Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 7:25 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

All The Brains

Topic closed. 130 replies. Last post 5 years ago by Stack47.

Page 5 of 9
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #75358
June 1, 2009
5345 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 1, 2011, 8:01 pm - IP Logged

Does anyone think the lotteries just might be running their own tests?

While people here are trying to "crack the code" with relatively limited resources do you think that the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked, with up to the minute technology, and a steady stram of millions of dollars pouring in every week to finance that technology?

I don't believe anyone can crack the code If the seed is changed before every draw.

    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
    mid-Ohio
    United States
    Member #9
    March 24, 2001
    19824 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: June 1, 2011, 8:25 pm - IP Logged

    Does anyone think the lotteries just might be running their own tests?

    While people here are trying to "crack the code" with relatively limited resources do you think that the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked, with up to the minute technology, and a steady stram of millions of dollars pouring in every week to finance that technology?

    I'm sure lotteries are running tests all the time checking to make sure there's no abnormalities in  their equipment that can be exploited by players but what "code" are you talking about players trying to crack?

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

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7302 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: June 1, 2011, 9:52 pm - IP Logged

      Never let it be said that Jimmy4164 doesn't contribute ideas for system players!

      Here's your chance Stack47.  Surely you can take this proven paradox, apply it to the lottery, and produce a winning system from two losers.

      http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/parrondos-paradox-46851

      "Until a couple of years ago, if someone had asked me if it was possible to somehow combine two games with negative expectations into a game with a positive expectation, I would have told them it wasn't possible. If asked why I would probably have said something inane like it seems clear that it is counter intuitive. And I would have been wrong. Sorry ladies but intuition is a fickle friend."

      Have fun!

      "Never let it be said that Jimmy4164 doesn't contribute ideas for system players!"

      But has Don Catlin been awarded the coveted "Pumpi Seal of Approval"?

      http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218839

      Since Catlin is your latest idol, try this one out at your local bowling center. Hey, maybe Bluejay will give 10 to 1 odds if you do this in 200,000 consecutive games.

      http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/bowling-59234


        United States
        Member #93947
        July 10, 2010
        2180 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: June 1, 2011, 10:01 pm - IP Logged

        Does anyone think the lotteries just might be running their own tests?

        While people here are trying to "crack the code" with relatively limited resources do you think that the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked, with up to the minute technology, and a steady stram of millions of dollars pouring in every week to finance that technology?

        CT: Hope you're not offended at being made a "Partner in Crime!"
        Smile

        First of all, if we're talking about a mechanical ball machine draw, cracking "codes" is not relevant, IMO.  In the case of computerized draws, saying that, "the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked..." is implying that there is a conspiracy at the Lottery which is producing a series of draws that could conceivably be deciphered and predicted by unraveling, or "cracking" some aspect of the computer program producing the draws.  Just think about that for a minute...

        Let's pretend you and I are the principal IT people in charge of the programs and computers that generate the winning sets in the Missouri Show Me Five.  Realistically, there are very likely more than 2 software savvy people at our level, our IT manager, several levels of admin above him/her, and possibly even a security firm that monitors the software and hardware on a daily basis, but we'll pretend it's simpler.  One night after work, over a beer, just for fun, we get to talking about how we might change the draw program in such a way that we would know what combos to buy.  Now, given all the uncertainties caused by the testing by the admin people with their "dry runs," etc., and the passwords required at every turn, we get a little frustrated looking for ideas.

        Given this scene, do you think we would end up settling on a very complex and convoluted algorithm, forcing us to reverse engineer a "system" that a normal player (like we want to appear to be) could design?  I ask this because the system designers here at LP are assuming that this is what we would do.  Never mind that there is a virtual "army" of data collectors out there analyzing lottery results, looking for deviations from what statistical chance predicts.  One of the largest "divisions" in this army are the statisticians employed by the lotteries themselves, paid to uncover fraud.  The kind of fraud that requires the installation of complex code that would continue to produce predictable combos for extended periods of time would be giving the security people extended periods of time to discover our buggy code!

        OR, would we decide to work on a simple scheme that could be imbedded in the draw algorithm with a few bytes of code, like a Trojan?  It could be triggered by a ruse as simple as us looking for an invalid password, a "special" "wrong" password that we slyly act on!    The "action" we perform upon discovering this password could be camouflaged code that produces a combo based on, say, a static value in a specific memory location, that we are aware of.  Hopefully, you get the idea and I needn't go further.

        The point I hope I am making is that if there is fraud at the lottery at [computerized] draw time, it is much more likely to be a "one shot" event, rather than something requiring complex programs looking back over previous draws.  And unless you are REALLY tight with me or Coin Toss, you ain't gonna' cash in!

        Since most mathematicians are aware that on any given day, the draw could be anything, the fraudulent, non-persistent, inserted draw will be virtually undetectable!  Where this sort of fraud is most likely to be detected is when the tickets are cashed.  If we are too greedy and buy 5 identical copies of the combo we know is going to win, eyebrows will be raised!  Smile

        IMHO, the fact that analysis of historical data comparing ball drop versus RNG draws has produced no statistically significant evidence of differences is support for this conjecture. 

         

          RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

          United States
          Member #59354
          March 13, 2008
          3964 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: June 2, 2011, 5:35 am - IP Logged

          Any method used which can be explained in terms of math will also conform to the same. Two plus two

          will always equal 4.  If the probability of an event equals .75 then the event will occur 75% of the time

          on average.  The probability of two or more related events can also be calculated and the results will also

          follow the rules so to speak.  When a person uses the whole matrix of sets in analysis you can expect

          better results because the history has nothing to do with the next draw. 


          Knowing the entire population of events within the matrix gives more complete information, If you use the

          draw history as a base for your selections then your selection is based on incomplete data.  The next draw

          in any lottery comes from the matrix of the game and not the history. 


          Each number in a lottery game appears exactly the same number of times.  In a 5-39 matrix every number is

          in 73,815 sets.  How can any number have any advantage over another. The odds for every set of numbers also

          has the same exact odds for showing in the next draw and nothing one can do will change these odds.


          The odds tell us what we can expect to match when making a random selection from the pool of choices.  The

          odds do not predict anything but statisticians use the odds to calculate payouts for a game because in the

          overall scheme of things most selections are nothing more then a random pick.  The stats are also used to

          track the how well the game follows the expected +/- some deviation.  Any major drift from the expected would

          trigger suspicions and an investagation would be made to find out what was going on. 



          Probability and the lottery are tied togeather much like a person is subject to the forces of gravity but

          people overcome gravity all the time.  Does this mean that gravity does not exist?  I would say no. The stats

          tell us what we can expect given the odds for an event or expectation. It says nothing about one person having

          many wins while others have few if any.       


          If nothing I can do will change the odds for a single ticket then why have a system. Simple, each set and each

          number have the same exact odds but that is where it ends. System players break the game down into many events.

          Lets look at odd/even numbers. The drawing machine can have a bias for one or the other based on the total

          numbers in the matrix.  Odd numbers can be one above even, be equal to even or be one less then even. This

          bias is so small that no real avantage can be gained from this, BUT.


          odd matrix 5-39         
          0 =  11628  PER =   2 
          1 =  77520  PER =  13 
          2 = 184110  PER =  32 
          3 = 194940  PER =  34 
          4 =  92055  PER =  16 
          5 =  15504  PER =   3     


          Notice that there are 194,940 sets that have 3 odd numbers and only 11,628 sets have 0 odd numbers. The reason

          that a system player might want to play a set that has 3 odd numbers defies the statistician because only one

          set will be drawn and all sets have the same exact odds so we are running a fools arron. While it is true that

          34% of the sets in the pool have 3 odd numbers only one of them will be drawn.  My logic would be as follows.

          What if the next draw had two or four odd numbers. I have three options to hit a 4 of 5.  If I play 0 odd numbers

          then I have only two chances for traping a 4 of 5.  If I play 3 odd numbers and 2 odd hit then I still have chance

          of having 4 correct numbers and the same if 4 odd numbers hit.  If I play 0 odd and 1 odd hits I still have a

          chance of matching 4 numbers but if 2 odd hit then I my chances for hitting a 4 of 5 are zero. Because I am

          playing from a group that covers 82% of the total draws in the matrix I can expect the draws to fall within

          this range 82% of the time. I would also expect the draw to fall outside this pool 18% of the time. If the draw

          has one or five odd numbers then I still have a chance at a 3 of 5 match.  A QP cannot offer you this sort of

          logical play and so I think they are inferior to a logicaly built SP.  A QP can fall into this catagory randomaly

          but why take a blind chance.  This is just one example of system play.  Combining many like logical processes is

          playing smarter. If I choose to play 3 odd numbers it is not because I control the draw which has been suggested

          but rather I see it as playing a value which covers 82% of the draws in the matrix for a 4 of 5 match.


          Now on to the digits. 5-39 matrix 

                    matrix         Rounded 
          DIGIT 1 = 509977  PER =  89  AVG = 89 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 2 = 509977  PER =  89  AVG = 89 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 3 = 509977  PER =  89  AVG = 89 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 4 = 251125  PER =  44  AVG = 44 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 5 = 251125  PER =  44  AVG = 44 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 6 = 251125  PER =  44  AVG = 44 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 7 = 251125  PER =  44  AVG = 44 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 8 = 251125  PER =  44  AVG = 44 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 9 = 251125  PER =  44  AVG = 44 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 0 = 198765  PER =  35  AVG = 35 IN 100 DRAWS

          DOES NOT SHOW
          DIGIT 1 =  65780  PER =  11  AVG = 11 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 2 =  65780  PER =  11  AVG = 11 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 3 =  65780  PER =  11  AVG = 11 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 4 = 324632  PER =  56  AVG = 56 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 5 = 324632  PER =  56  AVG = 56 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 6 = 324632  PER =  56  AVG = 56 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 7 = 324632  PER =  56  AVG = 56 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 8 = 324632  PER =  56  AVG = 56 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 9 = 324632  PER =  56  AVG = 56 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 0 = 376992  PER =  65  AVG = 65 IN 100 DRAWS

          HIT once Per set
          DIGIT 1 = 179400  PER =  31  AVG = 31 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 2 = 179400  PER =  31  AVG = 31 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 3 = 179400  PER =  31  AVG = 31 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 4 = 209440  PER =  36  AVG = 36 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 5 = 209440  PER =  36  AVG = 36 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 6 = 209440  PER =  36  AVG = 36 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 7 = 209440  PER =  36  AVG = 36 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 8 = 209440  PER =  36  AVG = 36 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 9 = 209440  PER =  36  AVG = 36 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 0 = 176715  PER =  31  AVG = 31 IN 100 DRAWS

          HIT twice per set
          DIGIT 1 = 186550  PER =  32  AVG = 32 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 2 = 186550  PER =  32  AVG = 32 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 3 = 186550  PER =  32  AVG = 32 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 4 =  39270  PER =   7  AVG =  7 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 5 =  39270  PER =   7  AVG =  7 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 6 =  39270  PER =   7  AVG =  7 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 7 =  39270  PER =   7  AVG =  7 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 8 =  39270  PER =   7  AVG =  7 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 9 =  39270  PER =   7  AVG =  7 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 0 =  21420  PER =   4  AVG =  4 IN 100 DRAWS
                       
          HIT 3 TIMES per set
          DIGIT 1 = 102700  PER =  18  AVG = 18 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 2 = 102700  PER =  18  AVG = 18 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 3 = 102700  PER =  18  AVG = 18 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 4 =   2380  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 5 =   2380  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 6 =   2380  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 7 =   2380  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 8 =   2380  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 9 =   2380  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 0 =    630  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS

          HIT 4 TIMES per set
          DIGIT 1 =  34320  PER =   6  AVG =  6 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 2 =  34320  PER =   6  AVG =  6 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 3 =  34320  PER =   6  AVG =  6 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 4 =     35  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 5 =     35  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 6 =     35  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 7 =     35  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 8 =     35  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 9 =     35  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 0 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS

          HIT 5 TIMES per set
          DIGIT 1 =   6512  PER =   1  AVG =  1 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 2 =   6512  PER =   1  AVG =  1 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 3 =   6512  PER =   1  AVG =  1 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 4 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 5 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 6 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 7 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 8 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 9 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 0 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS

          HIT 6 TIMES per set
          DIGIT 1 =    495  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 2 =    495  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 3 =    495  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 4 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 5 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 6 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 7 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 8 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 9 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS
          DIGIT 0 =      0  PER =   0  AVG =  0 IN 100 DRAWS


          I have stated above that each set has the same odds of being drawn and every number also. But if you look

          at the digits you find very much the same thing as in the above example of selecting odd numbers.  The digit

          system was built around the same logic.  For posting this I have been called untruthful and disingenuous. I

          was accused of trying to sell software that I gave away to many who showed interest for free. I was also said

          that this would cause people to spend more then they could afford.  I was told that I had a fallacy and that

          my logic was flawed. My spelling came under attack and math mistakes were Highlighted in red using large fonts

          to point them out,  I had to put up with many smears, all the while seeing the main topic side tracked giving

          focus to typeo's.  I attempted to return the same but found myself in uncharted territory and made the problem

          worse.  The name jimmy4164 and Lottery Post have become so entwined that they both make me ill.  This is my last

          post. 


          PS. Please don't read the charts or use the logic above because it might help you win a few bucks and this would

              be more then jimmy4164 could stand.  Go invest in the markets, this way you can loose your life savings all

              at once instead of a little at a time. 

          RL

            guesser's avatar - Lottery-017.jpg

            United States
            Member #41383
            June 16, 2006
            1969 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: June 2, 2011, 12:03 pm - IP Logged

            Concise it into 200 words or less and more folks will read it.

            You speak of 'probability', and where that is true, the CONTEXT of that probability can be misleading:

            Let's say any given number will hit five times in 100 games. Does that mean every 20 games that number will hit?  no.   Does it mean that number will hit 5 times within 10 games and then go ninety games without hitting?  no. But the latter is MUCH closer to the truth than the former.

            The majority of number actually do hit in a certain pattern, but here's the rub:  you can only play five numbers at a time, the pool to draw those five numbers is between 30 and 40, and you have to calculate that pool looking back over five years' of data.

            So far, I have seen a lot of 'systems' that were OK for picking one or maybe even two numbers, but not all five, and not including the RB (red ball).

              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
              mid-Ohio
              United States
              Member #9
              March 24, 2001
              19824 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: June 2, 2011, 2:32 pm - IP Logged

              I'm sure lotteries are running tests all the time checking to make sure there's no abnormalities in  their equipment that can be exploited by players but what "code" are you talking about players trying to crack?

              While I'm sure most lotteries run tests, I'm not sure if they understand their results.  When Tennessee started using a RNG for their daily numbers games, players noticed there were no doubles and triples and asked why.  They were assured for four weeks that predraw and post draw tests were being done that showed everything was normal.  It was later revealed a switch in their RNG that would have allowed numbers to be picked more than once had mistakenly been over looked.  Makes one wonders if tests were really done and anyone understood their results.

               * 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: June 2, 2011, 3:00 pm - IP Logged

                While I'm sure most lotteries run tests, I'm not sure if they understand their results.  When Tennessee started using a RNG for their daily numbers games, players noticed there were no doubles and triples and asked why.  They were assured for four weeks that predraw and post draw tests were being done that showed everything was normal.  It was later revealed a switch in their RNG that would have allowed numbers to be picked more than once had mistakenly been over looked.  Makes one wonders if tests were really done and anyone understood their results.

                That certainly is disconcerting.  What a lame excuse!  With the high number of unemployed IT workers I've read about, it's unconscionable that they would hire such incompetent programmers.  Unhappy

                  time*treat's avatar - radar

                  United States
                  Member #13130
                  March 30, 2005
                  2171 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: June 2, 2011, 3:27 pm - IP Logged

                  Does anyone think the lotteries just might be running their own tests?

                  While people here are trying to "crack the code" with relatively limited resources do you think that the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked, with up to the minute technology, and a steady stram of millions of dollars pouring in every week to finance that technology?

                  Does anyone think the lotteries just might be running their own tests?

                  Yes.

                  [D]o you think that the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked, with up to the minute technology, and a steady stream of millions of dollars pouring in every week to finance that technology?

                  The question pre-supposes that

                  a) there is only one (the) "code" to be cracked,
                  b) more money always equals better results,
                  and c) such a code can be applied to physical-ball machines.

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

                    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                    mid-Ohio
                    United States
                    Member #9
                    March 24, 2001
                    19824 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: June 2, 2011, 3:48 pm - IP Logged

                    That certainly is disconcerting.  What a lame excuse!  With the high number of unemployed IT workers I've read about, it's unconscionable that they would hire such incompetent programmers.  Unhappy

                    Before I retired I got the impression that most organizations in my area considered IT workers little more than office clerks and their potential for advancement was about the the same in spite of their degree in computer science.   When they needed programming done, they used an outside firm and only used their IT worker/s  to maintain those programs.  Consequently, IT workers that were good programmers didn't stay around very long.

                    Workers with degrees in business were considered more valuable and offered more chances for advancement.

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

                      JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

                      United States
                      Member #5599
                      July 13, 2004
                      1184 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: June 2, 2011, 8:25 pm - IP Logged

                      Hi,

                        How long has the using the random method been kicked around at the LP? I figure, at some point, someone will figure out that it not a viable system for consisten winning. Think about it, using something random to match something random. And the odds of coincidence are?

                        But, then agian, I am one of those other ones who thinks a little bit defferently. *S*

                        I hope it works for you (the ones using the random methodolgy), but I still can't fathom why you think it will work better than some of the other methods out there.

                      You are a slave to the choices you have made.  jk

                      Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.


                        United States
                        Member #93947
                        July 10, 2010
                        2180 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: June 2, 2011, 8:52 pm - IP Logged
                        CT: Hope you're not offended at being made a "Partner in Crime!"
                        Smile

                        First of all, if we're talking about a mechanical ball machine draw, cracking "codes" is not relevant, IMO.  In the case of computerized draws, saying that, "the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked..." is implying that there is a conspiracy at the Lottery which is producing a series of draws that could conceivably be deciphered and predicted by unraveling, or "cracking" some aspect of the computer program producing the draws.  Just think about that for a minute...

                        Let's pretend you and I are the principal IT people in charge of the programs and computers that generate the winning sets in the Missouri Show Me Five.  Realistically, there are very likely more than 2 software savvy people at our level, our IT manager, several levels of admin above him/her, and possibly even a security firm that monitors the software and hardware on a daily basis, but we'll pretend it's simpler.  One night after work, over a beer, just for fun, we get to talking about how we might change the draw program in such a way that we would know what combos to buy.  Now, given all the uncertainties caused by the testing by the admin people with their "dry runs," etc., and the passwords required at every turn, we get a little frustrated looking for ideas.

                        Given this scene, do you think we would end up settling on a very complex and convoluted algorithm, forcing us to reverse engineer a "system" that a normal player (like we want to appear to be) could design?  I ask this because the system designers here at LP are assuming that this is what we would do.  Never mind that there is a virtual "army" of data collectors out there analyzing lottery results, looking for deviations from what statistical chance predicts.  One of the largest "divisions" in this army are the statisticians employed by the lotteries themselves, paid to uncover fraud.  The kind of fraud that requires the installation of complex code that would continue to produce predictable combos for extended periods of time would be giving the security people extended periods of time to discover our buggy code!

                        OR, would we decide to work on a simple scheme that could be imbedded in the draw algorithm with a few bytes of code, like a Trojan?  It could be triggered by a ruse as simple as us looking for an invalid password, a "special" "wrong" password that we slyly act on!    The "action" we perform upon discovering this password could be camouflaged code that produces a combo based on, say, a static value in a specific memory location, that we are aware of.  Hopefully, you get the idea and I needn't go further.

                        The point I hope I am making is that if there is fraud at the lottery at [computerized] draw time, it is much more likely to be a "one shot" event, rather than something requiring complex programs looking back over previous draws.  And unless you are REALLY tight with me or Coin Toss, you ain't gonna' cash in!

                        Since most mathematicians are aware that on any given day, the draw could be anything, the fraudulent, non-persistent, inserted draw will be virtually undetectable!  Where this sort of fraud is most likely to be detected is when the tickets are cashed.  If we are too greedy and buy 5 identical copies of the combo we know is going to win, eyebrows will be raised!  Smile

                        IMHO, the fact that analysis of historical data comparing ball drop versus RNG draws has produced no statistically significant evidence of differences is support for this conjecture. 

                         

                        @JKING:

                        I don't know anyone who plays randomly using QuickPicks or otherwise who believes they will do any BETTER than anyone else.  I don't.  What they believe is that system players will NOT do any better than they do.

                        I believe, and I think I have shown that systems can allow you to have an effect on the DISTRIBUTION of your winnings, but NOT the overall AMOUNT that you will win, over time.

                          Avatar
                          Kentucky
                          United States
                          Member #32652
                          February 14, 2006
                          7302 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: June 2, 2011, 9:14 pm - IP Logged

                          While I'm sure most lotteries run tests, I'm not sure if they understand their results.  When Tennessee started using a RNG for their daily numbers games, players noticed there were no doubles and triples and asked why.  They were assured for four weeks that predraw and post draw tests were being done that showed everything was normal.  It was later revealed a switch in their RNG that would have allowed numbers to be picked more than once had mistakenly been over looked.  Makes one wonders if tests were really done and anyone understood their results.

                          "They were assured for four weeks that predraw and post draw tests were being done that showed everything was normal."

                          A LP member posted an email from the Tennessee Lottery that said double digits were drawn during testing but that should have been impossible based on the explanation given by the Lottery after the mistake was found. The computer was programed for no repeat numbers for their pick-5 game and was used in their pick-3 and pick-4 games too.

                            Avatar
                            Kentucky
                            United States
                            Member #32652
                            February 14, 2006
                            7302 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: June 2, 2011, 9:33 pm - IP Logged

                            That certainly is disconcerting.  What a lame excuse!  With the high number of unemployed IT workers I've read about, it's unconscionable that they would hire such incompetent programmers.  Unhappy

                            Thirty years ago, you could have made a fortune using your Monte Carlo simulation to test potential lottery games. When some states started their pick-4 game, they limited the drawing to 3 a week and some were pari-mutual because they feared huge payouts.

                            "it's unconscionable that they would hire such incompetent programmers."

                            The Tennessee Lottery hired Rebbecca Hargrove and she hired the programmer. Sounds reasonable to me.

                              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                              mid-Ohio
                              United States
                              Member #9
                              March 24, 2001
                              19824 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: June 2, 2011, 10:11 pm - IP Logged

                              @JKING:

                              I don't know anyone who plays randomly using QuickPicks or otherwise who believes they will do any BETTER than anyone else.  I don't.  What they believe is that system players will NOT do any better than they do.

                              I believe, and I think I have shown that systems can allow you to have an effect on the DISTRIBUTION of your winnings, but NOT the overall AMOUNT that you will win, over time.

                              I believe, and I think I have shown that systems can allow you to have an effect on the DISTRIBUTION of your winnings, but NOT the overall AMOUNT that you will win, over time.

                              Which systems did you use to show those results?  I didn't know any systems had been available for examination.

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