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

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on August 17, 2011

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 LEAST89,640YEARS before they are all drawn.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19830 Posts Online

Posted: August 17, 2011, 6:25 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on August 17, 2011

"...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 LEAST89,640YEARS 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:

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

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on August 17, 2011

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.

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 butthat alone won't be much of a reduction.

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

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on July 27, 2011

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.

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.

United States Member #5599 July 13, 2004 1185 Posts Offline

Posted: August 18, 2011, 4:51 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by JusCurious on August 18, 2011

"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.

Thanks for your comments.

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"

United States Member #5599 July 13, 2004 1185 Posts Offline

Posted: August 18, 2011, 11:00 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by JusCurious on August 18, 2011

"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

Quote: Originally posted by GASMETERGUY on August 18, 2011

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

Quote: Originally posted by JusCurious on August 18, 2011

"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.

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!