Welcome Guest
You last visited April 28, 2017, 11:47 am
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 179 of 353

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 10:49 am - IP Logged

btw...... You had a spelling error in the word mathematics.......

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 10:53 am - IP Logged

I have never seem a great poker player that did NOT make amazing use of intuitive powers.....

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 10:55 am - IP Logged

Set of 18 for MM. Fri. Dec. 14, 2012.

03 05 07 11 12 19 22 24 28 31 32 39 43 44 51 52 54 56

bonus ball 10

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 11:03 am - IP Logged

Set of 18 elimination numbers for MM. Fri. Dec. 14, 2012.

01 02 08 10 15 16 17 20 31 35 39 42 43 51 53 54 56 59

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 11:05 am - IP Logged

Set of 12 for MM live play Fri. Dec. 14, 2012.

03 05 07 11 12 19 22 24 28 32 44 52

bonus ball 10

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 11:09 am - IP Logged

Wheel:  Pick 5 Key 4 if 4 of 12

Tickets:  47

Description: Minimum 4-number match, if 4 numbers drawn fall within your set of 12 numbers.

Input:  3, 24, 11, 28, 7, 32, 12, 44, 52, 5, 19, 22

1. 03-11-24-28-52
2. 03-07-11-24-44
3. 03-11-19-24-32
4. 03-05-11-12-24
5. 03-05-11-22-24
6. 03-05-07-24-28
7. 03-07-22-24-28
8. 03-24-28-32-44
9. 03-12-19-24-28
10. 03-19-22-24-28
11. 03-07-12-24-32
12. 03-07-19-24-52
13. 03-22-24-32-44
14. 03-05-24-32-52
15. 03-12-24-44-52
16. 03-12-22-24-52
17. 03-05-19-24-44
18. 03-07-11-19-28
19. 03-11-12-28-32
20. 03-11-22-28-32
21. 03-05-11-28-44
22. 03-05-07-11-32
23. 03-07-11-22-32
24. 03-07-11-12-52
25. 03-11-32-44-52
26. 03-11-12-19-44
27. 03-11-12-19-22
28. 03-11-22-44-52
29. 03-05-11-19-52
30. 03-07-28-32-52
31. 03-07-12-28-44
32. 03-07-22-28-44
33. 03-05-19-28-32
34. 03-12-22-28-44
35. 03-05-12-28-52
36. 03-19-28-44-52
37. 03-05-22-28-52
38. 03-07-19-32-44
39. 03-05-07-12-19
40. 03-05-07-12-22
41. 03-05-07-44-52
42. 03-07-19-22-52
43. 03-05-12-32-44
44. 03-12-19-32-52
45. 03-05-12-22-32
46. 03-19-22-32-52
47. 03-05-19-22-44

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4287 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 11:25 am - IP Logged

Boney526

Probability and statistics define very well certain aspects of game theory but like anything else who is to say

if it's complete.  Newton defined what we thought for many years and was later proven wrong and that is the

nature of discovery.  I have no problem with probability it's just that most don't know how to ues it.  Chance

is a word that covers so much that any win can be defined by it.  It's possible that the same set of numbers

could appear for twenty games in a row and the drawing could still be fair.  There is a chance that this could

happen although it is not very probable.  While the in a single drawing every number has the same exact odds

of showing this makes some to believe that self picks are tom foolery.  Lets say that the numbers drawn in the

next power ball drawing are 1-2-3-4-5 BB=6.  This set has the same exact odds of being drawn as any other

set in the matrix and I think most all of us know this.  However over several draws we would not expect it to

show several times because the drawing is random.  Some people get all excited and like to mention balls bouncing

around inside a hopper as proof that we cannot predict the next set no matter how hard we try.  Let's consider the

game of blackjack for a moment.  Most people consider it possible to win at this game if they follow a few rules and

make larger bets at the right time.   It still envolves chance because they cannot know for sure that the cards will

fall in their favor.   The game of black jack can be exploited because we know how many of each suite and value are

in the deck.  If we count the cards then we can calculate the probability for what the next card might be.  Once the

card is delt then it is certain.   Now back to the lottery,  If we consider only that each number has the exact same

changes of being drawn then we would be foolish to think that we could make any kind of calculation that might

prove better than another.   So in order to increase our chances we must dig a little deeper and consider a few other

options.  It does not matter how they select the numbers as lond as the selection process is not rigged in some

manner which would effect the set produced.  Regardless of which numbers are drawn the full set of numbers already

exist within the matrix and the drawing is nothing more than taking a random sample from the whole.  The thing with

random samples are that  we are almost certain that two random samples wiill return two different items or sets of

numbers in this case.  Fill your bathtub with marbles and try to pick the same one twice in a row blindfolded.  Now

lets take a little different look at the sets of numbers and not the numbers themselves.  Not all sets have the same

exact properities.  If you study random sampling you will find out that by taking a small sample from a much larger

pool you can often define the pool by the samples taken.  This is common practice in manufacturing al over the world

as a means to measure the number of defects within a process.   If 10 out of every 100 random samples show a defect

then they can be almost certain that if they inspected every product that they would find that 10% were defective.

I view the lottery as taking random samples from a much larger pool.  Let say that I look at the last 100 drawings and

find that 40 of them had 3 odd numbers.  I might conclude that 3 odd numbers are hot hittters but if I know that around

40% of the sets in the matrix have 3 odd numbers then it makes sence.  While I cannot say that 3 odd numbers will apear

in the next drawing I do know that around 40% of all draws will.  If I choose to play only sets with 3 odd numbers then

I can expect to be correct around 40% of the time.  However if I play sets with 1 odd number then I could only expect to

be correct 12% of the time.  Because random sampling almost ensures that the samples will mimic the whole we now

have a bias for one value over another.  While I have no pre-knowledge that the next draw will be 3 odd I do know what

to expect over the next several draws.  In blackjack the cards are removed from the deck which creates a bias for some

values to be greater than others.  This gives the player an edge if he can make a few calculations and keep count of what

has been removed.  With the lottery the sets are returned to the deck so to say but the deck contains a bias for some

values over others.  This is what every system should try to exploit and it why many believe that a smarter set cand be

built and played.  The odds never change for the game but that does not mean that we cannot put ourselves in a better

position just like the blackjack player.  For any system to do better that chance is a wide wide wide world of meaningless

chatter because chance can be used to cover anything.  Even a 10 game winning streak can be charged to chance because

no matter how improbable it might be it is still possible.   All the self confessed staticians love to take bets and try to look

big but it's foolishness to me.  If I held my hand behind my back and asked how many fingers am I folding I could fool you

evry time because I could adjust them based on your answer.  If chance can cover every possible outcome then why would

anyone try to beat it.  If I win more than my share of prizes using my methods it could still fall within the realm of chance so

how would anyone know if it was my methods  or a product of mear chance or a mixture of both.  The bottom line here is that

a smarter set can be gotten building your own set than a QP but is is also possible that a QP could produce a set as smart

as a SP.   I have heard many different challenges made here at LP.  I have proven it to myself many times and we see it happen

many times right in front of our eyes.  If QP's are better than SP's then why did they have to sele over a billion of them before

someone hit a JP with only 175 million possibilities.  If I played as a system every possible combination within the matrix the

JP would be a sure thing.  However you could easily gerenate a billion combinations using a RNG and not match 5+1.   In all

my years of playing I cannot produce a JP ticket on demand but I win way more that anyone I know that plays QP's except

for the ones who by chance alone hit a JP.  Once we have anything to do with tha sets we play then who can say if it's a

mere matter of chance or we effected the outcome?

RL

....

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 1:57 pm - IP Logged

Seriously?? Do I really need proper knowledge of mathemtics  to understand that the "overall odds" can be blown away by people who are choosing their numbers intelligently????

Yes, you would.  I really can't argue with you if you don't think you would need a proper understanding of the knowledge behind probability theory.  And the odds can't be blown away.  You can't just say things and have them be true.  That's be crazy.  You have to prove them before they are factual.

Which is actually really simple.  They teach you that in like 5th grade.  Of course, they don't go on to teach the other important aspects of statistic analysis, like Standard Deviation and Confidence Intervals, which is why you believe that people "blew the odds out of the water" which they didn't.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 1:59 pm - IP Logged

Really!! How do you presume to speak for "the average person" and what they should do with their time??

I don't.  The point of that statement is that it's probably better for the average person to spend their time working on productive and plausible things and not on trying to invent or completely disprove an entire branch of mathemetics.  Leave that to scientists and mathemeticians.

Of course, if you happen to have an understanding of these things, then you have good reason to work on them.  But what I mean by average person is that if I just walked into a store and picked a person, chances are they are not the right person to attempt to disprove a theory which has been proven over and over again.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 2:01 pm - IP Logged

I have never seem a great poker player that did NOT make amazing use of intuitive powers.....

I've never met a long term winning player that did make use of "intuitive powers."  (LMFAO)

It's all about reads, pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, hand ranges, etc.  Anybody who uses intuition to make moves that are mathemetically wrong are long term losers.  Unless the other players at their table are worse than they are.

I realize I make some spelling errors.  Spelling isn't my strong suit.  People with no better point to make and no logic behind them like to point that out b/c they can't make a serious and logical point.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 2:05 pm - IP Logged

RL Randomlogic I can't read that.  It's just formatted in a way that hurts my brain.

And there's huge differences between Newton's theory and probability theory.  There's huge differences in most of these theories of physics because nobody claims them to be the truth.  They all understand that these theories are simply built off of older theories, and are more close to true.  That's why there's thousands of scientists working on improving things like string theory and create new ones to better explain our physical universe.

The only people who are attempting to disprove probaility theory are 1) in Lotterypost and 2) Refuse to use math.  So you won't prove anything even if you are right - because you refuse to use the scientifically determinable methods of proof.  Like Confidence Intervals.

So I "suppose" that probability theory could be improved upon.  But it probably 1) doesn't need to be, 2) won't because nobody credible is working on it 3) you guys can't do it, because even if you felt you found something crazy, you refuse to use the basic statiscal analysis to confirm whether it was a quirk or not.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 4:03 pm - IP Logged

Boney526

Probability and statistics define very well certain aspects of game theory but like anything else who is to say

if it's complete.  Newton defined what we thought for many years and was later proven wrong and that is the

nature of discovery.  I have no problem with probability it's just that most don't know how to ues it.  Chance

is a word that covers so much that any win can be defined by it.  It's possible that the same set of numbers

could appear for twenty games in a row and the drawing could still be fair.  There is a chance that this could

happen although it is not very probable.  While the in a single drawing every number has the same exact odds

of showing this makes some to believe that self picks are tom foolery.  Lets say that the numbers drawn in the

next power ball drawing are 1-2-3-4-5 BB=6.  This set has the same exact odds of being drawn as any other

set in the matrix and I think most all of us know this.  However over several draws we would not expect it to

show several times because the drawing is random.  Some people get all excited and like to mention balls bouncing

around inside a hopper as proof that we cannot predict the next set no matter how hard we try.  Let's consider the

game of blackjack for a moment.  Most people consider it possible to win at this game if they follow a few rules and

make larger bets at the right time.   It still envolves chance because they cannot know for sure that the cards will

fall in their favor.   The game of black jack can be exploited because we know how many of each suite and value are

in the deck.  If we count the cards then we can calculate the probability for what the next card might be.  Once the

card is delt then it is certain.   Now back to the lottery,  If we consider only that each number has the exact same

changes of being drawn then we would be foolish to think that we could make any kind of calculation that might

prove better than another.   So in order to increase our chances we must dig a little deeper and consider a few other

options.  It does not matter how they select the numbers as lond as the selection process is not rigged in some

manner which would effect the set produced.  Regardless of which numbers are drawn the full set of numbers already

exist within the matrix and the drawing is nothing more than taking a random sample from the whole.  The thing with

random samples are that  we are almost certain that two random samples wiill return two different items or sets of

numbers in this case.  Fill your bathtub with marbles and try to pick the same one twice in a row blindfolded.  Now

lets take a little different look at the sets of numbers and not the numbers themselves.  Not all sets have the same

exact properities.  If you study random sampling you will find out that by taking a small sample from a much larger

pool you can often define the pool by the samples taken.  This is common practice in manufacturing al over the world

as a means to measure the number of defects within a process.   If 10 out of every 100 random samples show a defect

then they can be almost certain that if they inspected every product that they would find that 10% were defective.

I view the lottery as taking random samples from a much larger pool.  Let say that I look at the last 100 drawings and

find that 40 of them had 3 odd numbers.  I might conclude that 3 odd numbers are hot hittters but if I know that around

40% of the sets in the matrix have 3 odd numbers then it makes sence.  While I cannot say that 3 odd numbers will apear

in the next drawing I do know that around 40% of all draws will.  If I choose to play only sets with 3 odd numbers then

I can expect to be correct around 40% of the time.  However if I play sets with 1 odd number then I could only expect to

be correct 12% of the time.  Because random sampling almost ensures that the samples will mimic the whole we now

have a bias for one value over another.  While I have no pre-knowledge that the next draw will be 3 odd I do know what

to expect over the next several draws.  In blackjack the cards are removed from the deck which creates a bias for some

values to be greater than others.  This gives the player an edge if he can make a few calculations and keep count of what

has been removed.  With the lottery the sets are returned to the deck so to say but the deck contains a bias for some

values over others.  This is what every system should try to exploit and it why many believe that a smarter set cand be

built and played.  The odds never change for the game but that does not mean that we cannot put ourselves in a better

position just like the blackjack player.  For any system to do better that chance is a wide wide wide world of meaningless

chatter because chance can be used to cover anything.  Even a 10 game winning streak can be charged to chance because

no matter how improbable it might be it is still possible.   All the self confessed staticians love to take bets and try to look

big but it's foolishness to me.  If I held my hand behind my back and asked how many fingers am I folding I could fool you

evry time because I could adjust them based on your answer.  If chance can cover every possible outcome then why would

anyone try to beat it.  If I win more than my share of prizes using my methods it could still fall within the realm of chance so

how would anyone know if it was my methods  or a product of mear chance or a mixture of both.  The bottom line here is that

a smarter set can be gotten building your own set than a QP but is is also possible that a QP could produce a set as smart

as a SP.   I have heard many different challenges made here at LP.  I have proven it to myself many times and we see it happen

many times right in front of our eyes.  If QP's are better than SP's then why did they have to sele over a billion of them before

someone hit a JP with only 175 million possibilities.  If I played as a system every possible combination within the matrix the

JP would be a sure thing.  However you could easily gerenate a billion combinations using a RNG and not match 5+1.   In all

my years of playing I cannot produce a JP ticket on demand but I win way more that anyone I know that plays QP's except

for the ones who by chance alone hit a JP.  Once we have anything to do with tha sets we play then who can say if it's a

mere matter of chance or we effected the outcome?

RL

Thanks RL...........

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 4:04 pm - IP Logged

RL Randomlogic I can't read that.  It's just formatted in a way that hurts my brain.

And there's huge differences between Newton's theory and probability theory.  There's huge differences in most of these theories of physics because nobody claims them to be the truth.  They all understand that these theories are simply built off of older theories, and are more close to true.  That's why there's thousands of scientists working on improving things like string theory and create new ones to better explain our physical universe.

The only people who are attempting to disprove probaility theory are 1) in Lotterypost and 2) Refuse to use math.  So you won't prove anything even if you are right - because you refuse to use the scientifically determinable methods of proof.  Like Confidence Intervals.

So I "suppose" that probability theory could be improved upon.  But it probably 1) doesn't need to be, 2) won't because nobody credible is working on it 3) you guys can't do it, because even if you felt you found something crazy, you refuse to use the basic statiscal analysis to confirm whether it was a quirk or not.

That's why we need YOU Boney526 to help us prove it...............

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 5:58 pm - IP Logged

Set of 28 for MM. Fri. Dec. 14, 2012.

03 05 07 08 09 11 12 13 19 22 24 26 28 31 32 37 38 39 42 43 44 47 48 49 51 52 54 56

bonus ball 10

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 14, 2012, 6:09 pm - IP Logged

The game is to be played by wheels or by numbers. Which way is up to the lottery.

 Page 179 of 353