Welcome Guest
You last visited January 20, 2017, 2:54 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Odds on Misinformation

Topic closed. 60 replies. Last post 5 years ago by nickbrownsfan.

 Page 4 of 5
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19900 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 15, 2012, 9:59 pm - IP Logged

I think everyone knows that if you start looking for numbers that have resulted in wins in the past you are on the wrong track.

Let's again use the MM as an example: Odds of winning with any numbers are 1 in 175,711,536. That means there are approximately 176 million plays you could make. If I check the winners in previous games winning numbers will be only a tiny portion of all those 176 million possibilities - because we haven't played 176 million games yet. Does this mean those previous winning numbers/plays are more likely than the rest of those 175,711,536 plays to win the next time? Absolutely not!

Absolutely not!

You assume something to be a fact that you do not know.

I think of MegaMillions as two lotteries, a 5/56 with 3,819,816 possible combination and a 1/46 with 46 possible combinations.  The odds of hitting them both on one ticket are  1: 175,711,536.  While the odds of any two combinations that have hit together ever hitting together again are unlikey, the odds of combinations repeating in one of the two games are very likely.  The megaballs are always repeating and I suspect one of the five number combinations will repeat before 10% (3,800)of all the possible five combinations are drawn because it has happened in other pick5 games that I have observed.

Ohio has had two pick5 games, a 5/36 and 5/39 and the old 5/36 which had 2800 drawings had 8 combinations repeat and the new 5/39 has had almost as many drawings so far and has had 5 combinations repeat so far and the same is likely to happen in MM.

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

bgonÃ§alves
Brasil
Member #92564
June 9, 2010
2134 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 15, 2012, 10:03 pm - IP Logged

Hello, caution, if you get 10 draws of all lotteries in the world since pick4. pick5 pick6 etc ... view all results of the world, and divide into 4 parts, in 87% of lottery numbers will be in three sections, until the eurominhao, from today until 10 draws of all lotteries in the world, you can create up to simulate more lotteries
And make billions of pairings, 80% of the draws will be in three sectors or three groups,

cleveland ohio
United States
Member #65897
October 9, 2008
275 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 16, 2012, 12:34 am - IP Logged

Coin flip: p(face) = 0.5

I love math.. flip a coin you should have 50-50 chance right? the Farther you go out the closer you will get yet the more you will lose. This is a fact. Do the math.

What do you mean? Explain yourself.

Ok you have to really think about this. IF you are flipping a coin betting on a 50=50 prop then if the first 10 come out 4-6 then you are at 40% on the losing end ignore heads or tails now take the game out t0 100 the final is 42 -58 your closer having now reduced the odds to 42% thus gaining an advantage right? Wrong the other side has turned up 52-38 after the inital 10 draws. Take it out to 1000 lets say you now get 450-550 you have again increased to being within 3 more % yet you are bleeding red.

Appleton, Wi
United States
Member #118178
October 24, 2011
199 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 16, 2012, 1:17 am - IP Logged

I think everyone knows that if you start looking for numbers that have resulted in wins in the past you are on the wrong track.

Let's again use the MM as an example: Odds of winning with any numbers are 1 in 175,711,536. That means there are approximately 176 million plays you could make. If I check the winners in previous games winning numbers will be only a tiny portion of all those 176 million possibilities - because we haven't played 176 million games yet. Does this mean those previous winning numbers/plays are more likely than the rest of those 175,711,536 plays to win the next time? Absolutely not!

Cautious:

Don't want to be rude so please excuse my suspicion, but what do you plan to do with this information once revealed?

BlueDuck

Appleton, Wi
United States
Member #118178
October 24, 2011
199 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 16, 2012, 8:47 am - IP Logged

Cautious:

Appreciate your well thought out posts. I'm still trying to make sence of it all.

The thread listed uses stemplots made from the past 15 draws for the Badger 5/31 Lottery game. No longer works.

BlueDuck

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Appleton, Wi
United States
Member #118178
October 24, 2011
199 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 17, 2012, 8:04 am - IP Logged

Dice Game and Lottery Game Comparison

same odds 1:36

or

Why to choose or not to choose 1-2-3-. . .  in Lottery

Here is a "sums chart" for a Dice Game using two die, one white and one red. The sums chart list all 36 combinations.

SUMS CHART for dice game

2           3           4           5           6           7           8           9          10          11          12

1-1        1-2        1-3        1-4        1-5       1-6        2-6         3-6       4-6         5-6        6-6

2-1        2-2        2-3        2-4       2-5        3-5         4-5       5-5         6-5

3-1        3-2        3-3       3-4        4-4         5-4       6-4

4-1        4-2       4-3        5-3         6-3

5-1       5-2        6-2

6-1

Any of the 36 combinations has the same chance of being rolled. 1-1, 6-6, or 3-4 can all hit and they all have the same chance.

...but the object of the dice game is to roll a seven or eleven, to win. Many chances (eight) for the right winning combination to pop up.

Why can't lotteries be like that?

It is my hope that I can prove to myself, at another time, that "7"s hit more times in dice for the same reason, that "sums combinations" of 150 hit more times in a 6/49 Lottery.

.....................................................

Here is a "sums chart" for a drop ball Lottery Game using 9 balls. 2/9 odds 1:36. The sums chart list all 36 combinations.

Choose 2 different numbers from 1 through 9

SUMS CHART for 2/9 lottery

3           4           5           6           7           8           9          10          11          12          13

1-2         1-3       1-4        1-5        1-6        1-7        1-8       1-9         2-9         3-9        4-9

2-3        2-4        2-5        2-6        2-7       2-8         3-8         4-8        5-8

3-4        3-5        3-6       3-7         4-7         5-7        6-7

4-5       4-6         5-6

14          15          16          17

5-9         6-9         7-9         8-9

6-8         7-8

If this lottery could be won by "rolling a 10", any one of the 4 combinations would be a winner.

Why can't Lottery Games be more like dice games?

Just a few thoughts,

BlueDuck

Correction.

"It is my hope that I can prove to myself, at another time, that "7s" hit more times in dice for the same reason that "sums combinations" of 150 hit more often in a 6/49 Lottery" should read:

It is my hope that I can prove to myself that "sums combinations" of 150 hit more often in a 6/49 Lottery Game for a different reason than why "7s" hit more often in dice.

Using the "dice game" analogy to support the theory of "Most Probable Sums" doesn't work.

BlueDuck

The KEY ingredient is Combos & Patterns
Elgin, IL
United States
Member #68867
January 1, 2009
1224 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 17, 2012, 3:18 pm - IP Logged

Much misinformation has been posted about the odds of winning the lotto with specific strategies. A common mistake, seen many times, promotes the false idea that the odds of winning the lotto by selecting a sequence of numbers (2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 7) is lower than selecting non-sequenced numbers (8, 15, 24, 31, 48; 5). This idea is false. Any numbers you pick, sequenced or not, have exactly the same probability of winning. This statistical fact seems to be counter intuitive to many people. I’ve seen posts on lotto websites claiming that you will not see a sequence of numbers win the lotto in your life time. That is true, but it’s also true for any non-sequenced set of numbers – the odds are exactly the same.

Let’s look at this issue another way. Suppose the lottery was based on a set of pictures of things. Each number would be replaced by a picture. To play, you’d pick pictures instead of numbers. With pictures of things there would be no illusion of any sequences being somehow special and unlikely to win, so I guess most people would understand that all picture picks would have exactly the same odds of winning. Now consider that the numbers we use to play lotto are just symbols; they have no numeric value as far as the lottery process is concerned. The lottery would work exactly the same with any symbols or pictures. The lottery selection of a winner wouldn’t operate any differently if we used pictures of trees, people, animals, dots, dashes, or other symbols; and there’s no difference when we use those marks that we see as mathematic symbols. Those marks that we see as numbers could just as well be chicken scratchings as far as the lottery process is concerned – for lottery purposes there’s no sequence to those numbers, they’re all just random pictures.

Take a look at any of my posts in Pick 5 and/or Jackpot Games - They all begin with "Combos & Patterns".  We all know what the odds for a given game are, but certain combinations and patterns come in more often then others.  Take the Wisconsin Badger 5 game - To date there were 3,316 games played - I will give you a list of only the 5 of 5 that hit more than once.  These games make up 97 of the 3,316 games to date.

 2003-02-26 6 10 21 22 28 2006-10-03 6 10 21 22 28 2008-08-08 6 10 21 22 28 ************* 2004-08-11 1 2 11 17 26 2007-03-22 1 2 11 17 26 ************* 2004-07-26 1 4 9 10 12 2005-12-01 1 4 9 10 12 ************* 2004-03-19 1 4 10 18 25 2009-12-13 1 4 10 18 25 ************* 2005-08-03 1 5 13 28 29 2010-11-04 1 5 13 28 29 ************* 2006-11-08 1 6 22 23 29 2009-04-25 1 6 22 23 29 ************* 2006-08-19 1 7 12 26 29 2009-09-19 1 7 12 26 29 ************* 2004-09-22 1 8 15 29 30 2010-11-03 1 8 15 29 30 ************* 2005-08-09 1 8 17 19 20 2009-11-15 1 8 17 19 20 ************* 2004-08-28 1 11 23 24 26 2008-08-27 1 11 23 24 26 ************* 2007-05-15 1 13 19 21 31 2010-04-13 1 13 19 21 31 ************* 2006-06-29 2 3 8 9 10 2008-07-20 2 3 8 9 10 ************* 2005-04-13 2 5 7 24 31 2011-09-30 2 5 7 24 31 ************* 2005-06-06 2 6 12 18 28 2008-10-20 2 6 12 18 28 ************* 2008-02-04 2 8 9 16 23 2008-08-07 2 8 9 16 23 ************* 2005-08-18 2 8 11 12 31 2005-11-07 2 8 11 12 31 ************* 2004-09-16 2 11 19 26 30 2004-10-08 2 11 19 26 30 ************* 2007-10-11 3 4 7 13 24 2009-12-19 3 4 7 13 24 ************* 2003-07-06 3 4 19 29 31 2007-11-06 3 4 19 29 31 ************* 2004-09-07 3 5 7 14 25 2005-06-26 3 5 7 14 25 ************* 2005-11-18 3 5 11 24 27 2009-08-03 3 5 11 24 27 ************* 2010-09-28 4 7 10 25 30 2011-03-16 4 7 10 25 30 ************* 2004-01-22 4 8 26 29 31 2004-09-01 4 8 26 29 31 ************* 2003-03-23 4 9 10 24 25 2012-03-12 4 9 10 24 25 ************* 2005-07-10 4 10 11 22 26 2011-07-11 4 10 11 22 26 ************* 2004-07-21 4 12 15 24 27 2008-04-11 4 12 15 24 27 ************* 2006-05-29 4 15 17 21 25 2006-10-19 4 15 17 21 25 ************* 2006-10-15 4 18 22 26 29 2009-04-19 4 18 22 26 29 ************* 2007-02-09 5 6 8 15 19 2007-03-20 5 6 8 15 19 ************* 2004-04-06 5 10 26 27 31 2009-04-04 5 10 26 27 31 ************* 2007-08-16 5 13 17 19 29 2007-09-29 5 13 17 19 29 ************* 2003-07-08 5 15 18 22 30 2005-10-23 5 15 18 22 30 ************* 2011-10-19 5 17 21 26 28 2011-12-17 5 17 21 26 28 ************* 2003-10-07 6 10 14 23 26 2006-11-13 6 10 14 23 26 ************* 2003-09-26 6 14 18 21 24 2011-07-06 6 14 18 21 24 ************* 2005-06-16 6 16 19 21 28 2005-07-07 6 16 19 21 28 ************* 2004-02-15 6 17 21 23 26 2006-03-15 6 17 21 23 26 ************* 2007-08-22 7 9 15 19 31 2009-11-29 7 9 15 19 31 ************* 2004-11-26 7 10 12 19 31 2005-02-18 7 10 12 19 31 ************* 2007-01-15 7 12 23 26 30 2009-06-25 7 12 23 26 30 ************* 2007-02-19 8 9 11 18 25 2009-06-08 8 9 11 18 25 ************* 2007-12-21 8 12 15 18 26 2010-06-30 8 12 15 18 26 ************* 2005-02-09 10 16 19 21 27 2005-10-10 10 16 19 21 27 ************* 2008-08-16 11 12 14 18 25 2010-06-04 11 12 14 18 25 ************* 2005-10-05 12 15 17 27 30 2009-01-08 12 15 17 27 30 ************* 2005-02-17 13 14 15 20 31 2008-02-21 13 14 15 20 31 ************* 2003-03-29 14 16 22 24 29 2004-04-14 14 16 22 24 29 ************* 2007-10-06 23 24 25 27 28 2008-08-06 23 24 25 27 28 *************
Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 17, 2012, 3:42 pm - IP Logged

Ok you have to really think about this. IF you are flipping a coin betting on a 50=50 prop then if the first 10 come out 4-6 then you are at 40% on the losing end ignore heads or tails now take the game out t0 100 the final is 42 -58 your closer having now reduced the odds to 42% thus gaining an advantage right? Wrong the other side has turned up 52-38 after the inital 10 draws. Take it out to 1000 lets say you now get 450-550 you have again increased to being within 3 more % yet you are bleeding red.

a) 4-6 for 10, that can be 0-10 or 3-7 or anthing.
b) You can be winning 10 times of ten times.
c) If you bet tail for 100 times, you might eventually win 55 times and lose 45 times.
d) On 10 000 times, you probably were right around 5 000 times, if you stuck to the same bet; but you can also have lost every single bet by betting on the same chance.

If 50 of 100 firemen die in the fire in some city, that doesn't mean that none dies in the fire in another city.
You have got the truth wrong.

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 17, 2012, 3:49 pm - IP Logged

Cautious:

Appreciate your well thought out posts. I'm still trying to make sence of it all.

The thread listed uses stemplots made from the past 15 draws for the Badger 5/31 Lottery game. No longer works.

BlueDuck

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

My stemplot generated in Excel with VBA.

 9988766655444333221 0 1133455689 99776533210 1 00112222344455567889 999977666543310 2 01122223344557888 999888766644432211000 3 0011122333345668888999 7776666544332221111 4 00111334467789 988876655432211100 5 011113344566667799 776555544322210 6 0011244556677778899 00 7

Takes a few seconds to make on any sheet with a few clicks. Here Keno.

New Member
Ventura California
United States
Member #124382
March 12, 2012
12 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 17, 2012, 5:07 pm - IP Logged

a) 4-6 for 10, that can be 0-10 or 3-7 or anthing.
b) You can be winning 10 times of ten times.
c) If you bet tail for 100 times, you might eventually win 55 times and lose 45 times.
d) On 10 000 times, you probably were right around 5 000 times, if you stuck to the same bet; but you can also have lost every single bet by betting on the same chance.

If 50 of 100 firemen die in the fire in some city, that doesn't mean that none dies in the fire in another city.
You have got the truth wrong.

Well said.

cleveland ohio
United States
Member #65897
October 9, 2008
275 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 17, 2012, 10:10 pm - IP Logged

a) 4-6 for 10, that can be 0-10 or 3-7 or anthing.
b) You can be winning 10 times of ten times.
c) If you bet tail for 100 times, you might eventually win 55 times and lose 45 times.
d) On 10 000 times, you probably were right around 5 000 times, if you stuck to the same bet; but you can also have lost every single bet by betting on the same chance.

If 50 of 100 firemen die in the fire in some city, that doesn't mean that none dies in the fire in another city.
You have got the truth wrong.

Perhaps I didnt explain myself to well so I will direct you here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

and also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Large_Numbers

cleveland ohio
United States
Member #65897
October 9, 2008
275 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 17, 2012, 10:42 pm - IP Logged

So wanted to add how was my post wrong?

I love math.. flip a coin you should have 50-50 chance right? the Farther you go out the closer you will get yet the more you will lose. This is a fact. Do the math.

So if you want to disagree with those 2 links then please do so and provide evidence to do so as well and prove that I am wrong.

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 18, 2012, 8:15 am - IP Logged

Perhaps I didnt explain myself to well so I will direct you here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

and also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Large_Numbers

You don't understand what is written on your pages.

2) I was a dealer for a year.
3) I play myself.
4) I program myself.

I say that you have got it wrong. We are talking about YOU! You are just one SAMPLE.

Take a coin, flip it on the table until you get a series of ten times face. After the tenth face continue flipping until the series breaks.
Write down every outcome and post it. Use the math of your links and show me the math probability of that.

cleveland ohio
United States
Member #65897
October 9, 2008
275 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 18, 2012, 11:40 am - IP Logged

You don't understand what is written on your pages.

2) I was a dealer for a year.
3) I play myself.
4) I program myself.

I say that you have got it wrong. We are talking about YOU! You are just one SAMPLE.

Take a coin, flip it on the table until you get a series of ten times face. After the tenth face continue flipping until the series breaks.
Write down every outcome and post it. Use the math of your links and show me the math probability of that.

The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a fair coin. With a fair coin, the outcomes in different tosses are statistically independent and the probability of getting heads on a single toss is exactly 12 (one in two). It follows that the probability of getting two heads in two tosses is 14 (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is 18 (one in eight). In general, if we let Ai be the event that tossi of a fair coin comes up heads, then we have,

.

Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row, so that if the next coin toss were also to come up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. Since the probability of a run of five successive heads is only 132 (one in thirty-two), a believer in the gambler's fallacy might believe that this next flip is less likely to be heads than to be tails. However, this is not correct, and is a manifestation of the gambler's fallacy; the event of 5 heads in a row and the event of "first 4 heads, then a tails" are equally likely, each having probability 132. Given the first four rolls turn up heads, the probability that the next toss is a head is in fact,

.

While a run of five heads is only 132 = 0.03125, it is only thatbefore the coin is first tossed.After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are 1. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses, that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds in the future, is the fallacy.

For example, a fair coin toss is a Bernoulli trial. When a fair coin is flipped once, the theoretical probability that the outcome will be heads is equal to 1/2. Therefore, according to the law of large numbers, the proportion of heads in a "large" number of coin flips "should be" roughly 1/2. In particular, the proportion of heads after n flips will almost surely converge to 1/2 as n approaches infinity.

Though the proportion of heads (and tails) approaches 1/2, almost surely the absolute (nominal) difference in the number of heads and tails will become large as the number of flips becomes large. That is, the probability that the absolute difference is a small number, approaches zero as the number of flips becomes large. Also, almost surely the ratio of the absolute difference to the number of flips will approach zero. Intuitively, expected absolute difference grows, but at a slower rate than the number of flips, as the number of flips grows.

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 18, 2012, 12:07 pm - IP Logged

The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a fair coin. With a fair coin, the outcomes in different tosses are statistically independent and the probability of getting heads on a single toss is exactly 12 (one in two). It follows that the probability of getting two heads in two tosses is 14 (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is 18 (one in eight). In general, if we let Ai be the event that tossi of a fair coin comes up heads, then we have,

.

Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row, so that if the next coin toss were also to come up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. Since the probability of a run of five successive heads is only 132 (one in thirty-two), a believer in the gambler's fallacy might believe that this next flip is less likely to be heads than to be tails. However, this is not correct, and is a manifestation of the gambler's fallacy; the event of 5 heads in a row and the event of "first 4 heads, then a tails" are equally likely, each having probability 132. Given the first four rolls turn up heads, the probability that the next toss is a head is in fact,

.

While a run of five heads is only 132 = 0.03125, it is only thatbefore the coin is first tossed.After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are 1. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses, that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds in the future, is the fallacy.

For example, a fair coin toss is a Bernoulli trial. When a fair coin is flipped once, the theoretical probability that the outcome will be heads is equal to 1/2. Therefore, according to the law of large numbers, the proportion of heads in a "large" number of coin flips "should be" roughly 1/2. In particular, the proportion of heads after n flips will almost surely converge to 1/2 as n approaches infinity.

Though the proportion of heads (and tails) approaches 1/2, almost surely the absolute (nominal) difference in the number of heads and tails will become large as the number of flips becomes large. That is, the probability that the absolute difference is a small number, approaches zero as the number of flips becomes large. Also, almost surely the ratio of the absolute difference to the number of flips will approach zero. Intuitively, expected absolute difference grows, but at a slower rate than the number of flips, as the number of flips grows.

Stop the copy-paste! Did you do the 100 coin flips?

 Page 4 of 5