Welcome Guest
You last visited January 23, 2017, 7:51 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Interest In Backtesting and Simulating Lottery Systems

Topic closed. 99 replies. Last post 5 years ago by lotterybraker.

 Page 1 of 7

What are the Merits of Backtesting and Simulating Lottery Systems?

 I think it would provide valuable insights. [ 41 ] [64.06%] I think it would be a waste of time. [ 6 ] [9.38%] I Don't Know but I would like to learn about it. [ 13 ] [20.31%] I don't know and I don't care. [ 4 ] [6.25%] Total Valid Votes [ 64 ] Discarded Votes [ 1 ]

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 18, 2011, 2:00 am - IP Logged

If you are reading this you are probably aware that there are several people posting in the Backtesting and Simulating Lottery Systems Thread who seem to have a vested interest in disrupting serious discussion of the subject or possibly just enjoy frustrating someone whose ideas they don't like.  Whatever their motivations, I need to determine if it is worth any further effort on my part to try to introduce Monte Carlo Methods and discussion.  I feel these people are behaving very rudely and foolishly, but if they have the support of the majority, I will gladly drop the subject.

The two charts below illustrate examples of the kinds of studies that can be made with the help of Random Number Generators.  In this case, a comparison of the risks in two different stock trading systems is made.

--Jimmy4164

========

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 18, 2011, 4:27 pm - IP Logged

Could any of this testing have shown during the first month that Tennessee used a computer RNG for their pick3 drawings which was not producing any doubles or triples because of a mistake that the odds of a double or triple hit were zero and the odds of a straight or box hit with three different numbers were 1:720 and 1:120 instead of the usual 1:1000 and 1:220?

If all it does is show the odds of winning a lottery game with certain parameters are the same as those calculated and posted on the play slips instead of showing that some oddities in the drawings results of a particular game could change the odds of winning then what good is it?

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

NASHVILLE, TENN
United States
Member #33372
February 20, 2006
1044 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 18, 2011, 9:11 pm - IP Logged

No matter what subject you decide to bring up on this forum, there will be people telling you "It can'be be done!"

So go for it and try to ignore the nay-sayers.  Like the poor, they will be with us always.

United States
Member #71120
February 19, 2009
1209 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 19, 2011, 10:57 am - IP Logged

An no matter what is said and done on systems this state pays in that certain range payout anyway.When I go to Ky or Ga to play the excitment of it is awesome...Tennessee makes a sick feeling in my gutt..

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4094 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 3:27 am - IP Logged

Could any of this testing have shown during the first month that Tennessee used a computer RNG for their pick3 drawings which was not producing any doubles or triples because of a mistake that the odds of a double or triple hit were zero and the odds of a straight or box hit with three different numbers were 1:720 and 1:120 instead of the usual 1:1000 and 1:220?

If all it does is show the odds of winning a lottery game with certain parameters are the same as those calculated and posted on the play slips instead of showing that some oddities in the drawings results of a particular game could change the odds of winning then what good is it?

RL

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 12:16 pm - IP Logged

Could any of this testing have shown during the first month that Tennessee used a computer RNG for their pick3 drawings which was not producing any doubles or triples because of a mistake that the odds of a double or triple hit were zero and the odds of a straight or box hit with three different numbers were 1:720 and 1:120 instead of the usual 1:1000 and 1:220?

If all it does is show the odds of winning a lottery game with certain parameters are the same as those calculated and posted on the play slips instead of showing that some oddities in the drawings results of a particular game could change the odds of winning then what good is it?

No need to remind me that this is a picture of a roulette simulation and not a Pick-3 game.  Be patient.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 1:55 pm - IP Logged

No need to remind me that this is a picture of a roulette simulation and not a Pick-3 game.  Be patient.

I was thinking your would be showing  and explaining charts generated by your tests and simulations rather pictures of some one else work.

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

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1847 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 2:20 pm - IP Logged

I was thinking your would be showing  and explaining charts generated by your tests and simulations rather pictures of some one else work.

I was thinking the same thing RJOH. This looks like a scanned page of "Anti-Lottery Anonymous Weekly." Maybe if we can convince him to flip it over, we can all read "How I BEAT Monty Hall's car door problem!" by Don Catlain.

Or it could be a sales circular for Krogers. In which case, none of us would have to leave the house to see what their specials are.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 2:25 pm - IP Logged

I was thinking your would be showing  and explaining charts generated by your tests and simulations rather pictures of some one else work.

I was hoping you might have an observation to make on the charts, rather than merely pointing out that someone else produced them.

Be patient.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 3:41 pm - IP Logged

I was thinking your would be showing  and explaining charts generated by your tests and simulations rather pictures of some one else work.

I was thinking it would be easier to divide 2 by 38 if I wanted to know the house edge in roulette. He could have explained how he got the "2" and and "38", but pretty graphs are attention grabbers!

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 3:51 pm - IP Logged

I was hoping you might have an observation to make on the charts, rather than merely pointing out that someone else produced them.

Be patient.

The only other observation I could have made was the one you said you didn't need to be reminded of.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 4:06 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 and RJOh have helped me narrow the problem with their perceptions here down to two possibilities.

Either they are color blind, and can only see that RED bar in the middle of the roulette chart...

or, the BLUE bars mean absolutely nothing to them.

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 7:35 pm - IP Logged

There are dozens of real lottery systems alive and well on the American continent.  Simulating one instead of using any of the real ones seems redundant and a lot less trustworthy than using one with a cadre of overseers and a security infrastructure.

Backtesting is primarily a tool intended to assist in narrowing the avenues of approach to developing a system intended to predict lottery draw results.  But backtesting a simulated system seems an empty exercize.

In fact, the ultimate test for any backtest is forward testing.  If backtesting doesn't result in a means of providing accurate forward prediction it does nothing.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 7:57 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 and RJOh have helped me narrow the problem with their perceptions here down to two possibilities.

Either they are color blind, and can only see that RED bar in the middle of the roulette chart...

or, the BLUE bars mean absolutely nothing to them.

I can see both the RED and BLUE bars, so you're half right.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 20, 2011, 11:37 pm - IP Logged

There are dozens of real lottery systems alive and well on the American continent.  Simulating one instead of using any of the real ones seems redundant and a lot less trustworthy than using one with a cadre of overseers and a security infrastructure.

Backtesting is primarily a tool intended to assist in narrowing the avenues of approach to developing a system intended to predict lottery draw results.  But backtesting a simulated system seems an empty exercize.

In fact, the ultimate test for any backtest is forward testing.  If backtesting doesn't result in a means of providing accurate forward prediction it does nothing.

To me, a backtest of a lottery system would be to use your system rules to pick your numbers, sequence through actual past draws, and keep a tally of your equity.  A forward test is not usually undertaken until a system looks viable on the [back]test data.  I have yet to see a lottery system meeting this criteria for any reasonable length of time - have you?

The roulette chart here was based on 50,000 random gamblers each betting on 1,000 spins, using a RNG to produce all the data.  I call this a simulation with NO SYSTEM involved.  So, I guess I really don't know what your point is here in this context.

 Page 1 of 7