random as possible and it can be tested thousands of times in a short period of time to prove it but the standard is the MegaMillions drawings which took over five years to accumulate, so does it matter if all groups of numbers have traits not usually associated with randomness regardless of how they are chosen?

                      "How would you know the difference even if the details of the computer program were known?"

                      I remember reading papers describing methods  to calculate a randomness score of sets of variables to determine which set was the most "random."  However, I just put "measures of randomness" into the Google search box, and got tired trying to find what I vaguely remember.  Try it - maybe you can find something useful.

                      The data is available here at LP to enable one to compare the results of ball drops and computer draws.  Hint Hint! Wink

                      Here is an interesting discussion of the whole business of randomness, including trying to measure it.

                      http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1474382/a-good-and-simple-measure-of-randomness 

                      BTW, I believe that even if there is fraud being perpetrated by programmers at a lottery, if they are clever enough to pull off a fraud under those circumstances, they will most certainly NOT do it in a way that anyone not on the "inside" would be able to benefit by predicting results.  JMHO.


                        United States
                        Member #93947
                        July 10, 2010
                        2180 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 18, 2011, 7:12 pm - IP Logged

                        Jimmie:  I don't find what you believe to be truth inconvenient.  I don't place enough value on it to care.

                        Nobody is attacking you.  I didn't say anything about RL in my post.  I didn't say anything about you in my post.

                        On to matters about lotteries and related subjects, are you able to examine a set of lottery draws and determine by one means or another whether they were the result of a pseudo-RNG, any RNG, or dropped balls?

                        I ask because you made a distinction and seemed to consider it important.

                        "I don't find what you believe to be truth inconvenient.  I don't place enough value on it to care."

                        Sometimes I make the mistake of skimming parts of a post that I ultimately reply to.  I did that in this case.  My second reading of the above forces me to retract my earlier apology to you.  Use your imagination to think of what more I might add in the absense of moderation.

                          Avatar

                          United States
                          Member #105312
                          January 29, 2011
                          435 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 18, 2011, 11:08 pm - IP Logged

                          "I don't find what you believe to be truth inconvenient.  I don't place enough value on it to care."

                          Sometimes I make the mistake of skimming parts of a post that I ultimately reply to.  I did that in this case.  My second reading of the above forces me to retract my earlier apology to you.  Use your imagination to think of what more I might add in the absense of moderation.

                          Thanks Jimmie.  I accept the withdrawal of your apology.  My imagination is involved in matters I judge to be worth the trouble.

                          You and I don't have enough in common to bother warring with one another.  Neither of us has grounds for hostility.  I concede the game to you and forfeit any future ones so we don't have to play them.

                            garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                            Dallas, Texas
                            United States
                            Member #4549
                            May 2, 2004
                            1675 Posts
                            Online
                            Posted: March 19, 2011, 12:51 am - IP Logged

                            "How would you know the difference even if the details of the computer program were known?"

                            I remember reading papers describing methods  to calculate a randomness score of sets of variables to determine which set was the most "random."  However, I just put "measures of randomness" into the Google search box, and got tired trying to find what I vaguely remember.  Try it - maybe you can find something useful.

                            The data is available here at LP to enable one to compare the results of ball drops and computer draws.  Hint Hint! Wink

                            Here is an interesting discussion of the whole business of randomness, including trying to measure it.

                            http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1474382/a-good-and-simple-measure-of-randomness 

                            BTW, I believe that even if there is fraud being perpetrated by programmers at a lottery, if they are clever enough to pull off a fraud under those circumstances, they will most certainly NOT do it in a way that anyone not on the "inside" would be able to benefit by predicting results.  JMHO.

                            Jimbooooooo!!

                            The question was: "On to matters about lotteries and related subjects, are you able to examine a set of lottery draws and determine by one means are another whether they are the result of a pseudo-RNG, any RNG, or dropped balls?"

                            Seems to be a simple yes or no. Why the mish-mash of what you remember, and where data might be available and link to obfuscate the topic? Can't you just say 'No'without feeling inadequate?

                            You mentioned hints. Here's one: Search 'Statistical Randomness.' (Yes, Jimmy that is a probability term.) Look closely and you'll find, "The Marsaglia Random Number CD." George Marsaglia, FSU professor, created this Diehard Battery of Test for Randomness in 1995 using a National Science grant. You'll also find "dieharder,"  a newer series of test of randomness from Duke University's Physics Department, released this year by Robert G. Brown. It can be downloaded freely.

                            It is putrid that you continue to mention RL in his absence. He has been nothing but a gentlemen attempting to dissipate your misunderstanding of what his system is and it what does. You, for whatever reason will not, or cannot grasp, it has nothing to do with random number generation.

                            Now, Jimmy, I've shown you where FREE tools are, so I am positive you will answer Josephus question (it's in the blue.)


                              United States
                              Member #93947
                              July 10, 2010
                              2180 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 19, 2011, 3:08 am - IP Logged

                              Jimbooooooo!!

                              The question was: "On to matters about lotteries and related subjects, are you able to examine a set of lottery draws and determine by one means are another whether they are the result of a pseudo-RNG, any RNG, or dropped balls?"

                              Seems to be a simple yes or no. Why the mish-mash of what you remember, and where data might be available and link to obfuscate the topic? Can't you just say 'No'without feeling inadequate?

                              You mentioned hints. Here's one: Search 'Statistical Randomness.' (Yes, Jimmy that is a probability term.) Look closely and you'll find, "The Marsaglia Random Number CD." George Marsaglia, FSU professor, created this Diehard Battery of Test for Randomness in 1995 using a National Science grant. You'll also find "dieharder,"  a newer series of test of randomness from Duke University's Physics Department, released this year by Robert G. Brown. It can be downloaded freely.

                              It is putrid that you continue to mention RL in his absence. He has been nothing but a gentlemen attempting to dissipate your misunderstanding of what his system is and it what does. You, for whatever reason will not, or cannot grasp, it has nothing to do with random number generation.

                              Now, Jimmy, I've shown you where FREE tools are, so I am positive you will answer Josephus question (it's in the blue.)

                              Thanks for the tip garyo1954.  If I have time, I'll check it out.  I'm pretty busy these days and was hoping one of the experts here might take up the task of answering the question prompted by nelson1's earlier posting.  I.E., he assumes there are differences among random sequences generated by different methods.  I agree with him.  Perhaps you can follow your references above, apply them to various results here at LP, and get back to us with your findings.

                              Sorry to hear about poor RL.  I'm surprised you'd say he's been nothing but a gentlemen though.  You apparently haven't looked back very far in the archives.  And I doubt if you were privy to his private messages to me early on, or were you?  BTW, I just checked, and I don't believe I mentioned or even alluded to random number generation in relation to RL's claims in the last couple days.  Since you brought it up, though, if he applies his pruning process to the hundreds of thousands of possible plays in his 5/39 game and just can't seem to reduce the playable sets to a number he can afford, and it really looks to him like a good day to bet, he might want to take a shot at randomly selecting from his highly likely sets what his budget permits.  He can get some hints on exactly how to do this if he takes a close look at the source code that JADELottery posted recently in this Forum.

                              Do you have any expert opinion on his claim of picking eleven (11) times as many winners as QuickPick players year over year for about 20 years?

                              Have a nice day.