Welcome Guest
You last visited December 7, 2016, 5:07 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Do some number combinations have better odds?

Topic closed. 5280 replies. Last post 4 years ago by rdgrnr.

 Page 11 of 353
New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 4:59 pm - IP Logged

Ok, and that's a great logical conclusion. But you just figured that out logically, without doing any trial and error testing, no scientific model, no hypothesis and experimental analysis? Just logic?

I'm not trying to have a problem with anyone either. Just asking.

Well conidering that Lotteries have been run for many decades, and considering that I don't believe that there are any biases, I haven't chosen to run any trial and error testing, which I feel would be a waste of time.

I've said this to other people before, and they always seem to get offended.  But the burden of proof is on YOU GUYS, who think the lottery's odds are different than published.  I simply used the logic, followed by math.  Assuming that there are no biases, my math should be spot on.

If there are biases, then I could be wrong.  But why should I waste my time creating a scientific test that I don't think would lead anywhere?  Not to mention that there hasn't been, and I don't think there ever will be, enough draws to prove that there are biases in the way lottery balls are drawn, at least to a 95 or 99% confidence level.

And I'm also fairly confident that other people (the lottery commision, for instance) has done plenty of trial and error testing to verify a fair game.  If they didn't, their auditors should have.  If they didn't, then plenty of people trying to win probably would have.

I think my energy is better spent on games that actually have been proven to be beatable, like Poker and Blackjack.

Logic and math is the basis of pretty much all gambling.  Of course logical errors can lead to flawed math, but I'm confident I didn't make any.  (If the math was for a complex game, then I probably would, so I'd trust experts rather than myself.)

Of course, like I said, if there is bias in the way the drawings occur, then I'm wrong.  I'm just confident that's not the case.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 5:12 pm - IP Logged

Well conidering that Lotteries have been run for many decades, and considering that I don't believe that there are any biases, I haven't chosen to run any trial and error testing, which I feel would be a waste of time.

I've said this to other people before, and they always seem to get offended.  But the burden of proof is on YOU GUYS, who think the lottery's odds are different than published.  I simply used the logic, followed by math.  Assuming that there are no biases, my math should be spot on.

If there are biases, then I could be wrong.  But why should I waste my time creating a scientific test that I don't think would lead anywhere?  Not to mention that there hasn't been, and I don't think there ever will be, enough draws to prove that there are biases in the way lottery balls are drawn, at least to a 95 or 99% confidence level.

And I'm also fairly confident that other people (the lottery commision, for instance) has done plenty of trial and error testing to verify a fair game.  If they didn't, their auditors should have.  If they didn't, then plenty of people trying to win probably would have.

I think my energy is better spent on games that actually have been proven to be beatable, like Poker and Blackjack.

Logic and math is the basis of pretty much all gambling.  Of course logical errors can lead to flawed math, but I'm confident I didn't make any.  (If the math was for a complex game, then I probably would, so I'd trust experts rather than myself.)

Of course, like I said, if there is bias in the way the drawings occur, then I'm wrong.  I'm just confident that's not the case.

Ok, and that is all understandable.

But what do you do with a guy like me who comes alone and shows you a list of 100,000 lines that wins 5 out of 5 in two draws? That's is 1 in 200,000 odds.

And lets just say for discussion that it took 20 draws to hit 5 out of 5 that would still only be 1 in 2,000,000 odds as opposed to the 1 in 4,000,000 odds that you say cant be improved upon.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 5:22 pm - IP Logged

You hit two draws?  In a row?  Where?

I also don't see where you came up with 1 in 200,000.  The odds of winning two jackpots in a row with 100,000 lines are roughly one in 3 million.  The odds of winning a 5/5 with 100,000 is about 1/40, and twice in a row about 1/1600.

If you meant it only took two draws, then the odds are about 79/1600.  (Very close to 2/40)

Remember, you're talking to the guy who wrote down a set of numbers a little after turning 18, didn't play, and would have won 5 out of 5 that night.  That's about 1 in 4 million.  So yeah.  Variance, Luck, Standard Deviation, whatever you wanna call it.  Some people get lucky.  If nobody did, nobody would every play.

So I say it's purely luck.  I also wish you good luck.  (OK I don't believe "luck" can be determined until after the fact.)  So let's just say, I hope you win.  (Since I'm not playing I don't have to hope I win, I know I won't lol)

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 5:27 pm - IP Logged

You hit two draws?  In a row?  Where?

I also don't see where you came up with 1 in 200,000.  The odds of winning two jackpots in a row with 100,000 lines are roughly one in 3 million.  The odds of winning a 5/5 with 100,000 is about 1/40, and twice in a row about 1/1600.

If you meant it only took two draws, then the odds are about 79/1600.  (Very close to 2/40)

Remember, you're talking to the guy who wrote down a set of numbers a little after turning 18, didn't play, and would have won 5 out of 5 that night.  That's about 1 in 4 million.  So yeah.  Variance, Luck, Standard Deviation, whatever you wanna call it.  Some people get lucky.  If nobody did, nobody would every play.

So I say it's purely luck.  I also wish you good luck.  (OK I don't believe "luck" can be determined until after the fact.)  So let's just say, I hope you win.  (Since I'm not playing I don't have to hope I win, I know I won't lol)

I'm saying it only took two draws for me to hit 5 out of 5.

And if I can do it again?? Then will it still be luck??

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 5:42 pm - IP Logged

I'm saying it only took two draws for me to hit 5 out of 5.

And if I can do it again?? Then will it still be luck??

Yep.  Still luck.

The past has no influence or bearing on the future when it comes to random events.

In order to prove that it's not luck you'd have to do a statistical test to prove the drawings aren't normally distributed.  Thing is - that's an impossible task.

I can pretty much be sure that if you did this every draw, or every draw where your "condidtions" were satisfied, after about 20,000 trials, you'd have won about 5 out of 5 1/39 times.  The only reason I can't be 100% sure is that variance, or luck, could somehow make you beat the odds.  Not very likely, but possible.  The nature of the game is random.

In fact, if I knew your personally I'd offer you 35 to 1 odds that you wouldn't be able to get a 5 out of 5 or Jackpot any drawing you picked, even with 100,000 lines..  I'd figure that you have a 1/38.2ish chance, I'd have about a 5.75% advantage over you.

Upon actually doing the math, I figured the exact odds of getting either 5/5 or JP in 100,000 lines exactly is 1 in 38.19....  When I gave you the equation before, I forgot to include the fact that they can be in any order except the Mega ball.  The real equation is (56*55*54*53*52)/(5*4*3*2*1)*46.  Exclude the 46 if trying to figure the odds of 5/5 OR JP.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 5:54 pm - IP Logged

Yep.  Still luck.

The past has no influence or bearing on the future when it comes to random events.

In order to prove that it's not luck you'd have to do a statistical test to prove the drawings aren't normally distributed.  Thing is - that's an impossible task.

I can pretty much be sure that if you did this every draw, or every draw where your "condidtions" were satisfied, after about 20,000 trials, you'd have won about 5 out of 5 1/39 times.  The only reason I can't be 100% sure is that variance, or luck, could somehow make you beat the odds.  Not very likely, but possible.  The nature of the game is random.

In fact, if I knew your personally I'd offer you 35 to 1 odds that you wouldn't be able to get a 5 out of 5 or Jackpot any drawing you picked, even with 100,000 lines..  I'd figure that you have a 1/38.2ish chance, I'd have about a 5.75% advantage over you.

Upon actually doing the math, I figured the exact odds of getting either 5/5 or JP in 100,000 lines exactly is 1 in 38.19....  When I gave you the equation before, I forgot to include the fact that they can be in any order except the Mega ball.  The real equation is (56*55*54*53*52)/(5*4*3*2*1)*46.  Exclude the 46 if trying to figure the odds of 5/5 OR JP.

Upon actually doing the math, I figured the exact odds of getting either 5/5 or JP in 100,000 lines exactly is 1 in 38.19

But I just did it in TWO draws.

And I'm saying I can do it again. Not in two draws again (necessarily) but based on your post anything less than 38 draws gives me "BETTER" odds than what you say cant be improved upon.

Its just an experiment. What do you say?

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 6:29 pm - IP Logged

Just because it's an average of on in 38.19 doesn't mean that you can't hit it in one draw, two draws, etc.  That's what variance is.  In the short term, anything can happen.  Some things are more or less likely, but anything can happen in the short term.  In the long term, anything can potentially still happen, but it becomes next to impossible.  Beating those odds by more than just a marginal amount in 50,000 draws would probably be a 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000 propisition (I just made up that number, obviously, but you get the point)

If you did this every draw, the longer you did it, the closer you'd get to one in 38.19.

You'd need about 20,000-25,000 draws to be at a 99% confidence level that something non random happened.  That's why I said it's basically an impossible task.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 6:42 pm - IP Logged

Just because it's an average of on in 38.19 doesn't mean that you can't hit it in one draw, two draws, etc.  That's what variance is.  In the short term, anything can happen.  Some things are more or less likely, but anything can happen in the short term.  In the long term, anything can potentially still happen, but it becomes next to impossible.  Beating those odds by more than just a marginal amount in 50,000 draws would probably be a 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000 propisition (I just made up that number, obviously, but you get the point)

If you did this every draw, the longer you did it, the closer you'd get to one in 38.19.

You'd need about 20,000-25,000 draws to be at a 99% confidence level that something non random happened.  That's why I said it's basically an impossible task.

I understand what you are saying. I'm not try to prove that the draw is non-random.......

I'm just trying to find a way to get BETTER ODDS.

If I can do that on a consistent basis doss it really matter HOW?

I don't care about fighting over who is right and who is wrong.

My only interest is to find a "BETTER" way to WIN the prize.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 6:53 pm - IP Logged

But they are one in the same.

If the game's random, you can't attain better odds, only higher expected value (assuming it's a Progressive Jackpot or Pari-mutual game), or use wheeling to change variance on your overall bet (any game where you can pick your own numbers).

I've told you what I think is a better way to play, and that is to pick higher numbers to avoid sharing the Jackpot.  That's why I suggetsed wheeling the High numbers, rather than Even.  (the optimal way would be to pick combos that nobody else has, but I don't know where you'd find that information.)

Of course, I also doubt many players play all even, but it seems more likely to me than all high.  Just because some people must have all birthday that are even.

I guess at this point I already put in my 2 cents quite a few times.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  I just hope you consider what I've said, because it really all just is luck of the draw.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 7:14 pm - IP Logged

But they are one in the same.

If the game's random, you can't attain better odds, only higher expected value (assuming it's a Progressive Jackpot or Pari-mutual game), or use wheeling to change variance on your overall bet (any game where you can pick your own numbers).

I've told you what I think is a better way to play, and that is to pick higher numbers to avoid sharing the Jackpot.  That's why I suggetsed wheeling the High numbers, rather than Even.  (the optimal way would be to pick combos that nobody else has, but I don't know where you'd find that information.)

Of course, I also doubt many players play all even, but it seems more likely to me than all high.  Just because some people must have all birthday that are even.

I guess at this point I already put in my 2 cents quite a few times.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  I just hope you consider what I've said, because it really all just is luck of the draw.

But they are not one in the same.

SOME NUMBER COMBINATIONS HAVE BETTER ODDS

Because of predictability.

The point everyone seems missing here is that a definable GROUP OF LINES is not the same as a SINGLE LINE whose odds are 1 in 3,904,701. Group odds are not level like single line odds.

Which increases predictability to some degree.

How much more predictability is the question I'm trying to answer?

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 7:25 pm - IP Logged

None more predictable.

Groups of lines simply change variance.  There is no predicting a random event.  If you could predict a random event more than the odds dictate, then it's not random.

Hell if you could predict it less than the odds dictate, it's not random.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 7:37 pm - IP Logged

None more predictable.

Groups of lines simply change variance.  There is no predicting a random event.  If you could predict a random event more than the odds dictate, then it's not random.

Hell if you could predict it less than the odds dictate, it's not random.

Ok, well you make a very good point. Which is why I have said that it CAN be random, without being TOTALLY random.

Otherwise how can a group that represents 2.6% of the overall total number of lines, show up in the results 2.6% of the time?

That's perfect consistency, not randomness.

And if its consistent, its predicable.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 7:41 pm - IP Logged

Random means random.  It's going to match very closely in the long term, and more closesly the longer it goes.

Go ahead and look at all of the characteristics.  I doubt they are all that close.  If you're talking about a 1 in 38.2 chance, then you are probably going to be close within a few thousand draws.  Maybe not perfectly matching, maybe almost perfectly matching, or maybe close, but they probably aren't that skewed.

They aren't perfectly consistent, they are just close, as you'd expect with a normal distribution.  That's what you'd expect if it was random.  The longer the game goes, the close to that 2.6% it'll become.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 7:45 pm - IP Logged

BTW people have tested things like that on things like a Roulette wheel, which has almost the same odds.

The result was that in the short term, everything looked skewed and random, but taken as a whole, the larger the sample, the closer it matched a normal distribution.  What that means is that in the long term results are predictable but in the short term they aren't.  You'll never be able to more acurately predict when one of these events than a RNG on a PC can.  Because it's all random.

Go ahead, look through when those 2.6% chances occured.  I haven't, but I'd be willing to bet they weren't in any set interval, or even close.  They were probably randomly spread out through the draws with no real pattern that will last.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 17, 2012, 7:48 pm - IP Logged

I have already done the math on this thread, Even numbers had come in 41 times in 1572 draws.

Consistency that's perfect to 1/100th of a percent.

 Page 11 of 353