Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 9:32 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Shouldn't we want more computerized lottery systems?

Topic closed. 24 replies. Last post 6 years ago by pumpi76.

Page 1 of 2
PrintE-mailLink
mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
Fort Worth, TX
United States
Member #106060
February 11, 2011
188 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 11, 2011, 2:22 pm - IP Logged

I see the argument here is that people like real balls because they are truly random and computers are fundamentally not random. Isn't that a good thing? Aren't we all looking for patterns? Seems to me like pattern finding would is ONLY possible in a "simulated" random number generator than with a truly non-simulated random number generator.

    tungsten chef's avatar - nw dwarf5.jpg
    Winnipeg
    Canada
    Member #14974
    May 7, 2005
    3649 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 11, 2011, 2:32 pm - IP Logged

    I see the argument here is that people like real balls because they are truly random and computers are fundamentally not random. Isn't that a good thing? Aren't we all looking for patterns? Seems to me like pattern finding would is ONLY possible in a "simulated" random number generator than with a truly non-simulated random number generator.

    notice all the same combos  in pick 3 that came out back to back draws?

     

    what's this all about? oh yeah its random...

    jersey today and last night....943

    maryland yesterday...159 both draws from eve to mid.

    ohio....170

    a couple others i do believe

    I'm an N.S.A.

    A Numerical Statistics Analyst.

      four4me's avatar - gate1
      MD
      United States
      Member #1701
      June 18, 2003
      8364 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 11, 2011, 5:05 pm - IP Logged

      I see the argument here is that people like real balls because they are truly random and computers are fundamentally not random. Isn't that a good thing? Aren't we all looking for patterns? Seems to me like pattern finding would is ONLY possible in a "simulated" random number generator than with a truly non-simulated random number generator.

      It goes way deeper than computers aren't fundamentally random. Computers can and have been manipulated it's programing can be altered by pushing buttons that doesn't allow doubles to be drawn.

      As reported  in the Tennessee lottery when they switched to computers to draw numbers for almost two months they robbed the people by not allowing doubles to be drawn and when the people reported something was wrong they ignored it until someone contacted the governor's office.

      Computerized drawings for pick 3/4/5/6 games should be outlawed period.

      Big John says. You don't hit the number. The number hits you!!!!

                     I'm not Big John, I'm Four4me, Big John's a friend.
        mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
        Fort Worth, TX
        United States
        Member #106060
        February 11, 2011
        188 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 11, 2011, 5:22 pm - IP Logged

        That just proves that patterns are more likely with computer systems, man made or not. In anycase wouldn't it have been great to be part of the "120" club in Tennessee. Roll Eyes

          B$Rizzle's avatar - a4leds
          The Ville, FL
          United States
          Member #95879
          August 19, 2010
          1708 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 11, 2011, 5:38 pm - IP Logged

          I see the argument here is that people like real balls because they are truly random and computers are fundamentally not random. Isn't that a good thing? Aren't we all looking for patterns? Seems to me like pattern finding would is ONLY possible in a "simulated" random number generator than with a truly non-simulated random number generator.

          I dont agree with your logic here. I believe it is the exact opposite.

           

          As others have stated, computer drawings can be manipulated easy & Im sure they are more-so manipulated to stear away form patterns

            mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
            Fort Worth, TX
            United States
            Member #106060
            February 11, 2011
            188 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 11, 2011, 6:44 pm - IP Logged

            I'm fairly certain that that the obvious and stated goal of computerized systems are to not have a pattern since thats the very definition of random. I wouldn't call that manipulation but good programming.

             

            So now I've heard it all four ways.

             

            1. Real balls have patterns.

            2. Real balls are "truly" random.

            3. Computers cannot be truly random.

            4. Computers are the most random.

             

            lol. Oh well.

              ttech10's avatar - blobdude
              Texas
              United States
              Member #92330
              June 5, 2010
              887 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 11, 2011, 7:32 pm - IP Logged

              You will have patterns in balls occasionaly, but that doesn't mean they're not random. The existence of patterns is also the existence of randomness.

              Computers can be random as well and they can also have patterns (that are random), if done correctly. The problem is that there are lottery commissions out there that have it programmed into their computers that certain things cannot happen (as mentioned above with Tennessee).

               

              Personally I wouldn't be alright with computerized drawings as there are too many things that could happen to affect the numbers. With the balls you have a lot of measures to insure the numbers are drawn at random and it's by chance a certain number gets picked up. I know here in Texas they have multiple sets of balls and do pre-tests to make sure they all weigh the same and even have practice draws.

              As much as some people would like for their to be an actual system to winning the lottery (which could maybe be possible with computerized drawings), I think the possibility of the number generations being manipulated is to big of a factor for a majority of lottery players to jump on board the idea.

                B$Rizzle's avatar - a4leds
                The Ville, FL
                United States
                Member #95879
                August 19, 2010
                1708 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 11, 2011, 7:49 pm - IP Logged

                I'm fairly certain that that the obvious and stated goal of computerized systems are to not have a pattern since thats the very definition of random. I wouldn't call that manipulation but good programming.

                 

                So now I've heard it all four ways.

                 

                1. Real balls have patterns.

                2. Real balls are "truly" random.

                3. Computers cannot be truly random.

                4. Computers are the most random.

                 

                lol. Oh well.

                I agree with you on that. I believe that the programmers job is to make the drawings NOT have a pattern & that is why I like ball drawings better. Ball drawings do have patterns alot of the times and that is how I pick my #s.

                 

                Any computer program can be manipulated to skew in a certain way that's why I do not trust computer draws.

                  tungsten chef's avatar - nw dwarf5.jpg
                  Winnipeg
                  Canada
                  Member #14974
                  May 7, 2005
                  3649 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 11, 2011, 8:17 pm - IP Logged

                  notice all the same combos  in pick 3 that came out back to back draws?

                   

                  what's this all about? oh yeah its random...

                  jersey today and last night....943

                  maryland yesterday...159 both draws from eve to mid.

                  ohio....170

                  a couple others i do believe

                  arkansas...day and night....877Puke

                  I'm an N.S.A.

                  A Numerical Statistics Analyst.

                    marcie's avatar - Lottery-060.jpg
                    Ohio
                    United States
                    Member #49980
                    February 21, 2007
                    34184 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 11, 2011, 8:30 pm - IP Logged

                    I think when you keep seeing the same numbers it is going to fall all over the States just my oppinion. Right like that 710 comb.  Ohio had it twice,  N.C.other states too.

                    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/233413    Sun Smiley Popular numbers

                    12345

                    67890

                    Use Mirror #'s Use prs. with your  Key* numbers the most Vivid thing in your dream go up or down on #'s.  Flip  6=9 `9=6  Bullseyes  0 or 1 for Pick 4 and the P. 5  Play the other part of doubles.  Do the Whole nine yards for a P. 4* P. 5*  or 0 thur 9  for P. 4  P. 5 from my dreams or hunches good Luck.. Write your Dreams down Play for 3 days.  Good Luck All.

                      Avatar

                      United States
                      Member #119
                      February 19, 2002
                      527 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 11, 2011, 8:59 pm - IP Logged

                      I see the argument here is that people like real balls because they are truly random and computers are fundamentally not random. Isn't that a good thing? Aren't we all looking for patterns? Seems to me like pattern finding would is ONLY possible in a "simulated" random number generator than with a truly non-simulated random number generator.

                      You can not provide evidence of your assertion that you can only find patterns through computerized drawings. 

                      You know why? 

                      No evidence exists! 

                      Therefore, asserting there are patterns when computers pick numbers is a non sequiter = does not logically/rationally follow.

                      And if you COULD somehow PROVE that, then please demonstrate or me, and the entire LP community that numbers from ball machines are either less than random or not random.

                      Also, please tell me that neither nor you nor any friend nor any family member is employed in any capacity with a business connected to software for computerized lotteries.

                        sully16's avatar - sharan
                        Ringleader
                        Michigan
                        United States
                        Member #81740
                        October 28, 2009
                        40609 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 11, 2011, 10:46 pm - IP Logged

                        no computors.

                        Did you exchange a walk on part in the war ?

                        For a lead role in a cage?

                         

                                                                    From Pink Floyd's " Wish you were here"

                          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                          New Jersey
                          United States
                          Member #99032
                          October 18, 2010
                          1439 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 11, 2011, 11:05 pm - IP Logged

                          You can not provide evidence of your assertion that you can only find patterns through computerized drawings. 

                          You know why? 

                          No evidence exists! 

                          Therefore, asserting there are patterns when computers pick numbers is a non sequiter = does not logically/rationally follow.

                          And if you COULD somehow PROVE that, then please demonstrate or me, and the entire LP community that numbers from ball machines are either less than random or not random.

                          Also, please tell me that neither nor you nor any friend nor any family member is employed in any capacity with a business connected to software for computerized lotteries.

                          The point isn't really whether or not you can find patterns in computerized or ball draws, it's whether it's random, and how easily it can be confirmed to be random.

                           

                          1) Computers are completely incapable of true randomness, the only way that they can be somewhat random is by using a truely random source, and generating numbers based on that truely random source.  They process data, and can only make numbers that appear random for all intensive purposes, but there has to be an algorithm or program telling it what to do.

                           

                          2) You can watch a ball draw, and it's easy for auditors to see if a ball draw has been manuipulated, which isn't true of computerized drawing.  Someone could concievably make it so a certain number will fall on a certain day in a computerized draw- and it'd be a whole lot harder to notice.

                            ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                            Denver, Co
                            United States
                            Member #103046
                            December 29, 2010
                            546 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 11, 2011, 11:17 pm - IP Logged

                            I've seen other posts that reveal great suspicions about Lotterires.

                            If the games are so easily manipulated and computers are not truly random, then why is nearly everyone here trying to predict numbers and playing on a dishonest and flawed lottery?

                            Seriously.

                              garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                              Dallas, Texas
                              United States
                              Member #4549
                              May 2, 2004
                              1736 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 12, 2011, 3:18 am - IP Logged

                              In discussing ball drop vs computerized lottery machines, one has to remember there are two types of ball drop. A gravity drop has paddles for mixing the balls like Mega-Millions.  The other, used in most small matrix games are considered air mix.

                              There are also several types of computerized Random Number Generators, all of which require a 'seed' or 'key.'  Depending on how that 'seed' is generated will determine the lenth of the sequence before a repeat. (A whole thread could be done on RNGs alone)

                              What I have done is take an air mix (Texas) and a computerized draw (California) and put the two side by side for comparison. Keep in mind Texas had had 5440 draw to California's 6907.  Each set of numbers are based on the same criteria. The first chart gives the even/odd breakdown by position for each game, the percentages of even/odd, the totals for the even and odd pairing.