Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 9:25 pm
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 2 of 2
PrintE-mailLink
garyo1954's avatar - garyo
Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1675 Posts
Online
Posted: March 12, 2011, 3:24 am - IP Logged

The second chart I'll call the Hit Total chart. It shows the 9 digits, how long they are currently out, the longest they have ever been out and how may times they remain out at certain intervals, i.e., 2 draws, 8 draws, 11 draws, etc. There will be some differences, but remember, we are dealing with two different games, which have two different draw lengths as well.  Considering that do the numbers look out of line from what yuo might expect?

 

    garyo1954's avatar - garyo
    Dallas, Texas
    United States
    Member #4549
    May 2, 2004
    1675 Posts
    Online
    Posted: March 12, 2011, 3:56 am - IP Logged

    The last chart I'll offer is the sum total chart for each game. Texas is an air mix. California is a computerized draw. You can imagine the normal distribution (Bell curve) as you see the numbers rise to peak 14, both take a dip at 15, rise again at 16 whenCalifornia continues a downward slope. Texas, as you see, has a second dip at 17, rises at 18 and proceeds downward. Now, one might conclude the Texas chart (air mix) is ragged. I would agree with that. I would however, point out the similarities in the charts that show both making a considerable leap between the sums 7 and 8, both dip at 15, and both tail off at 22. Again, remember these two games have a different draw history, Texas has 5440 draws while California has 6907, so the actual numbers are going to vary from that fact alone.

    Based on these charts alone, without any knowledge of which is which, is there anything that would tip you off to which is which?

    (Personally I like ball drops. I don't think I'd play a computerized game, but I'm at a loss in finding anything to base my opinion on, other than it being my opinion.)

    Editing: Please excuse the many mispellings throughout the prior three posts. Was in a hurry to get these up and get some sleep. Serious. Spent a good bit of time watching a movie while doing these....Smile.... nite all! ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

     

      bobby623's avatar - abstract
      San Angelo, Texas
      United States
      Member #1097
      January 31, 2003
      1394 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 12, 2011, 12:10 pm - IP Logged

      A search of previous posts regarding this subject (balls vs computers) will show that folks oppose computer draws because:

      1. Drawings are conducted in secret. 

      At some appointed time a lottery officials shows up and say the winning numbers (for a game) are .....
      There have been instances where in some states, a second lottery official will show up and complain the
      numbers released earlier where wrong. And, then give a new set of winning numbers.

      2. There are NO assurances that the drawing computer isn't programmed to search data bases, using
      secret WiFi connections or other means, to pick winning numbers that would assure minimum payouts.

      Just about everyone with a modern cell phone is carrying a hand held computer with hundreds of so-called 'apps'
      for just about any situation.

      It would be easy for the person operating the drawing computer to learn, at light speed, what would assure
      maximum profits for the state.

      3. Whether or not computer drawings are more or less random than ball drops is mute. Who really cares.
      There has not been a single instance where a player using statistics has defeated the lottery on a  consistent basis.
      Statistics can help a player decide 'what might happen next,' but winning and losing is more luck than anything else.

      Ball drops are generally accepted as 'sufficiently random' for most players.

      Would lottery officials try to manipulate drawings?

      In my opinion, lotteries are run by people who know how to use 'greed' to the best advantage.
      They wouldn't hesitate to manipulate the games.
      If they get caught, as they did in Tenneessee, they just blame someone else. They then go on
      to do whatever they feel they need to do to improve profits.

      Every player ought to do whatever he or she can to oppose computer drawings.

      I sure hope it never happens in Texas.

        garyo1954's avatar - garyo
        Dallas, Texas
        United States
        Member #4549
        May 2, 2004
        1675 Posts
        Online
        Posted: March 12, 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.

        Bobby,

        The OP cared enough to post the question of comparison. I cared enough to show a comparison. 

        Due to the ingenuity of people, even a ball drop system can be manipulated. Machines can be rigged, balls can be weighted or lightened, fall into a dead air zone, be damaged by the paddles, etc.

          mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
          Fort Worth, TX
          United States
          Member #106060
          February 11, 2011
          188 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 12, 2011, 3:51 pm - IP Logged

          First of all it's "sequitur" not "sequiter". And I doubt I have to demonstrate it to the entire LP community because I assume most here understand basic physics. True randomness does not exist, because it cannot exist! Everything operates within the boundaries of a finite system. Sure the variables are there but even these have finite limits. Cause and effect=not random. Because of this, patterns have the possibility of existing, because they MUST exist. Whether or not this correlates to the numbers on the balls is any one's guess. Computers are the same. They operate in a totally non-random manner. To say something is "programmed" to be random is, in fact, a non-sequitur. This crosses each argument out and makes the point about "randomness" a moot one. 

          The argument then becomes one of control. We have utter and absolute control over computerized systems. Even in the absence of corruption we still have total power. In effect it's a smaller system than the one that physical lottery machines exist in (the laws of physics). Add to that the old saying... "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and you have the argument against computerized drawings. Again though, as has been pointed out, the balls can be weighted and the outcome can be planned. Again, it comes down to corruption. This makes the argument of control a moot one as well. They can both be controlled. 

          This leaves us with argument of checks and balances or lack thereof. (ha ha. get it?) There aren't audits of computerized systems. It's closed and private. A live ball drawing is public. This is a democracy. We like public. Unfortunately the logic of this argument also falls flat (ha ha get it?). The results of the lottery are public and open for scrutiny. It's the results we care about. Tennessee is usually used as a case against computerized drawings but as we see the pattern was quickly identified. Any such pattern can and will be identified through statistical analysis. A meaningful manipulation cannot happen for just ONE DRAW. A manipulation will always be a pattern that happens over multiple draws. It will be found in EITHER system. With so many people trying to beat the system the pattern will be identified. Another argument crossed out.

          Now we reach the realm of conspiracy theories about knowing what bets have been placed and then giving picks that will generate the least payout... This can be done with either system.

          It's my opinion then that ball drawings offer the illusion of safety. The illusion of randomness. The illusion of fair. This is very important. We like our illusions. They make us more comfortable. In this case the illusion of having a fair system is not dangerous as say an illusion of freedom would be, because as stated above the results can always be audited. Therefore to increase participation lottery operators should use some common sense and not have computerized drawings because people are more comfortable with balls and more likely to pay into the system. The drawings should be live web-casts and/or on digital sub channels to reduce the so called "cost" of prime time airings.

           

          And no Greg I'm not affiliated with computerized lotteries, if I were, I'd be rich. Not because I would fix the system...because I'm sure the licensing for such things is good money.Leaving

            rdgrnr's avatar - walt
            Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
            United States
            Member #73904
            April 28, 2009
            14903 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 12, 2011, 7:40 pm - 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.

             

            I prefer the Foggy Mountain Breakdown by Flatt and Scruggs.


                                                         
                                 
                                                     

             

             

             

             

                                                                                                               

            "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                        --Edmund Burke

             

             

              Avatar
              Griffith, In
              United States
              Member #41637
              June 20, 2006
              266 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 12, 2011, 7:51 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.

              NOOOOOOOOOO!

              Thank you and have a prosperous day!

              Maverick2842.......out!Party

                time*treat's avatar - radar

                United States
                Member #13130
                March 30, 2005
                2171 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 12, 2011, 8:48 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.

                Same reason they keep votin'. Wink

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

                  tungsten chef's avatar - nw dwarf5.jpg
                  Winnipeg
                  Canada
                  Member #14974
                  May 7, 2005
                  3639 Posts
                  Online
                  Posted: March 13, 2011, 9:45 am - IP Logged

                  kentucky with another back to back same combo.....

                   

                  561.

                  I'm an N.S.A.

                  A Numerical Statistics Analyst.

                    Avatar

                    Honduras
                    Member #20982
                    August 29, 2005
                    4715 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 13, 2011, 10:34 am - 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 say the same thing, wouldnt we want patterns instead of something that is 100% random and shows no patterns...even if a game is rigged it can still be won if you got a good system...plus a ball number cost the lottery more money, if the lottery saved money it could go into education or some of it return to players in the form of more lower prizes like 2/3 match...

                    The Forex trades: 1.6 Trillion dollars EVERY day, that´s more than the GDP of the Carribbean Central America, COMBINED. Enough to feed every crook out there for centuries...To all Geniuses & Powers Countries of the World the Planet needs breakthroughs in all Medicine, Veterinary, Biology related fields, Psychology, Population Psychology/Sociology..They need to genetically ingeneer new plants species/types to give more variety of plants and thus have more resources for combating diseases¨