Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 10:44 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Why Do Mathematicians Consider The Lottery Random

Topic closed. 261 replies. Last post 5 years ago by Boney526.

Page 10 of 18
52
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
Posted: August 27, 2011, 4:45 am - IP Logged

I don't want to speak for stack, but If I read him correctly he's saying that despite all the computer simulations that ran in the past, you can't dispute the simple fact that my friend does have a 65% edge in the main pool.

 But what makes the system a winner in my opinion, in the long term, the smaller pools have the winning combo to compliment the main pool. The extra wins by the smaller pools keep my friend well ahead any catasrophic "Bad Luck" runs had my friend only played the main pool alone. Also, I doubt the simulations accounted for the higher payouts playing online. Like i said before, thos simulations were based on your typical lottery system for sale. This system is unlike any of those. None of the regular systems out there have a 65% edge, plus smaller pools to back it up. You'd have to do a stand alone simulation test tailored specifically around the details of this system to get accurate results. But I've already seen the results in a real life scenario with my friend's vast winnings. I don't need no stinkin simulation....lol

"...you can't dispute the simple fact that my friend does have a 65% edge in the main pool."

I thought Boney526 did a very good job of explaining how your friend could be ahead as you say, but through chance, not the system.  You must mean something different than what gambler's refer to as an "edge."  Most state lotteries have a 50% edge over the players.  Casinos have a 5.26% edge over players of roulette.  Offshore lotteries have a 10% edge over you and your friend in Pick-4.  Casinos are accustomed to short term winners but if your friend had a REAL, persistant, 65% "edge," he would very likely be banned by now.

If what you believe were true, it would be big news, and it is not!

Given the 10% edge that the house has, I'm not surprised.

You can't get blood out of a turnip!

    Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
    New Jersey
    United States
    Member #99032
    October 18, 2010
    1439 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: August 27, 2011, 10:39 am - IP Logged

    I don't want to speak for stack, but If I read him correctly he's saying that despite all the computer simulations that ran in the past, you can't dispute the simple fact that my friend does have a 65% edge in the main pool.

     But what makes the system a winner in my opinion, in the long term, the smaller pools have the winning combo to compliment the main pool. The extra wins by the smaller pools keep my friend well ahead any catasrophic "Bad Luck" runs had my friend only played the main pool alone. Also, I doubt the simulations accounted for the higher payouts playing online. Like i said before, thos simulations were based on your typical lottery system for sale. This system is unlike any of those. None of the regular systems out there have a 65% edge, plus smaller pools to back it up. You'd have to do a stand alone simulation test tailored specifically around the details of this system to get accurate results. But I've already seen the results in a real life scenario with my friend's vast winnings. I don't need no stinkin simulation....lol

    No, he doesn't have a 65 percent edge, his odds of getting a win are 65 percent in the main pool.  The Edge the Casino has is always 10 percent, since any winning bet will pay out as 90 percent of the odds of it occuring.

     

    Any simulation you'll run will, over time, find youself at about 100 percent of odds, and when you deduct the 10 percent edge, the payout would be about 90 percent of total bets.  I've been trying to explain that the 600 ish draws your friend played is SHORT TERM, not long term, he'll end up losing it all if he plays it all.  (I doubt any sane person who won that much would gamble all of it back through, though)

      Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
      New Jersey
      United States
      Member #99032
      October 18, 2010
      1439 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: August 27, 2011, 10:47 am - IP Logged

      I knew you were talking about a friend and the "he's" I was referring to was your friend.

      A year or so ago an LP member had an interesting 60/40 pick-3 betting method that showed lots of potential and it too was based on getting the online payoff odds. Your friend has a 65 to 35 edge on every bet he makes and your critics will say "overtime" he'll win 65% of his bets but the 10% edge will keep him from making a profit. I'd like to know where it's written a 65 to 35 edge every bet can't win 75% or even 100% of the drawings and must lose in 35% of the next 10,000 drawings.

      One of your critics mentioned that RB28 in the PB game hadn't been drawn in over 270 drawings and even ran simulations to find the odds against that happening. The same math their using to say your friend's 65% edge can't beat the house edge would show that RB28 should be drawn once every 39 drawings and 10 times in 270. They're using simple eighth grade "find the average" math that shows each of the 1000 pick-3 straight numbers and each of the 10,000 pick-4 straight numbers should average 1 win in the next 1000 and 10,000 drawings.

      But I guess it's the gambler's fallacy to believe in the next 1000 or 10,000 drawings many of the straight numbers will repeat and many won't be drawn.

      I read that simulation, and although, to get an accurate representation of the odds of the PB 28 not being drawn over 270 draws, I think more simulations would have been necessary, the 50000 simulations done showed it to be a 47/50000 chance, in other words, close to 1 in 100, which has nothing really to do with averages, it's just a computer finding what the odds are likely close to by running the game through a bunch of times.  It has nothing to do with averages, although casinos, sportsbooks, lotteries, all know to expect the averages to be correct, over the long term.

       

      In other words - they don't care if someone wins, because other people lose.  The average does exist, but the simulation that Jimmy did had nothing to do with that - since the average is the middle ground, not necessarily the most likely.  It's actually more likely to be ahead of behind the average.

       

      "But I guess it's the gambler's fallacy to believe in the next 1000 or 10,000 drawings many of the straight numbers will repeat and many won't be drawn."

       

      Nope that's not gambler's fallacy.  Gambler's fallacy would be the belief that certain numbers, like the straights that haven't showed up in a State, or DUE to show up, and/or are better bets than numbers that have already shown up.

       

      You're statement was just more than likely correct, and nobody disputed it lol.

       

       

      The reason he will lose over time is that, the odds of him winning are 65 percent, if he wins, he gets 9000 dollars.  If he loses, he loses 6500 dollars (will he plays at .25 cents, but same deal, just didn't want to do simple arithmatic this morning lol) So over time, that very fact will wear down his profits, even though right now, in the short term - 600ish draws - he's ended up way ahead, probably due to the smaller pools of numbers he plays, where I'm assuming he bets bigger, and got really lucky.

        Avatar
        Kentucky
        United States
        Member #32652
        February 14, 2006
        7314 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: August 27, 2011, 8:00 pm - IP Logged

        I read that simulation, and although, to get an accurate representation of the odds of the PB 28 not being drawn over 270 draws, I think more simulations would have been necessary, the 50000 simulations done showed it to be a 47/50000 chance, in other words, close to 1 in 100, which has nothing really to do with averages, it's just a computer finding what the odds are likely close to by running the game through a bunch of times.  It has nothing to do with averages, although casinos, sportsbooks, lotteries, all know to expect the averages to be correct, over the long term.

         

        In other words - they don't care if someone wins, because other people lose.  The average does exist, but the simulation that Jimmy did had nothing to do with that - since the average is the middle ground, not necessarily the most likely.  It's actually more likely to be ahead of behind the average.

         

        "But I guess it's the gambler's fallacy to believe in the next 1000 or 10,000 drawings many of the straight numbers will repeat and many won't be drawn."

         

        Nope that's not gambler's fallacy.  Gambler's fallacy would be the belief that certain numbers, like the straights that haven't showed up in a State, or DUE to show up, and/or are better bets than numbers that have already shown up.

         

        You're statement was just more than likely correct, and nobody disputed it lol.

         

         

        The reason he will lose over time is that, the odds of him winning are 65 percent, if he wins, he gets 9000 dollars.  If he loses, he loses 6500 dollars (will he plays at .25 cents, but same deal, just didn't want to do simple arithmatic this morning lol) So over time, that very fact will wear down his profits, even though right now, in the short term - 600ish draws - he's ended up way ahead, probably due to the smaller pools of numbers he plays, where I'm assuming he bets bigger, and got really lucky.

        "I think more simulations would have been necessary, the 50000 simulations done showed it to be a 47/50000 chance, in other words, close to 1 in 100, which has nothing really to do with averages,"

        Currently there are 10 bonus numbers (including RB28) that are "no shows" in the last 50 drawings and of those only 2 bonus numbers are "no shows" in the last 100. RB28 is the only bonus number not drawn in the last 125 drawings. I believe the simulation was ran to determine the odds of a bonus number missing 270 drawings but a better starting point might be to determine how times should any bonus number miss 100 to 125 drawings.

        Other than for general knowledge, I can't think of any other useful purpose.

        "The reason he will lose over time is that, the odds of him winning are 65 percent, if he wins, he gets 9000 dollars."

        I'm not following your logic because first of all odds are calculated by chances to win vs. chances to lose. In this example he has 6500 chances to win against 3500 chances to lose. The odds favor him winning every bet 13 to 7 or 1.87 to 1. In craps when you bet "Don't Pass" and a 6 is rolled the odds favor you by 6 to 5 because there are 6 ways to win (if a 7 is rolled) and 5 ways to lose (if a 6 is rolled). Free or true payoff odds would require the player to lay $6 to win $5. The house pays off "Don't Pass" bets in even money which on a $6 bet is $1 more than the true odds.

        Based on the true odds, if Joker's friend was just betting $1625 to win $625 on a random 6500 numbers, I wouldn't be commenting, but it looks like he is betting $3000 to win $8250. Just a guess but he is probably applying high percentage filters to his 6500 numbers to create the other 4 smaller pools. Because of the other pools, his average win is probably $3750 and 44% higher than the 1.87 to 1 true odds payoff. I'm also guessing he did the math probabilities to determine how many of his bets should win 3, 4, or 5 times before he bet the first $3000.

          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
          New Jersey
          United States
          Member #99032
          October 18, 2010
          1439 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: August 27, 2011, 8:12 pm - IP Logged

          What I was trying to say was that he will lose over time because he is playing 6500 combos for a 65 percent chance of winning 9000 dollars.

           

          Well he said he's betting .25 cents each, so the payout and price would be a quarter of that, but with the same principle.

           

          He's also playing those smaller pools, in which, I'm assuming he wagers more -  which would increase his volitility, so it'd increase the chances of him coming out ahead, OR behind the odds of winning.

           

          Either way, the house only pays him out 10 percent of the odds, so unless he can continously beat the odds indefinetly, which is highly unlikely, he will lose in the long term.

           

          So the odds favor him winning, but when he wins he wins 90 percent of what the odds way he should, if they paid even odds.  If he loses, he still loses.  I didn't mean it to say the odds don't favor him winning on any particular draw, they do, because he's playing more than half the numbers.  But they don't favor him longterm, because he'll only win 90 percent of what true odds would give him.


            United States
            Member #75358
            June 1, 2009
            5345 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: August 27, 2011, 8:21 pm - IP Logged

            What I was trying to say was that he will lose over time because he is playing 6500 combos for a 65 percent chance of winning 9000 dollars.

             

            Well he said he's betting .25 cents each, so the payout and price would be a quarter of that, but with the same principle.

             

            He's also playing those smaller pools, in which, I'm assuming he wagers more -  which would increase his volitility, so it'd increase the chances of him coming out ahead, OR behind the odds of winning.

             

            Either way, the house only pays him out 10 percent of the odds, so unless he can continously beat the odds indefinetly, which is highly unlikely, he will lose in the long term.

             

            So the odds favor him winning, but when he wins he wins 90 percent of what the odds way he should, if they paid even odds.  If he loses, he still loses.  I didn't mean it to say the odds don't favor him winning on any particular draw, they do, because he's playing more than half the numbers.  But they don't favor him longterm, because he'll only win 90 percent of what true odds would give him.

            You also have to factor in that he doesn't play every draw. Only when he thinks it optimum.  Also, he doesn't play higher per combo in the smaller pools. still 25 cents

            BTW, he just emailed me and told me he quit playing. He's kind of up there in age, and had enough. He made about 1,100,000 bucks. I emailed him back to asked whether he is still willing to give the numbers when I raise 10 grand or so. Still waiting for his response. I doubt he'll do it.

              rdgrnr's avatar - walt
              Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
              United States
              Member #73904
              April 28, 2009
              14903 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: August 27, 2011, 9:47 pm - IP Logged

              You also have to factor in that he doesn't play every draw. Only when he thinks it optimum.  Also, he doesn't play higher per combo in the smaller pools. still 25 cents

              BTW, he just emailed me and told me he quit playing. He's kind of up there in age, and had enough. He made about 1,100,000 bucks. I emailed him back to asked whether he is still willing to give the numbers when I raise 10 grand or so. Still waiting for his response. I doubt he'll do it.

              I've seen some bad liars in my day but you... holy moly...   LOL


                                                           
                                   
                                                       

               

               

               

               

                                                                                                                 

              "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                          --Edmund Burke

               

               


                United States
                Member #75358
                June 1, 2009
                5345 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: August 27, 2011, 10:56 pm - IP Logged

                I've seen some bad liars in my day but you... holy moly...   LOL

                I'm not lying. Belviee wahteevr yuo wnat.....

                  rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                  Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                  United States
                  Member #73904
                  April 28, 2009
                  14903 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: August 27, 2011, 11:15 pm - IP Logged

                  I'm not lying. Belviee wahteevr yuo wnat.....

                  LOL, that was a classic!

                  I love how subtle you were when you threw all your friends under the bus! LMAO!

                  "Oh, By the way..."   <---------- LOL

                  "...my friend won't be doing that anymore... he's getting up in age now... he's tired of making all that money... too boring... wants to do exciting things..." Green laugh

                  "He won't be giving me the numbers either... oh well... I doubt he'll even answer my email... oh well..."  ROFL LMAO!

                   

                  Hee hee hee, you're a terrible liar but at least you're funny!  LOL


                                                               
                                       
                                                           

                   

                   

                   

                   

                                                                                                                     

                  "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                              --Edmund Burke

                   

                   


                    United States
                    Member #75358
                    June 1, 2009
                    5345 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: August 28, 2011, 12:01 am - IP Logged

                    LOL, that was a classic!

                    I love how subtle you were when you threw all your friends under the bus! LMAO!

                    "Oh, By the way..."   <---------- LOL

                    "...my friend won't be doing that anymore... he's getting up in age now... he's tired of making all that money... too boring... wants to do exciting things..." Green laugh

                    "He won't be giving me the numbers either... oh well... I doubt he'll even answer my email... oh well..."  ROFL LMAO!

                     

                    Hee hee hee, you're a terrible liar but at least you're funny!  LOL

                    For your information, he's the one that said he's getting too old for this. He's 69 1/2 years old. It's tiring and meticulous work to do all those numbers. You think he hits a button and that's all there is?

                    Remember, I've talked to him many times on the phone, and i sometimes have trouble understanding what he's saying because he's on the computer fiddling around with the numbers as we speak, so he's mumbling sometimes.

                    Too much Jack tonight Ridge...lol

                      Avatar
                      Kentucky
                      United States
                      Member #32652
                      February 14, 2006
                      7314 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: August 28, 2011, 1:53 am - IP Logged

                      What I was trying to say was that he will lose over time because he is playing 6500 combos for a 65 percent chance of winning 9000 dollars.

                       

                      Well he said he's betting .25 cents each, so the payout and price would be a quarter of that, but with the same principle.

                       

                      He's also playing those smaller pools, in which, I'm assuming he wagers more -  which would increase his volitility, so it'd increase the chances of him coming out ahead, OR behind the odds of winning.

                       

                      Either way, the house only pays him out 10 percent of the odds, so unless he can continously beat the odds indefinetly, which is highly unlikely, he will lose in the long term.

                       

                      So the odds favor him winning, but when he wins he wins 90 percent of what the odds way he should, if they paid even odds.  If he loses, he still loses.  I didn't mean it to say the odds don't favor him winning on any particular draw, they do, because he's playing more than half the numbers.  But they don't favor him longterm, because he'll only win 90 percent of what true odds would give him.

                      "What I was trying to say was that he will lose over time because he is playing 6500 combos for a 65 percent chance of winning 9000 dollars."

                      9000 to 1 is the maximum payoff odds and you can only get that by betting one number. Since he is betting multiple combinations, the best payoff odds he can expect to get by betting $3000 is 2.75 to 1. I thought the "Don't Pass" Craps comparison would show the effect when the odds favor a bet and the payoff is fixed. And that's why I said I wouldn't be commenting if Mr. X was just betting $1625 on the 6500 combos because it would be a bad bet. Even though the odds of winning that bet favor him by 1.87 to 1, he must win at least $869 to make it a fair bet. Since he can only win $625, it would be a terrible bet. 

                      "He's also playing those smaller pools, in which, I'm assuming he wagers more -  which would increase his volitility, so it'd increase the chances of him coming out ahead, OR behind the odds of winning."

                      I was just guessing how the other 5500 combos (based on the $3000 in bets comments) would be distributed in the 4 other polls because Joker doesn't know the exact details of the system. All I'm trying to do is to determine if by adding the 4 polls to the main poll, can he get paid more than his starting odds on a fixed payoff.

                      "So the odds favor him winning, but when he wins he wins 90 percent of what the odds way he should, if they paid even odds."

                      Mr. X has to win one bet when one of the 6500 combos are drawn and since we were told some of them are in each of 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the other pools, we know he can have 2, 3, 4, or 5 wins. We know 1 win would be terrible bet and even worse after betting the same numbers more times. 2 wins is under a fair bet so he needs to average at least 3 wins. 

                      In Craps on the "Don't" side if 6 or 8 is the point, even or fair odds would be betting $6 to win $5 but they pay you $6 so you get a 120% return. The odds favor the "Don't" player 3 to 2 when 5 or 9 is the point and 2 to 1 when 4 or 10 is the point. 5 or 9 gets a 175% return and 4 or 10 gets 200% over what's considered even or fair odds. In Craps the house edge is based on combining all the bets and on some bets the payoff edge is almost 17%. Pass line and/or Come bet players can lower the house edge to 1.62 by taking advantage of the free odds all casinos give. In Roulette the payoff edges on all the bets with maybe the exception of one (the only 5 number one chip bet, 1, 2, 3, 0, and 00), is 5.26%.

                      It's possible Joker's friend is getting more than fair odds value, but without any more information, we can't determine if he can win more than a fair bet even if he wins 3. Fair bet mean he has to win at least $100 for every $187 he wagers.

                      You're suggesting or probably claiming lottery players can't t lower the house edge with creative bets, but have you done all the math and looked at every possible bet?

                        rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                        Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                        United States
                        Member #73904
                        April 28, 2009
                        14903 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: August 28, 2011, 1:10 pm - IP Logged

                        For your information, he's the one that said he's getting too old for this. He's 69 1/2 years old. It's tiring and meticulous work to do all those numbers. You think he hits a button and that's all there is?

                        Remember, I've talked to him many times on the phone, and i sometimes have trouble understanding what he's saying because he's on the computer fiddling around with the numbers as we speak, so he's mumbling sometimes.

                        Too much Jack tonight Ridge...lol

                        LOL, yeah, I understand, joker. It's perfectly understandable.

                        He's made a million and a half in six months on Pick4 and it's just so tiring he doesn't want to do it anymore.LOL

                        And though you've talked to him on the phone many times, he mumbles, so you don't want to waste your time talking to him just for the sake of cracking the code on Pick4 to win millions on a regular basis. That would be too much of a hassle. It'd be better to just to drive a cab the rest of your life.

                        And you wouldn't want to bother your friends with the numbers he mumbles to you anyway cuz they could be wrong. Don't you just hate mumblers?ROFL

                        Yeah joker, that all makes perfect sense!Green laugh 

                        Thanks for looking out for your buddies, buddy!


                                                                     
                                             
                                                                 

                         

                         

                         

                         

                                                                                                                           

                        "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                    --Edmund Burke

                         

                         


                          United States
                          Member #75358
                          June 1, 2009
                          5345 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: August 28, 2011, 1:38 pm - IP Logged

                          LOL, yeah, I understand, joker. It's perfectly understandable.

                          He's made a million and a half in six months on Pick4 and it's just so tiring he doesn't want to do it anymore.LOL

                          And though you've talked to him on the phone many times, he mumbles, so you don't want to waste your time talking to him just for the sake of cracking the code on Pick4 to win millions on a regular basis. That would be too much of a hassle. It'd be better to just to drive a cab the rest of your life.

                          And you wouldn't want to bother your friends with the numbers he mumbles to you anyway cuz they could be wrong. Don't you just hate mumblers?ROFL

                          Yeah joker, that all makes perfect sense!Green laugh 

                          Thanks for looking out for your buddies, buddy!

                          I don't have any problem with mumblers, as long as they mumble the numbers into the email and send them to me. I wish I could speak that well If and when I reach 69.

                          At any rate, why do you say Thanx a lot for looking out buddy when you never believed this in the first place, but now that there's a chance of all his info leaving for good, you want in on the action...lol

                          Below is the PM he sent me, so judge for yourself. Remember I said h never ever posted even once?

                          pic

                            Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                            New Jersey
                            United States
                            Member #99032
                            October 18, 2010
                            1439 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: August 28, 2011, 1:53 pm - IP Logged

                            Stack, I barely know how to play craps, so I'm not really sure how to do take what you said in.

                             

                            But based on my understanding of the Don't Pass bet, you're forgetting to show the effect of getting a 2,3,12 or 7/11 on the come out roll - which makes the edge of the much small - but existant.  But I'm not really 100% sure what you're asking on that.  I also know most Casinos allow to to take the odds - and that lowers the edge significantly.

                             

                            It's not really possible for him to get more than fair odds, but that's because in order to win more than 1 bet's worth, he has to bet more than 1 bet.  So - he'll always get 90 percent of what the odds of him winning with that number, multiplied by the dollar amount he put on that number that night.

                             

                            Which is why I've said it's possible to win, but more possible to lose.  That's what volitality is in the gaming industry - it's a measure of variance, how far apart the wins and losses are in terms of what your bets are.  A more volatile game has more losers, but bigger wins when you do win, which means you can be ahead by placing a wager that wins fairly easily, but it's not really "easy" to win that bet, since there are many more outcomes possible.

                             

                            EG:  On a roulette wheel, a bet on a single number is far more volitile than a bet on Black or Red.  It's easier to come out far ahead over ten spins betting on one number than on one color, but the most likely event in either scenario is a loss.

                            The Free Dictionary: existence definition: '''ob


                              United States
                              Member #75358
                              June 1, 2009
                              5345 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: August 28, 2011, 1:56 pm - IP Logged

                              Stack, I barely know how to play craps, so I'm not really sure how to do take what you said in.

                               

                              But based on my understanding of the Don't Pass bet, you're forgetting to show the effect of getting a 2,3,12 or 7/11 on the come out roll - which makes the edge of the much small - but existant.  But I'm not really 100% sure what you're asking on that.  I also know most Casinos allow to to take the odds - and that lowers the edge significantly.

                               

                              It's not really possible for him to get more than fair odds, but that's because in order to win more than 1 bet's worth, he has to bet more than 1 bet.  So - he'll always get 90 percent of what the odds of him winning with that number, multiplied by the dollar amount he put on that number that night.

                               

                              Which is why I've said it's possible to win, but more possible to lose.  That's what volitality is in the gaming industry - it's a measure of variance, how far apart the wins and losses are in terms of what your bets are.  A more volatile game has more losers, but bigger wins when you do win, which means you can be ahead by placing a wager that wins fairly easily, but it's not really "easy" to win that bet, since there are many more outcomes possible.

                               

                              EG:  On a roulette wheel, a bet on a single number is far more volitile than a bet on Black or Red.  It's easier to come out far ahead over ten spins betting on one number than on one color, but the most likely event in either scenario is a loss.

                              The Free Dictionary: existence definition: '''ob

                               It's easier to come out far ahead over ten spins betting on one number than on one color, but the most likely event in either scenario is a loss.

                               

                              How do you figure? Betting on black or red is a 50/50 bet. Betting on a number, there is 1 in 38...What?

                                 
                                Page 10 of 18