Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 16, 2017, 7:51 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 199 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
Posted: December 25, 2012, 3:25 am - IP Logged

Someone saying something is also not how chance works...Confused

Boney knows how chance works.  Wow god must be so proud.

Or wait!  Maybe boney is god?

Wow!  what are the chances of that?  Hmm, that certainly would be randomly odd.

Or maybe Boney is the devil, playing god? I wonder what the standard deviation of that probabilistic wave function would be?

Thinking of...

    Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
    New Jersey
    United States
    Member #99032
    October 18, 2010
    1439 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 25, 2012, 3:26 am - IP Logged

    Tell me, what is the source of your mystical prediction powers?  Do you REALLY think that super-ultra positive over optimisic thinking of your prediction abilities allows you to lower your odds to a quantifiable 1in 575757, or whatever you reduce the field to?

    ΥÉŠ

    3) detecting the random events' bias

     

    ΥÉŠ  ÅgÅÍΝ

    Boney you really are a genius after all!

    Really?

     

    You really think that with all the stakes, and all of the security that the lottery isn't actually random?  Yeah right.

     

    Tell me how it's non random.  Oh wait, you can't.  You can go on and on about "flag formations" or whatever, but you can't prove that the game is non random, and you can't even begin to suggest the physical source of non-randomness.

     

    Ha!

      Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
      New Jersey
      United States
      Member #99032
      October 18, 2010
      1439 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: December 25, 2012, 3:27 am - IP Logged

      Boney knows how chance works.  Wow god must be so proud.

      Or wait!  Maybe boney is god?

      Wow!  what are the chances of that?  Hmm, that certainly would be randomly odd.

      Or maybe Boney is the devil, playing god? I wonder what the standard deviation of that probabilistic wave function would be?

      Thinking of...

      Well that's not creepy at all....

       

      What?


        United States
        Member #124493
        March 14, 2012
        7023 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 25, 2012, 3:30 am - IP Logged

        Really?

         

        You really think that with all the stakes, and all of the security that the lottery isn't actually random?  Yeah right.

         

        Tell me how it's non random.  Oh wait, you can't.  You can go on and on about "flag formations" or whatever, but you can't prove that the game is non random, and you can't even begin to suggest the physical source of non-randomness.

         

        Ha!

        Boney. Talk to the hand.

          rdgrnr's avatar - walt
          Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
          United States
          Member #73904
          April 28, 2009
          14903 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 25, 2012, 6:26 am - IP Logged

           Whaddaya want, a medal?

          I may be crazy but what I think ronnie wants is to win 1 Billion dollars before taxes.  Which if we are lucky he will have his chance around JULY 2013.

          If you want to impress me Ronnie, I would like to you to make it snow in Arizona. 

          "If you want to impress me Ronnie, I would like to you to make it snow in Arizona."

          Tell ya what, I'll make it snow in Arizona this year.

          Just like it does every year.


                                                       
                               
                                                   

           

           

           

           

                                                                                                             

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

                                                                                                      --Edmund Burke

           

           


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 25, 2012, 10:23 am - IP Logged

            "If you want to impress me Ronnie, I would like to you to make it snow in Arizona."

            Tell ya what, I'll make it snow in Arizona this year.

            Just like it does every year.

            LOL. Careful Ridge, introducing reality to Boneys world could cause severe philological damage. 

            (which means he wont be able to talk anymore)

              Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
              New Jersey
              United States
              Member #99032
              October 18, 2010
              1439 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: December 25, 2012, 11:54 am - IP Logged

              LOL. Careful Ridge, introducing reality to Boneys world could cause severe philological damage. 

              (which means he wont be able to talk anymore)

              Hey buddy, Ridge wasn't talking about me, so leave me out of this.  That honestly shows that you have huge problems.  Get over the fact that I disagree with you, and quit referencing me every chance you get.  That's weird.

               

              It's sad that you can't get over this.  And the fact that you call things you can't describe as reality.  Oh and you never answer any of the oppositions questions, so whenever people inject a dose of reality into your world, you start bugging out talking about things you can't describe.

                Avatar
                Kentucky
                United States
                Member #32652
                February 14, 2006
                7340 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: December 25, 2012, 12:06 pm - IP Logged

                Yup.  All this talk about "better odds" is hogwash because he can't figure out what his odds are until AFTER the drawing.  That's fairly useless for answering yes or no to this pie-in-the-sky question of "do some number combinations have better odds?"; he can't answer yes because the next logical question is "WHICH number combinations have better odds?", and no one can definitively answer that question.  The best Ronnie can do is guess, and even though he seems to be fairly good at that, it does nothing to address the original premise.  And it certainly doesn't make him a better person than Boney or anyone else, contrary to what he'd like us to believe.

                Again, the only thing we've discovered here is that Ronnie has a knack for guessing some the winning numbers.  Good for you, Ronnie.  Whaddaya want, a medal?  Though it should be pointed out that because your wheels are so large, you're picking more losing numbers that winning numbers.  Not really all that impressive.  Also, you've admitted that you pull the numbers out of your ass, so it's not like there's a system that any of us can duplicate.  You want to impress us?  Hit a 5+0 or a 5+1 in real life.  Let's see a picture of you in the Lottery Post news section holding an oversized check from the Arizona Lottery.

                "All this talk about "better odds" is hogwash because he can't figure out what his odds are until AFTER the drawing."

                It's really a simple concept, any group of 28 numbers has a 1 in 39 chance of having a five number match BEFORE the drawing. In every drawing over 19,000 groups of 28 numbers will have five number matches in 5 consecutive drawings. Nobody is saying a specific group of 28 numbers has better odds but it's a mathematical fact thousands do have better odds.

                "he can't answer yes because the next logical question is "WHICH number combinations have better odds?", and no one can definitively answer that question."

                I don't recall anyone mentioning a specific group of numbers, but removing the numbers from the ping pong balls was discussed. And all even/odd and all high/low groups were discussed too. Just knowing the math proves there will be groups with better odds, doesn't mean those groups are easy to identify.

                "The best Ronnie can do is guess, and even though he seems to be fairly good at that, it does nothing to address the original premise."

                The only test of doing better than the probable odds of 1 in 39 is to post the numbers before the drawing and check the results. There should be no question because 2 out of 39 drawings did better than the probable. The question of can it continue was answered too.

                "Hit a 5+0 or a 5+1 in real life."

                It's a fact trying to get better odds will improve the chances of winning the jackpot. Would you rather buy 1 QP in every drawing and always have odds of almost 4 million to 1 or play one of the combos from a group 28 numbers and get odds of 98,280 once in every 39 drawings?


                  United States
                  Member #124493
                  March 14, 2012
                  7023 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: December 25, 2012, 12:56 pm - IP Logged

                  Hey buddy, Ridge wasn't talking about me, so leave me out of this.  That honestly shows that you have huge problems.  Get over the fact that I disagree with you, and quit referencing me every chance you get.  That's weird.

                   

                  It's sad that you can't get over this.  And the fact that you call things you can't describe as reality.  Oh and you never answer any of the oppositions questions, so whenever people inject a dose of reality into your world, you start bugging out talking about things you can't describe.

                  Oh and you never answer any of the oppositions questions,

                  Keep in mind it's been a while since I've had to use this formula so I may be missing a step... I doubt it though.  (Most of the work has already been done by others in my gambling so I have little need of a formula to find STD DEV for something like the average Lottery numbers, I basically use the kelly criterion, if anyone was interested)

                   

                  I also don't remember the actual proper test for this.... it's more complicated than the one you use if negatives are possible.  I don't really want to go through and do a lot of work for this, so I'm going to use very rough estimates rather than take a couple hours to go through the formulas relevant to this type of test....

                   

                  Well the mean is 700/(1/(5/56)), which simplifies to 62.5.  The variance is approximately 1/(5/56) or 11.2.  (I use an approximate b/c doing the math with every possible outcome is tedious) The square root of that is STD DEV, so the STD DEV for one trial is around 3.34.  The STD DEV for multiple trials is the square root of the number of trials times STD DEV for one trial.  So Squareroot of 700 times 3.34 = about 88.3.  Since negative values are meaningless (none can be less than 0) the expectation for any idividual number is to come up between 18.35-106.65 - 68.2% of the time.

                   

                  Looking back at my work I know I made an error, most likely because I think I was supposed use the Chi squared test, which honestly, I completely forgot how to do.  I realize you're going to ridicule me for that, but I don't really care b/c I know it's out there and if you wanted to get an accurate answer, someobody could dig it up.  Basically the reason for this is that a number can't come up less than 0 times, so the whole test should really be Right Skewed (if you looked at the results on a curve) creating a situation where the STD DEV measurement has a different definition than with a curve that isn't skewed.

                   

                  So it's probably more accurate to say that there would likely be more STD DEV would be smaller if I performed the proper test.  Anyway, that's my long, and partly innacurate answer.  Although it's safe to say that not abornmal for numbers to be pretty far off of there expected average until there have been many draws.  Say what you will about the differences in numbers' frequencies from their expected average, I say it's completely explainable through the proper statistics.  Unless it was consistently way off the average, I wouldn't be concerned.Noel

                    Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                    New Jersey
                    United States
                    Member #99032
                    October 18, 2010
                    1439 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: December 25, 2012, 1:04 pm - IP Logged

                    Oh and you never answer any of the oppositions questions,

                    Keep in mind it's been a while since I've had to use this formula so I may be missing a step... I doubt it though.  (Most of the work has already been done by others in my gambling so I have little need of a formula to find STD DEV for something like the average Lottery numbers, I basically use the kelly criterion, if anyone was interested)

                     

                    I also don't remember the actual proper test for this.... it's more complicated than the one you use if negatives are possible.  I don't really want to go through and do a lot of work for this, so I'm going to use very rough estimates rather than take a couple hours to go through the formulas relevant to this type of test....

                     

                    Well the mean is 700/(1/(5/56)), which simplifies to 62.5.  The variance is approximately 1/(5/56) or 11.2.  (I use an approximate b/c doing the math with every possible outcome is tedious) The square root of that is STD DEV, so the STD DEV for one trial is around 3.34.  The STD DEV for multiple trials is the square root of the number of trials times STD DEV for one trial.  So Squareroot of 700 times 3.34 = about 88.3.  Since negative values are meaningless (none can be less than 0) the expectation for any idividual number is to come up between 18.35-106.65 - 68.2% of the time.

                     

                    Looking back at my work I know I made an error, most likely because I think I was supposed use the Chi squared test, which honestly, I completely forgot how to do.  I realize you're going to ridicule me for that, but I don't really care b/c I know it's out there and if you wanted to get an accurate answer, someobody could dig it up.  Basically the reason for this is that a number can't come up less than 0 times, so the whole test should really be Right Skewed (if you looked at the results on a curve) creating a situation where the STD DEV measurement has a different definition than with a curve that isn't skewed.

                     

                    So it's probably more accurate to say that there would likely be more STD DEV would be smaller if I performed the proper test.  Anyway, that's my long, and partly innacurate answer.  Although it's safe to say that not abornmal for numbers to be pretty far off of there expected average until there have been many draws.  Say what you will about the differences in numbers' frequencies from their expected average, I say it's completely explainable through the proper statistics.  Unless it was consistently way off the average, I wouldn't be concerned.Noel

                    Notice the one paragraph where you didn't highlight anything, and I gave you an answer....

                     

                    I then stated that it's wrong b/c I wasn't willing to study a few hours only to be ridiculed for coming up with the right answer to a math problem.....  But at least I gave an explanation of HOW you could find the real answer, AND gave an approximate.  Again all you do is make a terrible point, and ignore the questions being asked of you.

                     

                    Both you and Ronnie.

                     

                    Not to mention that Ronnie has such personal issues that I agreed with him in another thread and he attacked me.  And you apparently called me God and then the Devil playing God.  It's all getting very weird, and quite frankly, I'm not going to respond to your nonsense anymore.  You clearly ignore every shred of reality, every point made, every question asked, and then just go and point out that I don't know everything.

                     

                    Well congrats you've proven that I don't have the Chi Squared Test Statistic memorized.  Big whoop.  I'd be willing to bet that MOST people don't.


                      United States
                      Member #116268
                      September 7, 2011
                      20244 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: December 25, 2012, 4:13 pm - IP Logged

                      Notice the one paragraph where you didn't highlight anything, and I gave you an answer....

                       

                      I then stated that it's wrong b/c I wasn't willing to study a few hours only to be ridiculed for coming up with the right answer to a math problem.....  But at least I gave an explanation of HOW you could find the real answer, AND gave an approximate.  Again all you do is make a terrible point, and ignore the questions being asked of you.

                       

                      Both you and Ronnie.

                       

                      Not to mention that Ronnie has such personal issues that I agreed with him in another thread and he attacked me.  And you apparently called me God and then the Devil playing God.  It's all getting very weird, and quite frankly, I'm not going to respond to your nonsense anymore.  You clearly ignore every shred of reality, every point made, every question asked, and then just go and point out that I don't know everything.

                       

                      Well congrats you've proven that I don't have the Chi Squared Test Statistic memorized.  Big whoop.  I'd be willing to bet that MOST people don't.

                      And you apparently called me God

                      That was god with a little g...... You should learn the difference Boney.............


                        United States
                        Member #116268
                        September 7, 2011
                        20244 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: December 25, 2012, 4:24 pm - IP Logged

                        Sorry you seem to feel more and more offended and "attacked" by simple discussion Boney. 

                        My comments are opinions and viewpoints from the perspective of someone who believes that humans do have the power to do things like create, imagine, set goals, achieve accomplishments, break records, and yes among many many many others powers, make accurate predictions and if I were the only one who believed in making predictions on LP I could understand why your so adamant about keeping up your fight here.... but alas Im not alone and you have a very long and difficult battle ahead if you choose to persist on your quest to eradicate the idea of making accurate predictions on the LP boards and postings.............


                          United States
                          Member #116268
                          September 7, 2011
                          20244 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: December 25, 2012, 4:31 pm - IP Logged

                          I'm not offended or feeling attacked because a member says that what I believe is "Hogwash".........

                          That is called an opinion and does not violate the rules of LP in any way.

                          Its way BETTER than being called all kinds of derogatory names and having bodily harm wished upon me as happens from time to time on LP. 

                          And the only reason I'm addressing you Boney is because you keep posting, so get over it.


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: December 25, 2012, 4:33 pm - IP Logged

                                                 


                              United States
                              Member #116268
                              September 7, 2011
                              20244 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: December 25, 2012, 4:34 pm - IP Logged

                                 
                                Page 199 of 353