Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 5:20 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 21 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 )

JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1184 Posts
Offline
Posted: December 30, 2012, 4:44 pm - IP Logged

FYI,

Try free ebooks if you need a little help with programming.

http://www.techotopia.com/index.php/Visual_Basic_Essentials

    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
    mid-Ohio
    United States
    Member #9
    March 24, 2001
    19821 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 30, 2012, 7:17 pm - IP Logged

    My vote is for #2 - prove me wrong. *S*

    There are no absolutes when it comes to winning a lottery by predicting the results of what appears to be random events (its drawings). But because those results are limited to a fixed amount of outcomes, with simple math(additions and subtractions) and observations  I think it can be proved you are more wrong than you are right.

     * 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: December 31, 2012, 12:15 am - IP Logged

      There are no absolutes when it comes to winning a lottery by predicting the results of what appears to be random events (its drawings). But because those results are limited to a fixed amount of outcomes, with simple math(additions and subtractions) and observations  I think it can be proved you are more wrong than you are right.

      Hi Rjoh,

        A very diplomatic response. *L*

        I would agree, there are no absolutes in predicting winning lottery numbers for the next draw.

        However, there are some methods that yield a higher percentage of wins than others.

        I just happen to think that current mathematical formulations, describing the random numbers processes, are inadequate.

        There are new axioms, theorems, and formulas just waiting to be discovered. After watching so many LP members running up against the same walls over and over, I decided to try the number 2 approach. It has yielded modest success, but nothing better than your prediction percentages. *S*

        Thanks for your comments.

        JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

        United States
        Member #5599
        July 13, 2004
        1184 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 31, 2012, 9:11 pm - IP Logged
          JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

          United States
          Member #5599
          July 13, 2004
          1184 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 8, 2013, 8:53 am - IP Logged

          The reason we lose at games January 7, 2013    If you have ever wondered why you never seem to win at skill-based games such as poker or chess, there might be a very good reason.  Writing in PNAS, a University of Manchester physicist has discovered that some games are simply impossible to fully learn, or too complex for the human mind to understand.                                 google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);Ads by GoogleMonte Carlo Risk Modeling  - Get This IBM® White Paper & Learn To Manage Uncertainty Now. - www.IBM.com/Risk_Analytics Dr Tobias Galla from The University of Manchester and Professor Doyne Farmer from Oxford University and the Santa Fe Institute, ran thousands of simulations of two-player games to see how human behavior affects their decision-making. In simple games with a small number of moves, such as Noughts and Crosses the optimal strategy is easy to guess, and the game quickly becomes uninteresting. However, when games became more complex and when there are a lot of moves, such as in chess, the board game Go or complex card games, the academics argue that players' actions become less rational and that it is hard to find optimal strategies. This research could also have implications for the financial markets. Many economists base financial predictions of the stock market on equilibrium theory – assuming that traders are infinitely intelligent and rational. This, the academics argue, is rarely the case and could lead to predictions of how markets react being wildly inaccurate. Much of traditional game theory, the basis for strategic decision-making, is based on the equilibrium point – players or workers having a deep and perfect knowledge of what they are doing and of what their opponents are doing. Dr Galla, from the School of Physics and Astronomy, said: "Equilibrium is not always the right thing you should look for in a game." "In many situations, people do not play equilibrium strategies, instead what they do can look like random or chaotic for a variety of reasons, so it is not always appropriate to base predictions on the equilibrium model." "With trading on the stock market, for example, you can have thousands of different stock to choose from, and people do not always behave rationally in these situations or they do not have sufficient information to act rationally. This can have a profound effect on how the markets react." "It could be that we need to drop these conventional game theories and instead use new approaches to predict how people might behave." Together with a Manchester-based PhD student the pair are looking to expand their study to multi-player games and to cases in which the game itself changes with time, which would be a closer analogy of how financial markets operate. Preliminary results suggest that as the number of players increases, the chances that equilibrium is reached decrease. Thus for complicated games with many players, such as financial markets, equilibrium is even less likely to be the full story. More information: Complex dynamics in learning complicated games, by Tobias Galla and J. Doyne Farmer, PNAS, 2013.Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Provided by University of Manchester

          Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-games.html#jCp

            Avatar
            bgonçalves
            Brasil
            Member #92564
            June 9, 2010
            2122 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 13, 2013, 3:43 pm - IP Logged
            Obviously we have to have a good planning to make lottery games. A good game still needs to meet formulator calculating factorial to develop combinatory analysis algorithms. Need to know statistics to elaborate the models over the last memory of sweepstakes, and be able to design the future observing what is only a MATHEMATICAL TRUTH and a TRUE logic, noting what the genetics of numbers in practice determines unquestionably, and what will happen in the future whose parameters respond with 100% accuracy in (X) time interval. That future to which I refer does not depend on how many that will be raffled, or if someone put a brick inside the ball drawn. And I like this? The makers of the games still needs to learn about logic and Boolean algebra, need to have a remarkable knowledge of systems analysis and be an excellent computer programmer. All that said, we are still in the embryonic stage of the process because if you don't have the scientist behind all these tools, nothing concrete will happen
            Because there are people who know lotteries differently, as a science: the Macro-structure of a lottery, the logistics of the sweepstakes, the genetics of the numbers, the overall balance of 06 dozens, the numbers "perfect" and "imperfect", reduced rotation techniques, logical filters, the lack of memory of the numbers. Etc Etc are not these people who write about lotteries on the internet. They are focused on their scientific research.
              Denmother1's avatar - batman38
              Suffolk, VA
              United States
              Member #106648
              February 22, 2011
              781 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 15, 2013, 12:21 pm - IP Logged

              I'm not too proficient at math so I try to use geography instead.

              (To the tune of "I Was In The Right Place But It Musta Been The Wrong Time" by Dr Hook and the Medicine Show)

               

              By being in the right place

              And hoping it's the right time.

              Buyin' me some Quick Picks

              And standin in the right line

              Smilin' at the cashier

              Tellin' her she looks fine

              Gettin' me some cold beer

              Over by the beer sign

              Askin' if she'd like one

              Let 'er know that I'm buyin'

              Meet 'er later out back

              Let 'er know she's my kind

              Get 'er in the pickup

              Let 'er know that I'm tryin'

              To win a big ol' jackpot

              Bigger than a gold mine

              Sittin' in the backwoods

              Sippin' on some moonshine

              Thinkin bout the powerball

              Thinkin' that we'll do fine

              She pulls out some Midol...

              The End

              LOL!

              "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is knowing that a tomato does not go in a fruit salad."  Hat


                United States
                Member #124493
                March 14, 2012
                7023 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 22, 2013, 6:42 am - IP Logged

                Any one who reads the odds and payout charts on most play slips and on every state lottery website knows 95% or more of the possible combinations of any lottery game will win nothing every drawing, but they also know once in a while someone wins the jackpot by matching all the numbers drawn.  For many that's more than reason enough to keep trying to pick the winning numbers.

                It's not that they disagree with what you're saying, it's just they've heard so many times that now it's just back ground noise that they hear and chose to ignore.

                Green laugh

                  SergeM's avatar - slow icon.png
                  Economy class
                  Belgium
                  Member #123700
                  February 27, 2012
                  4035 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 22, 2013, 10:30 am - IP Logged

                  The reason we lose at games January 7, 2013    If you have ever wondered why you never seem to win at skill-based games such as poker or chess, there might be a very good reason.  Writing in PNAS, a University of Manchester physicist has discovered that some games are simply impossible to fully learn, or too complex for the human mind to understand.                                 google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);Ads by GoogleMonte Carlo Risk Modeling  - Get This IBM® White Paper & Learn To Manage Uncertainty Now. - www.IBM.com/Risk_Analytics Dr Tobias Galla from The University of Manchester and Professor Doyne Farmer from Oxford University and the Santa Fe Institute, ran thousands of simulations of two-player games to see how human behavior affects their decision-making. In simple games with a small number of moves, such as Noughts and Crosses the optimal strategy is easy to guess, and the game quickly becomes uninteresting. However, when games became more complex and when there are a lot of moves, such as in chess, the board game Go or complex card games, the academics argue that players' actions become less rational and that it is hard to find optimal strategies. This research could also have implications for the financial markets. Many economists base financial predictions of the stock market on equilibrium theory – assuming that traders are infinitely intelligent and rational. This, the academics argue, is rarely the case and could lead to predictions of how markets react being wildly inaccurate. Much of traditional game theory, the basis for strategic decision-making, is based on the equilibrium point – players or workers having a deep and perfect knowledge of what they are doing and of what their opponents are doing. Dr Galla, from the School of Physics and Astronomy, said: "Equilibrium is not always the right thing you should look for in a game." "In many situations, people do not play equilibrium strategies, instead what they do can look like random or chaotic for a variety of reasons, so it is not always appropriate to base predictions on the equilibrium model." "With trading on the stock market, for example, you can have thousands of different stock to choose from, and people do not always behave rationally in these situations or they do not have sufficient information to act rationally. This can have a profound effect on how the markets react." "It could be that we need to drop these conventional game theories and instead use new approaches to predict how people might behave." Together with a Manchester-based PhD student the pair are looking to expand their study to multi-player games and to cases in which the game itself changes with time, which would be a closer analogy of how financial markets operate. Preliminary results suggest that as the number of players increases, the chances that equilibrium is reached decrease. Thus for complicated games with many players, such as financial markets, equilibrium is even less likely to be the full story. More information: Complex dynamics in learning complicated games, by Tobias Galla and J. Doyne Farmer, PNAS, 2013.Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Provided by University of Manchester

                  Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-games.html#jCp

                  Throw a dice six times. According to equilibrum every number appears 1 time.

                  How many times do you have to throw to get six different numbers in a row?

                  Losing at this game means losing at a rigged game as the organizer keeps money of the pot and the state (the other pimp) does the same. The state is the triple pimp. You use taxed money to play. The payout is taxed. You can only buy services and things that get taxed.

                  Staying on one bet still makes you loose by averages.

                  Monte Carlo is known for the casino. The croupier knows more than all the crap written in books.

                    Avatar
                    bgonçalves
                    Brasil
                    Member #92564
                    June 9, 2010
                    2122 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 22, 2013, 1:27 pm - IP Logged
                    hello, jimmy, my question is this for discussion, if I divide a lottery 40/6
                    in groups of 5 numbers, the question is why, the Group of 25 to 30 has a frequency of at least a number of 91% and a group of 35 to 40, has a 36% of it puts, since all numbers have the same chance to leave, but the Center's group comes out more at least one group?
                      Avatar
                      Toronto
                      Canada
                      Member #138397
                      January 26, 2013
                      179 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 26, 2013, 8:31 pm - IP Logged

                      Didn't read recent comments, so don't know how offtopic it's become,

                       

                      BUT

                       

                      on the original topic:

                       

                      The question, as it is stated, along with the choices in the poll is actually very easily answered.

                      The fact is, lotteries were created to "win" money for the house, and not for the players. That's how they were designed, and that's how they work. There is simply 

                      no way to create a system that will consistently beat the lottery.

                       

                      "Why? What if someone discovers some new form of mathematics or sorcery that breaks the current theories on statistics and found a system to beat the lottery?" 

                      you ask.

                       

                      Actually that's very simple to answer. Even if that happened, lotteries would simply change their rules, making the system invalid.

                      But even if the lotteries didn't change their rules, you still wouldn't win. By definition, only x% of the lottery earnings are used for prizes. Since the total amount

                      available to be won is less than the total amount spent, there's no way everyone can win.

                       

                      But what if someone discovers a system and keeps it secret so that only he himself can win?

                       

                      Such thinking sounds logical at first, but is actually plain silly. There's no way anyone who can discover a true winning system would be stupid enough to keep it

                      to himself forever. He may use it a few times, but he will make it public eventually, and most likely quite soon after the discovery. This is because any system that

                      is logically rigorous enough to be generally accepted would be such a huge event that the person who found this amazing discovery would go down in history along 

                      the side of the greats like einstein or newton. There's no doubt they'd win a field's medal and any other honours currently available, probably earning more money 

                      than they would from winning the lottery and fame that will go down in history forever. Why would they hide such a revolutionary discovery? They wouldn't.

                       

                      Thus math can never beat lotteries simply because of what a lottery is. The prizes for lotteries don't come from thin air, they come out of people's pockets. Therefore 

                      in a closed system like this, no winning strategy can exist.

                       

                      If you're simply asking whether new mathematics can somehow predict random events, well, all I can say is its very very very doubtful. 

                      Let's just say I'd rather bet on me winning the powerball 5 times in a row - despite not buying tickets for them. I can't prove that it won't happen, but it doesn't 

                      seem very likely to happen. The fact is, all the "evidence" you've shown on page 1 isn't evidence for your opinions at all. You've shown absolutely nothing that supports 

                      the theory that new maths can/will be created to predict random events.

                        JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

                        United States
                        Member #5599
                        July 13, 2004
                        1184 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 26, 2013, 11:55 pm - IP Logged

                        Didn't read recent comments, so don't know how offtopic it's become,

                         

                        BUT

                         

                        on the original topic:

                         

                        The question, as it is stated, along with the choices in the poll is actually very easily answered.

                        The fact is, lotteries were created to "win" money for the house, and not for the players. That's how they were designed, and that's how they work. There is simply 

                        no way to create a system that will consistently beat the lottery.

                         

                        "Why? What if someone discovers some new form of mathematics or sorcery that breaks the current theories on statistics and found a system to beat the lottery?" 

                        you ask.

                         

                        Actually that's very simple to answer. Even if that happened, lotteries would simply change their rules, making the system invalid.

                        But even if the lotteries didn't change their rules, you still wouldn't win. By definition, only x% of the lottery earnings are used for prizes. Since the total amount

                        available to be won is less than the total amount spent, there's no way everyone can win.

                         

                        But what if someone discovers a system and keeps it secret so that only he himself can win?

                         

                        Such thinking sounds logical at first, but is actually plain silly. There's no way anyone who can discover a true winning system would be stupid enough to keep it

                        to himself forever. He may use it a few times, but he will make it public eventually, and most likely quite soon after the discovery. This is because any system that

                        is logically rigorous enough to be generally accepted would be such a huge event that the person who found this amazing discovery would go down in history along 

                        the side of the greats like einstein or newton. There's no doubt they'd win a field's medal and any other honours currently available, probably earning more money 

                        than they would from winning the lottery and fame that will go down in history forever. Why would they hide such a revolutionary discovery? They wouldn't.

                         

                        Thus math can never beat lotteries simply because of what a lottery is. The prizes for lotteries don't come from thin air, they come out of people's pockets. Therefore 

                        in a closed system like this, no winning strategy can exist.

                         

                        If you're simply asking whether new mathematics can somehow predict random events, well, all I can say is its very very very doubtful. 

                        Let's just say I'd rather bet on me winning the powerball 5 times in a row - despite not buying tickets for them. I can't prove that it won't happen, but it doesn't 

                        seem very likely to happen. The fact is, all the "evidence" you've shown on page 1 isn't evidence for your opinions at all. You've shown absolutely nothing that supports 

                        the theory that new maths can/will be created to predict random events.

                        Hi yoho,

                           Thanks for your reply and the time you took to compose it.

                           I half agree and half disagree. I would agree that lotteries were created to win money for the house. On the other hand, I believe that some variation of math might contain what would be considered a winning system. Even if someone found a relatively successful system, the lotteries don't really have to change since they get a monetary reward every draw.

                          My bad, I thought I had proposed some and supplied links for different approaches. As far as supplying a completed system, I never post mine. I only post some of the simpler elements for discussion purposes.

                          Time will tell if the world of lottery math is flat or not. You can go with the main stream thinking or become an explorer. *S*

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

                        Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

                          Avatar
                          Toronto
                          Canada
                          Member #138397
                          January 26, 2013
                          179 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 27, 2013, 1:14 am - IP Logged

                          Hi yoho,

                             Thanks for your reply and the time you took to compose it.

                             I half agree and half disagree. I would agree that lotteries were created to win money for the house. On the other hand, I believe that some variation of math might contain what would be considered a winning system. Even if someone found a relatively successful system, the lotteries don't really have to change since they get a monetary reward every draw.

                            My bad, I thought I had proposed some and supplied links for different approaches. As far as supplying a completed system, I never post mine. I only post some of the simpler elements for discussion purposes.

                            Time will tell if the world of lottery math is flat or not. You can go with the main stream thinking or become an explorer. *S*

                          They would only get a monetary reward every draw IF they pay out less prizes than they receive for the tickets they sell, does that make sense?

                           

                          They can't make money out of thin air.

                           

                          The way they make money is, say 100 people buy tickets for 1 dollar each. They get 100 dollars. Then from that 100 dollars, they pay around 50 dollars as prizes, 

                          and use the rest of the money to pay employees and such. 

                           

                          Thus I proposed two points:

                           

                          1. There is no system that will allow everyone to win, because there is only so much money. 

                           

                          2. Even if there is a system that possibly allows a single player to win, given he does not share the system with others, he would not hide it, because the rewards

                          for sharing it is far greater than keeping it secret.

                           

                          If you agree with those two points, then the conclusion that lotteries cannot be beaten is inevitable. If you disagree with one of them, I would love to see your 

                          reasoning. 

                           

                          In fact if you can raise your return from something like 50 cents per dollar (I believe most lotteries have approximately 50% return rates) to something like 60 

                          cents per dollar, I bet you'll become like the person of the century in the TIME's magazine.

                            Greenfox's avatar - IMAG01562
                            Burnsville
                            United States
                            Member #107244
                            March 4, 2011
                            853 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 27, 2013, 2:22 am - IP Logged

                            There is a numeric reason for pretty much everything. Numbers are more than just numbers for one thing. You can google the building of Washington DC and the numeric layout of all of it for part of that.

                            There are a number on average, 1 in every 5 verse in the Bible. Every number used in the Bible is of a certain specified amount. Not just randomized accounts of numbers, but a set amount for certain things. 6 represents man and 7 represents The Holy Spirit. 10 is the number of God.

                            In Exodus 31:15, man is commanded to work 6 days. 3+1+1=5=10. 1 and 0(5)=6. 3-1=2 and 1 from 5 is 4. 2 and 4 is 6 again.

                            The 6th Commandment, "though shalt not kill" is in Exodus 20:13. 2+0+1=3=6. 20 - 13 is 7.

                            The 6th clause in "The Lords Prayer" is in Mathew 6:13. 6+1+3=10 again.

                            Jesus suffered 6 hours on the cross. It was 9 O'clock when they crucified Him, and it was Mark 15:25. 1 and 5 is 6, the number of man. 2 and 5 is 7, the number of The Holy Spirit. If you take 15 from 25 you have 10, the number of God. Combine them and you have 40. 40 is one of the most used numbers in the Bible. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights to cleanse the earth, and that totalling 40 when that was Him dying to cleanse our sins pretty much.

                            You can look at the Pick 3 and 4 and see that they are always similar for each draw. That tells me that there is something there. Something has to be there to make them be so close in comparison. I spect that if one delve deep enough, they might just find out how and why. Run a search of all the times that 4 has been the powerball and look at the date and see if there isn't a comparison. Or 5. Or 6. Just about anyone you want to and look at the date.

                            You can't steal second and keep your foot on FIRST!!!

                            “Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths.
                            When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength”.

                            -Arnold (Ahnald) Schwarzenegger-

                              JKING's avatar - Kaleidoscope 3.gif

                              United States
                              Member #5599
                              July 13, 2004
                              1184 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: January 27, 2013, 2:33 am - IP Logged

                              Hi,

                                I agree with point 1. conditionally. There is currently no system that can will allow everybody to win consistently. Please note that in California, 6% of the dollars recieved always goes to administrative costs. If the game is paramutel, the payouts are scaled accordingly. Reguardless, there is always enough money.

                                About point 2.....

                                I think it depends on diffferent factors.

                                What is a winning system? One that produces a positive cash flow? Is it one you can retire with?

                                In a Pick 3 enviroment you need to be able to produce multiple wins to generate a moderate postive cash flow dependant upon wheeling/combination amounts.

                                In the Major Jackpot games you only need to hit right once ( the rewards for sharing probably won't exceed the win amount).

                                Pick 5 games lie somewhere in between.

                                Then there is the issue of sharing. Who knows how simple or complex a winning system will be. It might end up to be to complex to explain to the masses. It might be to costly to generate newly created software. If you were the latest $89 million mega millions winner from New Jersy, would you be spending the time to market your system?

                                As for me, I am seeing some strong indicators that certain lotteries can be beat ( a positive cash flow ). Will I share? Probably not. I only want to fatten my wallet, not my ego. *S*

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

                              Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

                                 
                                Page 21 of 44