Welcome Guest
You last visited January 23, 2017, 5:52 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 3 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 ]
Denver, Co
United States
Member #103046
December 29, 2010
546 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 1:38 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.

I too believe such a system can exist, as I do believe in systems (methodologies ) and I do believe that one can improve their results over the random odds by use of such a system. Now, if my lousy math is correct, for the cash 5 game I play (5/32), the odds of a 4/5 (\$200) is 1/1492, 3/5 (\$10) 1/57, and 2/5 (\$1) 1/7. So, unless I am wrongly figuring this, on average \$1492 should randomly yield approximately \$673, or 45%, meaning I should get back about \$45 out of every \$100.

Based on that, I started tracking my system play vs random play by using the LP RNG. I figure that over the long haul I should get back no less than 45% of my dollar, and what I hope to see is if my system play has a significantly better return.

Of course, I'm not playing for the purpose of making my money back, I'm playing for the jackpot prize. However as long as I am going down that road, I certainly would like to improve my gas mileage.

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

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 2:47 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.

" 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............I believe such a system can exist, just I haven't seen evidence of it. "

In other words you believe such systems may exist but it would be foolish of the person who had one to reveal it let alone share it.   So the only way any of us will ever know if such a system can exist is to create one ourselves and then keep it to ourselves leaving our fellow LP members to debating the question in threads like this.

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

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 3:57 pm - IP Logged

Some systems will be better than random and some worse, although we don't talk about those worse ones much.

I think some folks are stuck on the notion that a system has to be a jackpot winner in order to be worthy of the label "System", but consider pick 3, for simplicity :

Let's say that the average return on "random" is 50%.

A certain "system" could have an average return of 70%. It's not returning a profit, but it still performs better than "random". That slower rate of loss ... is an edge.

You have to get above 50%, above 70%, above 90%, to get to break even, then to profit.

And if your system returns LESS than 50%? That a filter. You're using it wrong.

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

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 4:32 pm - IP Logged

RJoh

"So the only way any of us will ever know if such a system can exist is to create one ourselves and then keep it to ourselves leaving our fellow LP members to debating the question in threads like this."

LOL, yes.  The search for a winning system might take  "To infinity ... and beyond!"

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 4:34 pm - IP Logged

Some systems will be better than random and some worse, although we don't talk about those worse ones much.

I think some folks are stuck on the notion that a system has to be a jackpot winner in order to be worthy of the label "System", but consider pick 3, for simplicity :

Let's say that the average return on "random" is 50%.

A certain "system" could have an average return of 70%. It's not returning a profit, but it still performs better than "random". That slower rate of loss ... is an edge.

You have to get above 50%, above 70%, above 90%, to get to break even, then to profit.

And if your system returns LESS than 50%? That a filter. You're using it wrong.

I agree, a win percent above 50% - not necessarily a profit.

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 7:36 pm - IP Logged

" 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............I believe such a system can exist, just I haven't seen evidence of it. "

In other words you believe such systems may exist but it would be foolish of the person who had one to reveal it let alone share it.   So the only way any of us will ever know if such a system can exist is to create one ourselves and then keep it to ourselves leaving our fellow LP members to debating the question in threads like this.

No way of knowing.  That would be the rational and prudent approach, but it assumes each of us is smarter than we might turn out to be

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 9:59 pm - IP Logged

"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."

Let's take a look at the probabilities of 1000 simulated spins. The American roulette wheel used in the simulation has 38 possible outcomes, 1 to 36 and 0 and 00. The mean is 26 or 27 hits and 26 hits have a -6.4% win expectation and 27 hits has -2.8% win expectation. If you notice the left side of the chart it indicates the mean probability is less than 8% of a -5.26% average expectation.

With 50,000 chances, the probability is about 1315 of those chances will win around \$47,370 in all 1000 spins and 100% probability of a -5.26% average expectation. The chart appears to be copied off a website with no explanation of the "less than 8% probability of an average expectation of -5.26". Even if we read the chart to mean "a less than 80% probability" it's still not close to the probability!

That being said, whoever came up with the idea that 50,000 "random gamblers" would buy \$1000 roulette chips and sit or stand and randomly bet \$1 chips for 1000 spins ought to spend some time watching actual roulette play. Speaking of someone having "egg on their face", why even offer a roulette simulation that's doesn't come close to matching actual roulette play and the data is incorrect?

with Gary, the people voting "I think it would provide valuable insights" should get triple their money back.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 10:14 pm - IP Logged

I agree, a win percent above 50% - not necessarily a profit.

How about we run a Monte Carlo simulation on \$100,000 worth of pick-3 bets over a 150 million years and see if the lottery maintains a 50% edge.

I've asked Buzz several time without an answer; if nobody can make a profit playing pick-3, who gets the \$18,250,000 payoff that his figures prove on a 50% lottery edge when there is an average daily bet of \$100,000 every year?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 1:38 am - IP Logged

Stack47 says, "The chart appears to be copied off a website with no explanation of the "less than 8% probability of an average expectation of -5.26". Even if we read the chart to mean "a less than 80% probability" it's still not close to the probability!"

Well, one thing is for sure,  chart reading and interpretation are not his cup of tea, but I'm sure he makes up for it in other ways.  I hope someone tells him he just got some egg smudged up behind his ear, on the left side.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 7:33 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 says, "The chart appears to be copied off a website with no explanation of the "less than 8% probability of an average expectation of -5.26". Even if we read the chart to mean "a less than 80% probability" it's still not close to the probability!"

Well, one thing is for sure,  chart reading and interpretation are not his cup of tea, but I'm sure he makes up for it in other ways.  I hope someone tells him he just got some egg smudged up behind his ear, on the left side.

"Well, one thing is for sure,  chart reading and interpretation are not his cup of tea, but I'm sure he makes up for it in other ways."

Oh my, silly me; Next time when I see a red line an with arrow pointing at it with "average expectation -5.26" between a "7 and 8 line" and "probability (%)" is written next to it, I'll simply ignore it and assume the "7 and 8 lines" are meaningless. Only about 2.6% of the "50,000 random gamblers"should average -5.26% so maybe you could ask the author what the "7 and 8 lines" mean.

Next you time copy and paste somebody else's work, why not give them the credit instead of hoping nobody notices it not yours. That way everybody could check the source.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your explanation of how it's possible for the PA lottery to pay out over \$18 million to pick-3 winners last year after you said over and over again, it's impossible for any system to show a profit?

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 7:45 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.

Yep, what the data IS doing is more important than what the odds say it "SHOULD" do.

If a number is currently trending far below its expected hit rate, I'd like to know that and drop that number from my play selections.

If someone didn't get the code quite right and the results are skewed in some way, a "fair" simulation isn't going give me the same kind of results.

I don't care what the game is going to do over the next gazillion years, or a million results produced by a fake game that doesn't pay.

I care about the real game results ... in the timeframe I'm playing it.

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

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 9:07 pm - IP Logged

Yep, what the data IS doing is more important than what the odds say it "SHOULD" do.

If a number is currently trending far below its expected hit rate, I'd like to know that and drop that number from my play selections.

If someone didn't get the code quite right and the results are skewed in some way, a "fair" simulation isn't going give me the same kind of results.

I don't care what the game is going to do over the next gazillion years, or a million results produced by a fake game that doesn't pay.

I care about the real game results ... in the timeframe I'm playing it.

Jimmy4164 assumes if a system works in one 649 game, it will work in all 649 games, yet if I compared the winning numbers in the local Ohio Classic Lotto(6/49) with the results of any other 649 games, I would be surprised if even one of them was a winner in that game proving what works with OCL is unique to OCL.

One way to maybe see if my system would work with another similar game might be to generate similar data using its history and compare that data with that generated for OCL. The following is some of data I generated for OCL.  I noticed that 30% of the combinations are covered by 4 codes and it's those 4 codes that I use to pick the combinations I play.

10/02/10 * 04 21 22 29 35 47 - 010302- 20-0701
10/04/10 * 02 08 16 27 38 41 - 010103- 14-0801
10/06/10 * 10 19 23 36 39 48 - 010505- 21-0701
10/09/10 * 11 14 19 20 43 46 - 031801- 78-0301
10/11/10 * 01 12 22 24 27 44 - 030407-  4-1202
10/13/10 * 20 25 30 34 35 37 - 045214-118-0201
10/16/10 * 01 16 18 24 31 41 - 030907- 30-0701
10/18/10 * 16 22 34 36 42 49 - 021109- 94-0202
10/20/10 * 11 17 23 29 32 41 - 010308- 11-0902
10/23/10 * 17 18 20 24 25 27 - 034027-169-0101
10/25/10 * 21 29 32 40 41 46 - 043214-178-0101
10/27/10 * 29 31 34 36 45 47 - 065311-122-0202
10/30/10 * 08 15 16 37 42 44 - 011712-129-0101
11/01/10 * 11 14 30 42 43 49 - 020704- 31-0601
11/03/10 * 07 11 17 24 30 44 - 030407-  4-1201
11/06/10 * 10 12 23 29 39 46 - 010101-  1-1801
11/08/10 * 11 28 29 31 41 49 - 042302- 80-0301
11/10/10 * 05 06 23 26 36 46 - 010601-  7-1001
11/13/10 * 01 11 27 39 46 49 - 022204- 28-0702
11/15/10 * 12 23 28 30 40 48 - 020202-  2-1501
11/17/10 * 05 09 12 15 32 39 - 030810- 46-0501
11/20/10 * 02 08 16 31 37 39 - 010103- 14-0801
11/22/10 * 16 20 21 25 28 31 - 016022-143-0101
11/24/10 * 08 15 18 37 39 47 - 011704- 42-0501
11/27/10 * 01 05 13 38 44 49 - 013312- 70-0301
11/29/10 * 14 24 27 30 35 45 - 022002- 44-0501
12/01/10 * 03 16 36 40 43 49 - 020715- 32-0603
12/04/10 * 01 08 20 21 27 33 - 031407- 76-0301
12/06/10 * 06 08 10 11 14 26 - 053620- 85-0301
12/08/10 * 06 14 20 29 31 35 - 012607- 66-0302
12/11/10 * 13 21 33 34 45 49 - 021109- 94-0202
12/13/10 * 14 22 29 31 38 39 - 021102- 33-0601
12/15/10 * 05 06 07 10 43 46 - 034613- 79-0301
12/18/10 * 01 20 29 32 36 48 - 021002- 53-0402
12/20/10 * 03 17 28 37 38 45 - 020705-  8-1001
12/22/10 * 22 24 25 41 43 48 - 022514- 56-0401
12/25/10 * 04 06 10 28 36 42 - 011503- 22-0703
12/27/10 * 06 07 25 30 31 39 - 023107- 72-0302
12/29/10 * 03 07 14 29 40 47 - 010103- 14-0802
01/01/11 * 11 18 23 25 32 47 - 010308- 11-0902
01/03/11 * 04 11 15 25 29 48 - 010606- 87-0201
01/05/11 * 10 15 16 22 26 45 - 030906- 75-0302
01/08/11 * 06 07 32 39 41 46 - 022204- 28-0701
01/10/11 * 14 23 26 27 32 41 - 022008-149-0101
01/12/11 * 02 11 19 24 26 49 - 030407-  4-1202
01/15/11 * 02 06 09 24 29 44 - 030806- 10-1002
01/17/11 * 04 06 15 35 43 47 - 010112- 40-0502
01/19/11 * 01 04 15 24 25 33 - 031406- 58-0402
01/22/11 * 02 12 19 21 47 48 - 031301- 13-0903
01/24/11 * 13 15 29 42 44 48 - 022504- 97-0202
01/26/11 * 08 13 16 22 42 48 - 031803- 59-0402
01/29/11 * 20 31 37 39 41 42 - 043511- 83-0301
01/31/11 * 07 11 28 31 37 40 - 021201-  9-1002
02/02/11 * 15 16 26 45 47 48 - 022504- 97-0202
02/05/11 * 07 12 24 27 38 40 - 010101-  1-1801
02/07/11 * 12 17 18 19 24 38 - 052808-188-0101
02/09/11 * 01 10 12 25 33 38 - 011503- 22-0701
02/12/11 * 02 12 13 17 35 45 - 030403- 36-0602
02/14/11 * 08 15 21 22 45 48 - 031801- 78-0302
02/16/11 * 01 09 10 11 36 37 - 034113-112-0201
02/19/11 * 06 12 18 36 43 45 - 010104-  5-1104
02/21/11 * 21 22 24 26 47 48 - 012719-136-0101
02/23/11 * 07 10 28 37 48 49 - 022204- 28-0702
02/26/11 * 15 34 35 42 43 44 - 043218-179-0101
02/28/11 * 06 12 17 26 35 37 - 010601-  7-1001
03/02/11 * 20 22 28 29 30 41 - 022028-152-0101
03/05/11 * 10 17 28 29 32 49 - 021008- 27-0701
03/07/11 * 11 22 30 45 46 47 - 020705-  8-1001
03/09/11 * 05 10 13 14 27 40 - 030410-159-0101
03/12/11 * 04 09 26 43 44 48 - 022204- 28-0702
03/14/11 * 06 26 28 34 36 49 - 045805-183-0101
03/16/11 * 09 13 23 29 42 49 - 010501-  6-1105
03/19/11 * 02 03 07 18 29 40 - 030806- 10-1002
03/21/11 * 02 04 10 14 20 40 - 051610- 19-0802
03/23/11 * 23 29 32 35 36 43 - 045214-118-0201
03/26/11 * 01 13 18 24 27 33 - 033907-164-0101
03/28/11 * 10 13 23 27 36 41 - 010301-  3-1302
03/30/11 * 01 09 18 26 31 48 - 010607- 15-0802
04/02/11 * 07 13 23 32 35 43 - 010301-  3-1302
04/04/11 * 01 03 05 10 33 49 - 034113-112-0201
04/06/11 * 03 04 10 18 22 40 - 051606- 51-0503
04/09/11 * 04 08 17 18 30 35 - 031407- 76-0301
04/11/11 * 26 27 32 40 47 48 - 065414-205-0101
04/13/11 * 09 27 34 38 40 42 - 042409- 49-0502
04/16/11 * 02 17 20 34 47 48 - 010505- 21-0702
04/18/11 * 05 11 22 24 33 37 - 030401- 74-0301
04/20/11 * 06 13 17 27 31 45 - 010307- 52-0401

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

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4094 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 9:52 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:

Jimbo

Seems all those test and super computers were not enough to keep US tax payers from having to bail them out.

RL

New Member
Dubuque, Iowa
United States
Member #109311
April 10, 2011
4 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 27, 2011, 10:54 pm - IP Logged

I wonder what Paul Erdos thought about lottery games.

Also as for Monte Carlo Methods I wonder how many here know that the term itself was coined by Stanislaw Ulam and John von Neumann?

von Neumann was after all the father of Game Theory beginning with his publication of the Minimax theorem in 1928 which states that in matrix zero-sum games with perfect information, there exists a pair of strategies for both players that allows each to minimize his maximum losses --- applicable to our position.

Persons blocking discourse here should go back to the beginning and read "Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele" and also the volume which von Neumann co-authored with Oskar Morgenstern as 'hobby project' while running a section of the Manhattan Project in '44 "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior".

Besides the afore-mentioned Monte Carlo Methods we should also be thinking about such terms as 'Random Walk' and Markov chains. Also MCMC (Markov chain Monte Carlo methods). I've seen many interesting methods in computational biology and mathematical biology which would be applicable to our situation.

Also the term NOISE as in unwanted data. And one eliminates Noise through use of a Filter. Usage of Kalman filters may be of use to us in our situation.

In 1992 Stefan Klincewicz deftly showed how the Irish Lottery (6/36 at that time) was vunerable to a brute force attack. Also the Romanian born Australian accountant Stefan Mandel did the same a few times in several countries. He also reportedly spent several hudred hours learning Hungarian so as to carry on a correspondence through much of the 1980's with Paul Paul Erdos about the 'Law of Large Numbers' and Combinatorics.

In general there seems to be far too many nestbeschmutzers on here.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 28, 2011, 5:41 pm - IP Logged

I wonder what Paul Erdos thought about lottery games.

Also as for Monte Carlo Methods I wonder how many here know that the term itself was coined by Stanislaw Ulam and John von Neumann?

von Neumann was after all the father of Game Theory beginning with his publication of the Minimax theorem in 1928 which states that in matrix zero-sum games with perfect information, there exists a pair of strategies for both players that allows each to minimize his maximum losses --- applicable to our position.

Persons blocking discourse here should go back to the beginning and read "Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele" and also the volume which von Neumann co-authored with Oskar Morgenstern as 'hobby project' while running a section of the Manhattan Project in '44 "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior".

Besides the afore-mentioned Monte Carlo Methods we should also be thinking about such terms as 'Random Walk' and Markov chains. Also MCMC (Markov chain Monte Carlo methods). I've seen many interesting methods in computational biology and mathematical biology which would be applicable to our situation.

Also the term NOISE as in unwanted data. And one eliminates Noise through use of a Filter. Usage of Kalman filters may be of use to us in our situation.

In 1992 Stefan Klincewicz deftly showed how the Irish Lottery (6/36 at that time) was vunerable to a brute force attack. Also the Romanian born Australian accountant Stefan Mandel did the same a few times in several countries. He also reportedly spent several hudred hours learning Hungarian so as to carry on a correspondence through much of the 1980's with Paul Paul Erdos about the 'Law of Large Numbers' and Combinatorics.

In general there seems to be far too many nestbeschmutzers on here.

"I wonder what Paul Erdos thought about lottery games."

Since he's responsible for more published papers on math than any other mathematician, it shouldn't be too hard to find out.  Have you looked it up?

 Page 3 of 7