Welcome Guest
You last visited December 9, 2016, 2:19 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Mathematics and the Lottery

652 replies. Last post 3 hours ago by Catpickednumber.

 Page 9 of 44

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 ]

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19830 Posts
Online
 Posted: August 17, 2011, 10:59 am - IP Logged

I'm finding math to be useful for classifying past winning lottery combinations.  I then sort them by classifications to see if some classifications hit more than others.

So far I've found 220 different classifications for the 715 past drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto and 42 of them cover 50% of the combinations however about 10% of the time a combination is drawn with a totally new classification so I experimenting to see which wins more, playing combinations that fit the most popular classifications, playing combinations with totally new unseen classifications or does it matter either way.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2011, 4:28 pm - IP Logged

I'm finding math to be useful for classifying past winning lottery combinations.  I then sort them by classifications to see if some classifications hit more than others.

So far I've found 220 different classifications for the 715 past drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto and 42 of them cover 50% of the combinations however about 10% of the time a combination is drawn with a totally new classification so I experimenting to see which wins more, playing combinations that fit the most popular classifications, playing combinations with totally new unseen classifications or does it matter either way.

"...however about 10% of the time a combination is drawn with a totally new classification..."

Does this surprise you?

715 past drawings, assuming 3 per week, represents about 4-½ years of play, give or take.  Since there are 13,983,816 possible combinations in this game, it should be no surprise that new patterns keep occuring.  At the current rate of 3 draws per week, it will take AT LEAST 89,640 YEARS before they are all drawn.

Be prepared for a LOT of new "classifications!"

P.S. S----47:  I know that you already knew that.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19830 Posts
Online
 Posted: August 17, 2011, 6:25 pm - IP Logged

"...however about 10% of the time a combination is drawn with a totally new classification..."

Does this surprise you?

715 past drawings, assuming 3 per week, represents about 4-½ years of play, give or take.  Since there are 13,983,816 possible combinations in this game, it should be no surprise that new patterns keep occuring.  At the current rate of 3 draws per week, it will take AT LEAST 89,640 YEARS before they are all drawn.

Be prepared for a LOT of new "classifications!"

P.S. S----47:  I know that you already knew that.

Does this surprise you?

Yes, it does kinda, since my pattern identification method isn't that sophisticated.

For example, had I used a pattern identification as simple as 1-24 = LOW and 25-49 = HIGH, there would only be seven classifications as follows:

LLLHHH = 230
LLHHHH = 188
LLLLHH = 174
LHHHHH = 59
LLLLLH = 48
HHHHHH = 11
LLLLLL = 5

I'm using something a little more sophisticated but was hoping to have about 250 classifications.  Oh well, if it leads no where it won't be the first time I've gone down a similar road.

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

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1185 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2011, 7:11 pm - IP Logged

I'm finding math to be useful for classifying past winning lottery combinations.  I then sort them by classifications to see if some classifications hit more than others.

So far I've found 220 different classifications for the 715 past drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto and 42 of them cover 50% of the combinations however about 10% of the time a combination is drawn with a totally new classification so I experimenting to see which wins more, playing combinations that fit the most popular classifications, playing combinations with totally new unseen classifications or does it matter either way.

Hi,

Just for another point of view....You can also set up your system on the basis of different classifications.

It' is what I would call static and dymanic. A good static example would be the odd/even mix. You can run all the combination of lottery number and know what the best pecentages are reguardless if one game has been previous played or a million games, A dynamic example would be if a lottery number has been picked 5 out the the last seven games it probably won't be occurring for a while again (of course there are always those exceptions. But the point is that a dynamic classification is dependent only upon properties of the previous games.

For me, the focus is on the dynamic view as a priority. This is where a system can be mearsured,rated and recalibrated to obtain the best results. After that I will use some static elements to avoid the dumb pick ( like choosing all even numbers, 5 numbers all divisible by 4.......etc)

So, as a suggestion, run your classifications as dynamic elements first. This is how you can  give direction to a pick that was previously totally random.

Just a thought. *S*

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

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

bgonÃ§alves
Brasil
Member #92564
June 9, 2010
2125 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2011, 10:01 pm - IP Logged

Hello from a lottery of 49 / 6 are required 13 million bet Only 20% of 80% stake left in the next lottery, then this 20% They are at greater odds of broadband (strip) of each statistical analysis, The 80% of the combinations are those that will give 20% of the sweepstakes, separate 20% Of greater probability of each segment done, and prove it!

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7314 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 17, 2011, 10:38 pm - IP Logged

Does this surprise you?

Yes, it does kinda, since my pattern identification method isn't that sophisticated.

For example, had I used a pattern identification as simple as 1-24 = LOW and 25-49 = HIGH, there would only be seven classifications as follows:

LLLHHH = 230
LLHHHH = 188
LLLLHH = 174
LHHHHH = 59
LLLLLH = 48
HHHHHH = 11
LLLLLL = 5

I'm using something a little more sophisticated but was hoping to have about 250 classifications.  Oh well, if it leads no where it won't be the first time I've gone down a similar road.

There are 177,100 combos with 6 high numbers, 134,596 combos with 6 low numbers, 177,100 with 6 odd numbers, and 134,596 with 6 even numbers. The Even/Odd ratio is exactly the same. You could compare the proportions of the 715 drawings to the proportions of all the combos but that alone won't be much of a reduction.

LLLHHH = 4,655,200
LLHHHH = 3,491,400
LLLLHH = 3,187,800
LHHHHH = 1,275,120
LLLLLH = 1,062,600
HHHHHH = 177,100                                                                                LLLLLL = 134,596

Two to four Low numbers gives you 81% of all the combos as does two to four Even numbers.

"I'm using something a little more sophisticated but was hoping to have about 250 classifications."

If you're counting the High/Low and Odd/Even distribution as 14 different classifications, there are the 258 unique sum ranges from 21 to 279. How about final digits, consecutive numbers, roots of sums, decades, spreads between numbers low to high, spreads between the lowest and highest number, and you could throw in positional limits and get over 1000 different classifications.

NASHVILLE, TENN
United States
Member #33372
February 20, 2006
1044 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2011, 11:18 am - IP Logged

JKING

I don't think a math can solve random but that does not mean it can't be done.  Most every attempt I have ever

seen is based on statistics and the study of past drawings which for the most part is fruitless.  We should be looking

at the inner workings of random it's self.   Since the lottery draw is a closed system and the order in which the numbers

are drawn is what we are looking for we need to focus on that aspect which is the random part of the draw.  The numbers

are not the random event the order however is.  If the drawing apperatus was allowed to continue then all the balls would

eventually come out, but if the numbers were random then it would be quite a different story.  This may seem like a no brainer

but most have never thought of the drawing this way.  The statistical buffs will always say that if you do happen to win a

few good prizes it is nothing more than chance and if you continue to play you will eventually loose more then you win but

this is not always true even if you omit the large payoffs.   To attack the lottery draw you must attack the random part else

you will fall victim to the odds.  I keep saying this but don't get much back but until you can take some of the randomness

out of the equation then you are wasting your time.   The odds are based on "random selection"  take some of the random

out of the process and the odds no longer apply.  The gamming industry counts on randomness and without it they could not

survive.  Blackjack is a random game but by counting cards you can improve your play, why, because with each card that

has been played the randomness of the next card drawn becomes less and less.  While it is true that all the numbers are

returned to the hopper for ecah drawing one can still gain some useful information about how random works in a closed

system.  I don't pretend to have figured it all out but I have made some progress.  Want to solve the lottery or a part of

it then study random.

RL

Agreed!

No mathematician has seriously studied random and never will.  We LP members have contributed more to the study of random than any Ph.D.  And we will continue to study.

Someone will evetually create the math needed to "crack random".  Hopefully that someone will be one of us.

New Member
Michigan
United States
Member #115341
August 18, 2011
8 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2011, 3:20 pm - IP Logged

"Koycerin states that only the very first bet at the beginning of a cycle will truly be 50/50."

Falacies such as this always have a major flaw, usually in the premise.  The logic may be sound, but results in a false conclusion because the premise is faulty.  Example:  If red is black, and blue is black, then red is blue.  The logic here is flawless, but the premise is faulty.

The flaw in Koycerin's premise is that EVERY coin flip is the "beginning of a cycle".  Whether you are reviewing the past 10; 200; or 50,000 coin flips, the NEXT coin flip will "begin a (new) cycle", so that by Koycerin's own statement, it "will truly be 50/50."

Yes, LOOKING BACK, you can see "patterns" in the results of random draws, but those past draws have no way to affect future random draws.

bgonÃ§alves
Brasil
Member #92564
June 9, 2010
2125 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2011, 4:09 pm - IP Logged

STACK47 Hello, you could do the following simulation of a lottery 49 / 6 or other   = This is how to get the last result going back up to about 100 results in a separate list. After drawing more than 100, or the list is a must have seven columns each with one hundred results (this value can vary from 100) then put straight the lists of sweepstakes 7 Earlier (of course tends to be a lottery that has already made ??since a 1000 draw)   Well, this came the idea that when you take the last draw and mark where the draw has passed the registration of the result by 100 pairings avez gets out a large group without even the lot number one, putting in a straight line, not just number matches the 100 lines in the mirror will have 6 numbers, or see on the diagonal, required to see

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1185 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2011, 4:51 pm - IP Logged

"Koycerin states that only the very first bet at the beginning of a cycle will truly be 50/50."

Falacies such as this always have a major flaw, usually in the premise.  The logic may be sound, but results in a false conclusion because the premise is faulty.  Example:  If red is black, and blue is black, then red is blue.  The logic here is flawless, but the premise is faulty.

The flaw in Koycerin's premise is that EVERY coin flip is the "beginning of a cycle".  Whether you are reviewing the past 10; 200; or 50,000 coin flips, the NEXT coin flip will "begin a (new) cycle", so that by Koycerin's own statement, it "will truly be 50/50."

Yes, LOOKING BACK, you can see "patterns" in the results of random draws, but those past draws have no way to affect future random draws.

Hi,

Your comment, "Yes, LOOKING BACK, you can see "patterns" in the results of random draws, but those past draws have no way to affect future random draws.", is one of the topics that members can go around and around on endlessly without agreeing. Even though you are right that the last draw does affect the next draw, there still is pedictable mathematical probabilities associated with future draws from past draw distibutions. In Wikipedia.... you may want to look at Bayesian inference or Coin flipping. I am faily sure if I dig some more there would be addtional standard mathematical approaches that use past history as a tool for pediction.

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

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

Atlanta
United States
Member #112430
June 19, 2011
6511 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2011, 5:44 pm - IP Logged

* Math is always involved in statistics and lottery. of course chance is involved,but when you have a formula like sports it gives you the edge to win! Some often wonder why others are winning more than others..it is the strategies and mathmatics whihc formulates the best possible wins!

"Persistence & Patience Pays off    When Applied with Wisdom"

New Member
Michigan
United States
Member #115341
August 18, 2011
8 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2011, 8:14 pm - IP Logged

"Even though you are right that the last draw does affect the next draw, ... "

" ... there still is pedictable mathematical probabilities associated with future draws from past draw distibutions."

It's fascinating to see those two statements in the same sentence!

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1185 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 18, 2011, 11:00 pm - IP Logged

"Even though you are right that the last draw does affect the next draw, ... "

" ... there still is pedictable mathematical probabilities associated with future draws from past draw distibutions."

It's fascinating to see those two statements in the same sentence!

Hi,

You are right, the whole prediction process of random (some would say unpredictable) numbers reads like an oxymoron. And yet, the math to roughly approximate the future draws is there (probablities). You can even see it here at the LP...Look at rjoh's lifetime hit ratio of 4.26% on the predition board. So, which part of the oxymoron is not true....Are random numbers unpredicatable or is predictability of random numbers a farce. Maybe it's just my lack of understanding mathematically, but the current state of math, when it comes to random numbers, can only give an extremely rough approximation of what may appear in future draws. This is one of the reasons I opted for #2 in the poll.

Thanks for comment.

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: August 18, 2011, 11:59 pm - IP Logged

Agreed!

No mathematician has seriously studied random and never will.  We LP members have contributed more to the study of random than any Ph.D.  And we will continue to study.

Someone will evetually create the math needed to "crack random".  Hopefully that someone will be one of us.

Wrong!

If you don't like Google, you could try Bing, or Yahoo, or Wikipedia, or...

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 19, 2011, 12:38 am - IP Logged

"Even though you are right that the last draw does affect the next draw, ... "

" ... there still is pedictable mathematical probabilities associated with future draws from past draw distibutions."

It's fascinating to see those two statements in the same sentence!

Good luck JusCurious!

The biggest problem here for anyone trying to introduce logical thinking to people who might be willing to try to learn, is not the potential students.  It is a small cabal of people with a vested interest in the propagation of innumeracy.  They will resort to any and all of the most despicable tactics available to them here to try to belittle and discredit anyone with evidence that lotteries are random and their systems make no sense.  Misquoting you, as was done above, is just one of the ways.

Here is another example...

Are you sure you want to pursue this?

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  To anyone who has attacked me but in fact has no vested interest motivating them; you have my sympathies, for yours is a problem of the mind. The others have a problem of the soul!

 Page 9 of 44