Welcome Guest
You last visited May 24, 2017, 12:10 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Mathematics and the Lottery

694 replies. Last post 27 days ago by Soledad.

 Page 21 of 47

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

 Yes-It's all in the math books. [ 242 ] [43.76%] No-Anew math for will have to be created. [ 79 ] [14.29%] Math won't beat the lottery regularly. [ 232 ] [41.95%] Total Valid Votes [ 553 ] Discarded Votes [ 56 ]

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1196 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

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20041 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 *

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1196 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*

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1196 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 31, 2012, 9:11 pm - IP Logged

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1196 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 8, 2013, 8:53 am - IP Logged

bgonÃ§alves
Brasil
Member #92564
June 9, 2010
2202 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.
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.

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

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."

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.

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 22, 2013, 10:30 am - IP Logged

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.

bgonÃ§alves
Brasil
Member #92564
June 9, 2010
2202 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?
Toronto
Member #138397
January 26, 2013
179 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 26, 2013, 8:31 pm - IP Logged

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?"

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.

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1196 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 26, 2013, 11:55 pm - IP Logged

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?"

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 occasionally find an acorn.

There is no elevator to success, you will have to take the stairs.

Toronto
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.

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!!!

When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength”.

-Arnold (Ahnald) Schwarzenegger-

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1196 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.

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 occasionally find an acorn.

There is no elevator to success, you will have to take the stairs.

 Page 21 of 47