Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited April 25, 2018, 1:58 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

If you had 10 bucks to bet...

Topic closed. 132 replies. Last post 7 years ago by JADELottery.

Page 9 of 9
55
PrintE-mailLink

What do you think is the better bet?

1 Play / 10 Draws [ 58 ]  [64.44%]
10 Plays / 1 Draw [ 32 ]  [35.56%]
Total Valid Votes [ 90 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 3 ]  
JADELottery's avatar - AMeOn 02.png
Thread Starter
- Eagle Sun - Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
4080 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 17, 2011, 3:57 pm - IP Logged

We will be making some changes to our site.

So, if you want to run the test, do it soon.

The test will become unavailable after we make the changes.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
Use at your own risk.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

    Avatar

    United States
    Member #59354
    March 13, 2008
    4772 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 17, 2011, 8:26 pm - IP Logged

    We will be making some changes to our site.

    So, if you want to run the test, do it soon.

    The test will become unavailable after we make the changes.

    jade

    I have been watching this post with interest but have yet to get the meat of it.  The calculated probability

    would show a very small advantage playing 10 plays 1 day.  This however would not be a winning strategy

    by any interpretation.  I ran many test using a RNG which was set up to count every time the rng generated

    two exact sets in series.  I don't remember that it ever happened in millions and millions of attempts.  However

    within the list seperated by time there were many matches.  What you are doing would be be like drawing 10

    random sets and then see if the 11th matched any of the 10 and then draw 1 and see if it matched any of the

    next 10. 

    From this viewpoint I would say that any difference would be meaningless and the results would switch back

    and forth with no preference for one over the other.   To make this test unbiased you would need 11 identical

    RNG's running in sync where all 11 numbers were drawn at the exact same time but even this would have an

    effect that was based on seed value used which could also be construed as time or any nonconstant measure.

    Depending on the type of RNG even the numbers within one set are spaced by this nonconstant value. I don't

    agree or disagree with what you are doing it's just that I can't understand the punch line.  I know from many

    test that the greater the count of events that come and go the greater the chance of the next event matching

    a previous point.  The lottery could be looked at like two random events that match within a given time frame

    but try as I might, I cannot take time out of the equation.

     

    RL

      JADELottery's avatar - AMeOn 02.png
      Thread Starter
      - Eagle Sun - Quantum Master
      West Concord, MN
      United States
      Member #21
      December 7, 2001
      4080 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 17, 2011, 9:48 pm - IP Logged

      jade

      I have been watching this post with interest but have yet to get the meat of it.  The calculated probability

      would show a very small advantage playing 10 plays 1 day.  This however would not be a winning strategy

      by any interpretation.  I ran many test using a RNG which was set up to count every time the rng generated

      two exact sets in series.  I don't remember that it ever happened in millions and millions of attempts.  However

      within the list seperated by time there were many matches.  What you are doing would be be like drawing 10

      random sets and then see if the 11th matched any of the 10 and then draw 1 and see if it matched any of the

      next 10. 

      From this viewpoint I would say that any difference would be meaningless and the results would switch back

      and forth with no preference for one over the other.   To make this test unbiased you would need 11 identical

      RNG's running in sync where all 11 numbers were drawn at the exact same time but even this would have an

      effect that was based on seed value used which could also be construed as time or any nonconstant measure.

      Depending on the type of RNG even the numbers within one set are spaced by this nonconstant value. I don't

      agree or disagree with what you are doing it's just that I can't understand the punch line.  I know from many

      test that the greater the count of events that come and go the greater the chance of the next event matching

      a previous point.  The lottery could be looked at like two random events that match within a given time frame

      but try as I might, I cannot take time out of the equation.

       

      RL

      Ok.

      Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
      Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
      Use at your own risk.

      Order is a Subset of Chaos
      Knowledge is Beyond Belief
      Wisdom is Not Censored
      Douglas Paul Smallish
      Jehocifer

        JADELottery's avatar - AMeOn 02.png
        Thread Starter
        - Eagle Sun - Quantum Master
        West Concord, MN
        United States
        Member #21
        December 7, 2001
        4080 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 17, 2011, 9:49 pm - IP Logged

        Unless you've won a jackpot prize using either of these methods..you will never know which one was the

        better play 1/10 or 10/1...even if you won, you would only be able to say playing 1 set for 10 days or 10

        sets for one day was good only for the day you won. Do it again and I might be impressed, do it yearly

        and hey you might have a believer.

        But just toss it around without being able to get to the point and I wonder what you are after.

        JADELottery are you reeling people into something...do you need attention...do you need help or do you

        need answers to your poll to show yourself (yourselves?) that what you are thinking is proper thinking?

        ie, read: Validation, confirmation, ???.

        Your posts are posts of a person holding an answer. You seem to know the answer yet string people

        along letting them guess at some great mystery.

        What I know is this...5 plays at 7 days is good enough...1 play for 26 draws is boring....and unless you

        have a few jp wins to back up this string along post, then please get to the point without all the mystery

        and delay.

        Someone compared jackpot games to pick 3 games....different can of worms, sts.

        Why don't you throw your opinion of what the better play is out there?

        Why not play more numbers sets for one draw than play one number set for 10 draws? Or why

        even separate the two of them?

        The chances that your winning number set is in 10 lines with one drawing are as good as your one

        line of numbers being the winner in 10 drawings.

        Hmm, interesting observation.

        Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
        Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
        Use at your own risk.

        Order is a Subset of Chaos
        Knowledge is Beyond Belief
        Wisdom is Not Censored
        Douglas Paul Smallish
        Jehocifer

          Avatar

          United States
          Member #59354
          March 13, 2008
          4772 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 18, 2011, 10:22 am - IP Logged

          Ok.

          Jade

          OK

          This is all I get, I was hoping to get beat up a little or maybe as jimmy says enlightened.  Maybe the point was

          just to get us to think a bit which is always good.  I would also like to say that I thought your circles/arrows graphic

          was a very good example of the lottery process.  I ran another test using a simple RNG and in 30 million random

          sets I did get 3 sets that matched in series but they were do to incremental advances in the systems ticks.

          RL

            JADELottery's avatar - AMeOn 02.png
            Thread Starter
            - Eagle Sun - Quantum Master
            West Concord, MN
            United States
            Member #21
            December 7, 2001
            4080 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 18, 2011, 10:40 am - IP Logged

            Jade

            OK

            This is all I get, I was hoping to get beat up a little or maybe as jimmy says enlightened.  Maybe the point was

            just to get us to think a bit which is always good.  I would also like to say that I thought your circles/arrows graphic

            was a very good example of the lottery process.  I ran another test using a simple RNG and in 30 million random

            sets I did get 3 sets that matched in series but they were do to incremental advances in the systems ticks.

            RL

            No, we agree with what you've written.

            You've come up with a test.

            Now, we're waiting for your results.

            Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
            Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
            Use at your own risk.

            Order is a Subset of Chaos
            Knowledge is Beyond Belief
            Wisdom is Not Censored
            Douglas Paul Smallish
            Jehocifer


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 18, 2011, 6:47 pm - IP Logged

              jade

              I have been watching this post with interest but have yet to get the meat of it.  The calculated probability

              would show a very small advantage playing 10 plays 1 day.  This however would not be a winning strategy

              by any interpretation.  I ran many test using a RNG which was set up to count every time the rng generated

              two exact sets in series.  I don't remember that it ever happened in millions and millions of attempts.  However

              within the list seperated by time there were many matches.  What you are doing would be be like drawing 10

              random sets and then see if the 11th matched any of the 10 and then draw 1 and see if it matched any of the

              next 10. 

              From this viewpoint I would say that any difference would be meaningless and the results would switch back

              and forth with no preference for one over the other.   To make this test unbiased you would need 11 identical

              RNG's running in sync where all 11 numbers were drawn at the exact same time but even this would have an

              effect that was based on seed value used which could also be construed as time or any nonconstant measure.

              Depending on the type of RNG even the numbers within one set are spaced by this nonconstant value. I don't

              agree or disagree with what you are doing it's just that I can't understand the punch line.  I know from many

              test that the greater the count of events that come and go the greater the chance of the next event matching

              a previous point.  The lottery could be looked at like two random events that match within a given time frame

              but try as I might, I cannot take time out of the equation.

               

              RL

              I don't think it's necessary, but here is the source code for a random number generator that provides up to 256 random parallel streams, which seems to be what you're asking for.

              http://www.cs.wm.edu/~va/software/park/

              --Jimmy4164

                dr65's avatar - black panther.jpg
                Pennsylvania
                United States
                Member #74096
                May 2, 2009
                23880 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: April 18, 2011, 7:12 pm - IP Logged

                Hmm, interesting observation.

                Anything that takes the time you've invested in this experiment has to be meaningful in some way. There

                is usually a side the poser of the question takes...sometimes it's not immediately stated and they

                would just like opinions from others before stating their own and then presenting their facts or test results.

                Since you have facts..ie test runs and results...the information is no longer opinion..you have something

                solid to compare. I believe, while I was popping in and out for a quick read, that you came to the conclusion

                that playing 1 set for 10 days was the better play.

                JADE, are you interested in quick picks or do you choose your own numbers?

                With the research you've done here, does that change the way you play now? Or have you always known

                the advantage you have discovered?


                  United States
                  Member #93947
                  July 10, 2010
                  2180 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: April 20, 2011, 12:24 pm - IP Logged

                  I don't think it's necessary, but here is the source code for a random number generator that provides up to 256 random parallel streams, which seems to be what you're asking for.

                  http://www.cs.wm.edu/~va/software/park/

                  --Jimmy4164

                  RL,

                  How did this work out for you?  Were you able to translate them from C into Basic without too much trouble?

                  --Jimmy4164

                    ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                    Denver, Co
                    United States
                    Member #103046
                    December 29, 2010
                    546 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: April 20, 2011, 12:28 pm - IP Logged

                    I guess I'm jumping into this thread way late, and only read the first page or so, but based on my own unscientific and unprovable observation, I would prefer 10 lines in one game over 1 line per game 10 times.

                    Good day and good luck.

                    Ken

                    Give someone a fish and feed them for a day. Teach them to use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks. 

                      Avatar

                      United States
                      Member #59354
                      March 13, 2008
                      4772 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: April 20, 2011, 8:08 pm - IP Logged

                      RL,

                      How did this work out for you?  Were you able to translate them from C into Basic without too much trouble?

                      --Jimmy4164

                      Jimbo

                      Why take someone elses work when I can do it on my own?   What you don't understand is that it makes

                      no difference if it's done with one machine or a thousand, you cannot produce a random number without

                      some element of space, time, distance, movement, ect....  Without this you would have nothing but a counter,

                      In a RNG P-5 lottery, each number can only be drawn once so some bias must be included and even and in a ball

                      tumbler each ball that drops out has a effect on the rest.  Now what would be the point of running so many at

                      one time.  I could generate a random string of 10 thousand numbers between 0 and 40 and then just start picking

                      them off 5 at a time and testing them for dup's before moving to the next, what would be the difference.  Your light

                      bulb must of gotten so bright that it burnt out and left you in the dark.  Heres what I don't understand, a lottery has

                      a finite number of possible outcomes that allow anyone to calculate the odds for it any way they want to look at it. 

                      If you ever come up with a idea whos odds are better then the odds for the game then you need to redue your math

                      because it is wrong. You cannot get two sets of odds for the same game, however, conditional odds can be used and

                      if the draw follows the conditions then what is the problem in doing this.  If I think that the first number will be 11 in

                      tonights game and I choose to look at the game as a 5-29 instead of a 5-39 then what I am using is conditional.  The

                      odds for a 5-29 are much better then for a 5-39.  I am getting so tired of your thinking that enlightenment is knowing

                      the odds for some event.  This is something that is posted on every lotteries webpage that I have ever seen and is a no

                      brainer.  Do you really think that the rest of us are so stupid that we can't or don't understand them, BUNK.   The real

                      reason behind your post is your need to feel important.   Get some help, you need it. 

                      RL


                        United States
                        Member #93947
                        July 10, 2010
                        2180 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: April 20, 2011, 11:07 pm - IP Logged

                        jade

                        I have been watching this post with interest but have yet to get the meat of it.  The calculated probability

                        would show a very small advantage playing 10 plays 1 day.  This however would not be a winning strategy

                        by any interpretation.  I ran many test using a RNG which was set up to count every time the rng generated

                        two exact sets in series.  I don't remember that it ever happened in millions and millions of attempts.  However

                        within the list seperated by time there were many matches.  What you are doing would be be like drawing 10

                        random sets and then see if the 11th matched any of the 10 and then draw 1 and see if it matched any of the

                        next 10. 

                        From this viewpoint I would say that any difference would be meaningless and the results would switch back

                        and forth with no preference for one over the other.   To make this test unbiased you would need 11 identical

                        RNG's running in sync where all 11 numbers were drawn at the exact same time but even this would have an

                        effect that was based on seed value used which could also be construed as time or any nonconstant measure.

                        Depending on the type of RNG even the numbers within one set are spaced by this nonconstant value. I don't

                        agree or disagree with what you are doing it's just that I can't understand the punch line.  I know from many

                        test that the greater the count of events that come and go the greater the chance of the next event matching

                        a previous point.  The lottery could be looked at like two random events that match within a given time frame

                        but try as I might, I cannot take time out of the equation.

                         

                        RL

                        RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

                        When you wrote, "To make this test unbiased you would need 11 identical RNG's running in sync where all 11 numbers were drawn at the exact same time but even this would have an effect that was based on seed value used which could also be construed as time or any nonconstant measure."

                        ...in response to JADELottery, it appeared to me that the code I linked you to was exactly what you were suggesting was needed.

                        http://www.cs.wm.edu/~va/software/park/

                        And given JADELottery's last comment to you, "No, we agree with what you've written.  You've come up with a test.  Now, we're waiting for your results."

                        ...I really thought you might need that multi-stream RNG.

                        I guess not. Sorry about that.

                        BTW, was your tirade above really necessary?

                        --Jimmy4164

                          JADELottery's avatar - AMeOn 02.png
                          Thread Starter
                          - Eagle Sun - Quantum Master
                          West Concord, MN
                          United States
                          Member #21
                          December 7, 2001
                          4080 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: April 21, 2011, 7:51 am - IP Logged

                          We've posted in our blog, What's the difference between Science and Pseudoscience?

                          The answer:

                          In Science you Test the Hypothesis.

                          In Pseudoscience you Prove the Conclusion.

                          What we have seen so far are many anecdotal analogies at best that attempt to prove a conclusion.

                          They are mostly in the realm of Pseudoscience; the objective in that is to Prove a Conclusion rather than Test the Hypothesis.

                          We read a lot of very interesting stories of a variation of the original Hypothesis, but no real effort is made to test it.

                          The hypothesis is of course, "...the Probabilities are the Same."

                          What has been seen so far is someone building a Castle of Proof around a Conclusion that they are so sure of or adamant on defending.

                          They conjure up a bunch of Logic blocks, make them out to be the best and most impervious logic blocks ever made and go about the task of arranging them in just the right way so as to make the Castle seem totally impenetrable.

                          However, when you look at what they've said and really examine the proof, the castle looses its foundation when you start to put those blocks in the proper frame of reference.

                          Their whole Castle of Logic begins to fall apart, revealing the Conclusion for what it actually is; for all to see... incorrect.

                          To date, we have not seen any real test or results of a test that can prove or disprove the Original Hypothesis, “…the Probabilities are the Same.”; other than our own.

                          Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
                          Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
                          Use at your own risk.

                          Order is a Subset of Chaos
                          Knowledge is Beyond Belief
                          Wisdom is Not Censored
                          Douglas Paul Smallish
                          Jehocifer