Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 7:21 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Mathematics and the Lottery

646 replies. Last post 22 days ago by SEA-Pick3.

Page 14 of 44
4.616
PrintE-mailLink

Can a winning lottery system be created with existing math formulas?

Yes-It's all in the math books. [ 228 ]  [43.02%]
No-Anew math for will have to be created. [ 78 ]  [14.72%]
Math won't beat the lottery regularly. [ 224 ]  [42.26%]
Total Valid Votes [ 530 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 54 ]  

Guests cannot vote  ( Log In | Register )

RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19821 Posts
Online
Posted: November 23, 2011, 6:12 pm - IP Logged

You're right, the odds that someone would actually post a strategy that is making them a lot of money is probably greater than just winning the lottery itself. After all, people win the lottery every day, but a winning strategy that can stand up to historical analysis is non-existant.

 

That said, it doesn't mean that the winning strategy hasn't been posted. There is always some truth to any failed system. You just have to take bits and pieces of all the systems and put them together in a coherent matter.

There is always some truth to any failed system. You just have to take bits and pieces of all the systems and put them together in a coherent matter.

Are you suggesting combining the best parts of failed systems is the way to come up with a successful one?

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

    Hans's avatar - Lottery-029.jpg
    Monte Carlo
    France
    Member #55589
    October 9, 2007
    1181 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: November 30, 2011, 3:57 pm - IP Logged

    not only math,but also logic and imagination.

    Strive to predict 8 tickets for 12 numbers with Max ROI for Pick6!

      marcie's avatar - Lottery-060.jpg
      Ohio
      United States
      Member #49980
      February 21, 2007
      34125 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: November 30, 2011, 5:51 pm - IP Logged

      not only math,but also logic and imagination.

      You got that right Hans!!

      http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/233413    Sun Smiley Popular numbers

      12345

      67890

      Use Mirror #'s Use prs. with your  Key* numbers the most Vivid thing in your dream go up or down on #'s.  Flip  6=9 `9=6  Bullseyes  0 or 1 for Pick 4 and the P. 5  Play the other part of doubles.  Do the Whole nine yards for a P. 4* P. 5*  or 0 thur 9  for P. 4  P. 5 from my dreams or hunches good Luck.. Write your Dreams down Play for 3 days.  Good Luck All.

        JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

        United States
        Member #5599
        July 13, 2004
        1184 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 16, 2011, 10:02 pm - IP Logged

        Hi,

          Is any familiar with Mine software from Harvard? Does anyone have access to the software?

        Ref.

        https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/tool-detects-patterns-hidden-in-vast-data-sets

        Abstract

        Identifying interesting relationships between pairs of variables in large data sets is increasingly important. Here, we present a measure of dependence for two-variable relationships: the maximal information coefficient (MIC). MIC captures a wide range of associations both functional and not, and for functional relationships provides a score that roughly equals the coefficient of determination (R2) of the data relative to the regression function. MIC belongs to a larger class of maximal information-based nonparametric exploration (MINE) statistics for identifying and classifying relationships. We apply MIC and MINE to data sets in global health, gene expression, major-league baseball, and the human gut microbiota and identify known and novel relationships.

         

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

        Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

          JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

          United States
          Member #5599
          July 13, 2004
          1184 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 16, 2011, 10:18 pm - IP Logged

          Hi,

            Is any familiar with Mine software from Harvard? Does anyone have access to the software?

          Ref.

          https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/tool-detects-patterns-hidden-in-vast-data-sets

          Abstract

          Identifying interesting relationships between pairs of variables in large data sets is increasingly important. Here, we present a measure of dependence for two-variable relationships: the maximal information coefficient (MIC). MIC captures a wide range of associations both functional and not, and for functional relationships provides a score that roughly equals the coefficient of determination (R2) of the data relative to the regression function. MIC belongs to a larger class of maximal information-based nonparametric exploration (MINE) statistics for identifying and classifying relationships. We apply MIC and MINE to data sets in global health, gene expression, major-league baseball, and the human gut microbiota and identify known and novel relationships.

           

          And one more additional link...

          http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml

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

          Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

            JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

            United States
            Member #5599
            July 13, 2004
            1184 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 17, 2011, 9:37 am - IP Logged

            Hi,

              Is any familiar with Mine software from Harvard? Does anyone have access to the software?

            Ref.

            https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/tool-detects-patterns-hidden-in-vast-data-sets

            Abstract

            Identifying interesting relationships between pairs of variables in large data sets is increasingly important. Here, we present a measure of dependence for two-variable relationships: the maximal information coefficient (MIC). MIC captures a wide range of associations both functional and not, and for functional relationships provides a score that roughly equals the coefficient of determination (R2) of the data relative to the regression function. MIC belongs to a larger class of maximal information-based nonparametric exploration (MINE) statistics for identifying and classifying relationships. We apply MIC and MINE to data sets in global health, gene expression, major-league baseball, and the human gut microbiota and identify known and novel relationships.

             

            Hi,

              I answered my own question. *L*  If you are interested, go to the link below.

             

            http://www.exploredata.net/Downloads

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

            Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

              WIN  D's avatar - q05Q0
              Stone Mountain*Georgia
              United States
              Member #828
              November 2, 2002
              10491 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: December 18, 2011, 10:16 am - IP Logged

               Thank you for your effort to share JKING......it is appreciated. I enjoyed the parts that I could understand.   Looking back .......I wish I hadn't majored in just  Philosophy.

                I should have know back then something was wrong on college career day.......and none of the big Philosophy companies showed up.   LOL 

               

               

              The only real failure .....is the failure to try.                               

                                            Luck is a very rare thing....... Odds not so much. 

                                            Odds never change .....but probability does. 

                                                                                                     Win d    

                Avatar
                long beach, Cali
                United States
                Member #120001
                December 7, 2011
                64 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: December 21, 2011, 7:24 pm - IP Logged

                I really really dont believe that math can beat the lottery. The Numbers do funny things in the lottery. Somtimes they show up in the next drawing. or sometimes they dont show up for 45 days. You never know. I really dont think math can beat the lottery there really isnt a solution or math problem that can pinpoint an exact number that will show up. Even Statiscians can be fooled.

                  RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                  mid-Ohio
                  United States
                  Member #9
                  March 24, 2001
                  19821 Posts
                  Online
                  Posted: December 29, 2011, 1:58 pm - IP Logged

                  I really really dont believe that math can beat the lottery. The Numbers do funny things in the lottery. Somtimes they show up in the next drawing. or sometimes they dont show up for 45 days. You never know. I really dont think math can beat the lottery there really isnt a solution or math problem that can pinpoint an exact number that will show up. Even Statiscians can be fooled.

                  You're probably right and you don't have to prove it because the odds of anyone ever proving you wrong are probably the same as their odds of ever winning a lottery jackpot.

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

                    Avatar
                    Tahiti- Polynesia
                    Tuvalu
                    Member #34524
                    March 4, 2006
                    54 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 8, 2012, 12:12 am - IP Logged


                    I don't think that you can beat the lottery with any mathematical formula.The lotto would have been cracked for a long time now by all those those maths genius.

                    I do however think that you can use mathematics as a tool to have better results. The secret is not in mathematics; the secret is about how you think the lotto.

                      Avatar
                      NASHVILLE, TENN
                      United States
                      Member #33372
                      February 20, 2006
                      1044 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 14, 2012, 3:00 am - IP Logged

                      When discussing random, there is no way to prove anything.  Random means random, pure and simple.  We lotto players don't let that fact stand in our way.  We move on and make statements.  Allow me to make a statement disguised as fact.

                      Math will never produce a winning combination consistently.  Math might provide someone a jackpot somewhere but that would be a fluke and nothing else.  He who used math to get that one jackpot will never be able to repeat his feat.

                      I believe RL has the right approach.  Study the patterns and then make your choices.  You will be wrong most of the time; you will be right sometimes.  If your right choices keep you profitable, then you have something to work with.  If not, keep studying, keep choosing, keep on keeping on.

                      We will need another form of math, one which has not been invented (developed?) yet.  Before Isacc Newton, there was no such thing as calculus.  After Newton, several different aspects of calculus has been developed.  The same senario is going on here, at Lottery Post.  We are muddling about in a dense fog, looking for that Yellow Brick Road.  We may never find it but that should not prevent us from looking, from thinking, from trying.

                      I will get off my soapbox now.  Thanks for listening.  (Or should that be, "Thanks for reading"?)

                        Avatar
                        bgonçalves
                        Brasil
                        Member #92564
                        June 9, 2010
                        2122 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 14, 2012, 7:42 am - IP Logged

                        When discussing random, there is no way to prove anything.  Random means random, pure and simple.  We lotto players don't let that fact stand in our way.  We move on and make statements.  Allow me to make a statement disguised as fact.

                        Math will never produce a winning combination consistently.  Math might provide someone a jackpot somewhere but that would be a fluke and nothing else.  He who used math to get that one jackpot will never be able to repeat his feat.

                        I believe RL has the right approach.  Study the patterns and then make your choices.  You will be wrong most of the time; you will be right sometimes.  If your right choices keep you profitable, then you have something to work with.  If not, keep studying, keep choosing, keep on keeping on.

                        We will need another form of math, one which has not been invented (developed?) yet.  Before Isacc Newton, there was no such thing as calculus.  After Newton, several different aspects of calculus has been developed.  The same senario is going on here, at Lottery Post.  We are muddling about in a dense fog, looking for that Yellow Brick Road.  We may never find it but that should not prevent us from looking, from thinking, from trying.

                        I will get off my soapbox now.  Thanks for listening.  (Or should that be, "Thanks for reading"?)

                        Hello, gasmu, yes you can use mathematics to some extent in 100% example, a lotto 49 / 6 can be expected 3 to 4 numbers with much confidence when it unfolds in such positions if 4 = 1,2,3 , 4, 1,2,3,5 3,4,5,6 until both the front of the number of digits from 0 to 4, as the final digit from 0 to 9, then gasmu, trios, and blocks, it is easy predict the missing numbers are random, then math is 60% to 70%
                          And alaetorio else to complete the bet, so do gasmu can see various bets
                          Sweepstakes and play until 10, you will see that the frequency from 3 to 4 hits is very frequent,
                        Concordia with you all a lottery numca we predict, but rather hal

                          Avatar
                          New Member
                          Gainesville, FL
                          United States
                          Member #121734
                          January 16, 2012
                          8 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 16, 2012, 6:09 pm - IP Logged

                          "The math is there somewhere...who is clever enough to find it? *S*"

                          If it exists, only someone who is looking will ever have a chance of finding it.

                          I like this post ....  Of course the math is there (in standard probability and statistics) .... and, of course, lotteries can be won using math.  For example, in a pick 6 Lottery with 53 numbers, each number tends to show up, on average, about once a month in a 9 draws per month lottery  (53/6=9).  Competently run lotteries work very hard to minimize the deviation any one number has from this normal monthly rate.

                          In any given 18 draws, almost all the numbers will show at least once, and, if you look at the count of hits for each number over 104 lotteries (52 weeks * 2), you will predictably see a very nice bell curve with the peak between 11 and 12 (numbers hitting about once a month).

                          That is to say ... More numbers hit an average number of times than less than average or greater than average, and the probability that a number in a list will hit is exactly proportional to the size of the list divided by the total number of possibilities for the list.

                          Examples:

                          • It is almost equally probably that a given lottery draw number will be even or odd (there's 1 more odd number).  It is also most probable that a given draw will have 3 even numbers and 3 odd numbers, less likely 4-2 or 2-4, less likely 1-5 or 5-1 and even less likely all even or all odd. 
                          • Numbers that occur early in a history list are more probable than those that occur later.
                          • Numbers that have occurred 0 or 1 times in 9 lotteries are a lot more probable than numbers that have occurred more than 1 time.  (The hotter a number, the less likely to hit.) 

                          To win a lottery once in a while, you don't have to hold every possibility.  You only have to hold enough of the tops of the probability curves to equal the percentage of times you'd  like to win; and have deep enough pockets to stay with it.

                            Avatar
                            Tahiti- Polynesia
                            Tuvalu
                            Member #34524
                            March 4, 2006
                            54 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 17, 2012, 10:50 pm - IP Logged

                            Please, what language are you speaking on this thread? Very very difficult to understand. That's arab for me. Better give documented examples. I don't really need this sytem as I have a better one but Dr san theory about pareto law used for lottery is interesting. Just need clear examples. That's the kind of maths theory to use to have better results.

                              Bigheadnick's avatar - badluck
                              Taunton, Ma
                              United States
                              Member #123005
                              February 11, 2012
                              136 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 11, 2012, 9:09 pm - IP Logged

                              I beleive that it is POSSIBLE to predict outcomes with mathematics. Weather such math exists now is unknown. However, everything in this universe can be explained by mathematics. Math is the universal language of the cosmos. It explains the past and predicts the future. Every single atom and every single action can be defined in math. However, if the numbers are truly random and not simply a pattern-based algorithim then predicting them is equivalent to predicting any other future outcome. In which case the math exists to predict some things but not everything. If we can finally unify quantum physics and general relativity, we should at that point be able to predict ANYTHING. When this happens, the lotto will be moot.

                                 
                                Page 14 of 44