Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 1:02 am
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 2 of 7
53
PrintE-mailLink

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 ]  
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7297 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 20, 2011, 11:44 pm - IP Logged

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

Even if somebody sees pink elephants on the charts still doesn't change the fact trading stocks and roulette are not lottery games. Unless he can explain the relevance, this thread will have a quick death just like the majority of the threads he starts.

"Ohio Post Dreams here Let's go Ohio!":  1149 replies, 75,999 views

"Transportation":  28 replies, 1591 views

"The Kelly Criterion":  1 reply (by Jimmy), 481 views

"A Challenge For Roulette System Players":  0 replies, 84 views

Personally, I'd stop and take stock of my subject matter and presentation after seeing members are more interested in how players get to the lottery stores to make their wagers. But that's just me; your mileage might vary.


    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 21, 2011, 12:11 am - IP Logged

    Even if somebody sees pink elephants on the charts still doesn't change the fact trading stocks and roulette are not lottery games. Unless he can explain the relevance, this thread will have a quick death just like the majority of the threads he starts.

    "Ohio Post Dreams here Let's go Ohio!":  1149 replies, 75,999 views

    "Transportation":  28 replies, 1591 views

    "The Kelly Criterion":  1 reply (by Jimmy), 481 views

    "A Challenge For Roulette System Players":  0 replies, 84 views

    Personally, I'd stop and take stock of my subject matter and presentation after seeing members are more interested in how players get to the lottery stores to make their wagers. But that's just me; your mileage might vary.

    You just can't deal with those charts, can you?  Wouldn't it be better for you, with less risk of egg on your face later, to just sit on the sidelines until you have something useful to say?

    Have you ever thought about how many Rolling Cash 5 payslips you could fill out in the time it takes to try to trash one of my posts?

    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/230340/2026231


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 21, 2011, 12:33 am - IP Logged

      P.S.  Given your last paragraph above, I don't understand what it is that keeps you so attentive to my posts.

        Avatar
        Kentucky
        United States
        Member #32652
        February 14, 2006
        7297 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 21, 2011, 2:02 am - IP Logged

        You just can't deal with those charts, can you?  Wouldn't it be better for you, with less risk of egg on your face later, to just sit on the sidelines until you have something useful to say?

        Have you ever thought about how many Rolling Cash 5 payslips you could fill out in the time it takes to try to trash one of my posts?

        http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/230340/2026231

        "Wouldn't it be better for you, with less risk of egg on your face later"

        I'm just saying if you wait too long to get to whatever the point is you're trying to make, there won't be a "later". Rome wasn't built in one day, but they didn't wait for all your drama to unfold before starting.

        "Have you ever thought about how many Rolling Cash 5 payslips you could fill out in the time it takes to try to trash one of my posts?"

        Haven't been in Ohio for almost two years and have no current plans on visiting, but if I do go there and fill out a RC5 playslip, I'll make sure to time myself so you can add it to your statistics.

          time*treat's avatar - radar

          United States
          Member #13130
          March 30, 2005
          2171 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 21, 2011, 8:34 am - IP Logged

          Backtesting: Tells me

          a) how a system/idea would have performed for any given drawing. cost vs. winnings

          b) whether or not I have any errors (logic or syntax) in that system.

           

          Simulating Lotteries: I don't bother.

          a) There's plenty of real data available.

          b) That'd be as useless as 'simulating' a stock chart.

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


            United States
            Member #93947
            July 10, 2010
            2180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 21, 2011, 10:42 am - IP Logged

            Backtesting: Tells me

            a) how a system/idea would have performed for any given drawing. cost vs. winnings

            b) whether or not I have any errors (logic or syntax) in that system.

             

            Simulating Lotteries: I don't bother.

            a) There's plenty of real data available.

            b) That'd be as useless as 'simulating' a stock chart.

            "b) That'd be as useless as 'simulating' a stock chart."

            Don't tell that to the Wall Street firms doing it 24/7 with supercomputers!

            You may not have started at the beginning of this subject.

            Please check out the excerpts from the 2 articles referenced here:

            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947

              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
              mid-Ohio
              United States
              Member #9
              March 24, 2001
              19817 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 21, 2011, 11:08 am - IP Logged

              If a system is based on what happened in the past, how can it fail backtesting using that same data?  It might fail a simulation because a simulation creates a past of its own.  If you are backtesting a system on a 649 game and use a simulation of a 649 game rather than the particular 649 game used to develop the system, it will probably fail every time.  Like wise a system developed using only simulations will probably fail when used with a real games.   Simulation can only tell you how many tickets are likely to be sold before there is a winner not if that winner will be you.

               * 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: April 21, 2011, 11:19 am - IP Logged

                At this point in our investigation, we're not trying to predict.  What we're doing is looking at the range of possibilities that random processes are capable of presenting to us without applying filters or systems to the output of the random number generators.  Note that there were some pretty big winners among those 50,000 roulette players, and all they did was bet on "1" every time!

                  garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                  Dallas, Texas
                  United States
                  Member #4549
                  May 2, 2004
                  1665 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: April 21, 2011, 11:31 am - IP Logged

                  "b) That'd be as useless as 'simulating' a stock chart."

                  Don't tell that to the Wall Street firms doing it 24/7 with supercomputers!

                  You may not have started at the beginning of this subject.

                  Please check out the excerpts from the 2 articles referenced here:

                  http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947

                  Jimbooble!!!!!

                  Since your last post, my computer has done 2,397,997,620, +/- 585,686 calculations involving the lottery. You however, have done absolutely nothing to help those poor people who voted that backtesting and simulation might prove uselful. 

                  You evoked the word backtesting and simulation in two consecutive threads and yet have failed to define it, explain it, or even attempt to describe any meaningful purpose it might offer.

                  One has to wonder if you know what you are talking about. And unfortunately for those poor people who voted to know more, you have nothing more to offer.

                  This disaster is like watching a one legged chicken cross the road in front of 18 wheeler. If you want my continued participation in these charades my price starts at time and a half, double time, or triple overtime and beyond. BEGGING will not help you this time!!!

                    ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                    Denver, Co
                    United States
                    Member #103046
                    December 29, 2010
                    546 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: April 21, 2011, 11:33 am - IP Logged

                    At this point in our investigation, we're not trying to predict.  What we're doing is looking at the range of possibilities that random processes are capable of presenting to us without applying filters or systems to the output of the random number generators.  Note that there were some pretty big winners among those 50,000 roulette players, and all they did was bet on "1" every time!

                    I think what Jimmy may be trying to say, is regardless of whether or not there is a system involved, there are going to be few big winners and many more losers. However, when someone wins big and claims it is the result of a sysem, the win appears to prove that the system really produces results when in reality, it is all still just a random outcome.

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

                      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                      mid-Ohio
                      United States
                      Member #9
                      March 24, 2001
                      19817 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: April 21, 2011, 11:36 am - IP Logged

                      At this point in our investigation, we're not trying to predict.  What we're doing is looking at the range of possibilities that random processes are capable of presenting to us without applying filters or systems to the output of the random number generators.  Note that there were some pretty big winners among those 50,000 roulette players, and all they did was bet on "1" every time!

                      Doesn't the odds charts on the back of most play slips tell you that?  In fact that is the ways odds are calculated, the numbers of possible out comes divided by one ticket are the odds of it happening to that ticket.

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

                        time*treat's avatar - radar

                        United States
                        Member #13130
                        March 30, 2005
                        2171 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: April 21, 2011, 11:50 am - IP Logged

                        I think what Jimmy may be trying to say, is regardless of whether or not there is a system involved, there are going to be few big winners and many more losers. However, when someone wins big and claims it is the result of a sysem, the win appears to prove that the system really produces results when in reality, it is all still just a random outcome.

                        Aside from whether or not we agree if it is true, that would have been a more sensible statement.

                        Thing is, we already know about the few big winners and the many more losers.

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

                          time*treat's avatar - radar

                          United States
                          Member #13130
                          March 30, 2005
                          2171 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: April 21, 2011, 12:00 pm - IP Logged

                          "b) That'd be as useless as 'simulating' a stock chart."

                          Don't tell that to the Wall Street firms doing it 24/7 with supercomputers!

                          You may not have started at the beginning of this subject.

                          Please check out the excerpts from the 2 articles referenced here:

                          http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947

                          The Wall Street firms are ALSO using those supercomputers to front-run the trades of the retail players, view the entire order book depth, "paint" the tape, and simultaneously act as market makers in the shares.

                          Pretty easy to win the game when you can see all the cards.

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

                            Avatar
                            Kentucky
                            United States
                            Member #32652
                            February 14, 2006
                            7297 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: April 21, 2011, 12:27 pm - IP Logged

                            If a system is based on what happened in the past, how can it fail backtesting using that same data?  It might fail a simulation because a simulation creates a past of its own.  If you are backtesting a system on a 649 game and use a simulation of a 649 game rather than the particular 649 game used to develop the system, it will probably fail every time.  Like wise a system developed using only simulations will probably fail when used with a real games.   Simulation can only tell you how many tickets are likely to be sold before there is a winner not if that winner will be you.

                            "Simulation can only tell you how many tickets are likely to be sold before there is a winner not if that winner will be you."

                            Because this simulation is based on random play, the result of a similar lottery simulation would show the what we can see on a lottery game's "odds of chart". A pick-3 simulation could be 1000 QP bets on 50,000 drawings.

                            "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."

                            The total amount bet is $50,000,000 at $1 a spin and the total payout is $47,370,000 because of the casino edge. The chart shows the expected payoff distribution amount the 50,000 random gamblers. A pick-3 simulation would show the expected distribution of $25 million because of the lottery edge.

                              truecritic's avatar - PirateTreasure
                              Michigan
                              United States
                              Member #22395
                              September 24, 2005
                              1583 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: April 21, 2011, 12:56 pm - IP Logged

                              I think testing like this helps people see visually that there can be random winners in various games, including lotteries.  I would still like to see a Pick3 test that shows if it is possible to make a profit playing QPs.  Reading stats on lottery websites or the odds printed on tickets, playslips, pamphlets, etc; doesn't tell me that.

                              Agree with ameriken, especially this statement,  "when someone wins big and claims it is the result of a sysem, the win appears to prove that the system really produces results when in reality, it is all still just a random outcome."

                              It is easy to get fooled (as various articles posted have proven).  IF you have a system that works for lottery, I think it will be rare and should be kept in a vault with armed guards.  Of the THOUSANDS of systems posted here at LP and on the net, I have yet to see one that makes a profit.  I believe such a system can exist, just I haven't seen evidence of it.