Welcome Guest
You last visited December 8, 2016, 5:30 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 201 of 353
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7313 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 26, 2012, 12:38 pm - IP Logged

If it is truly random, then the odds can be accurately determined.

By saying that I'm guessing about my odds, you're implying that the game isn't a completely random event.

The logic of the statement makes it inherently so.  Either the game is completely random, and non-biased, or it's not completely random, and it is bias.

So EITHER I'm guessing about my odds (because the game isn't completely random), OR I know them (because the game is.)  You can't have it both ways.  I guess you could believe what you want, but the belief would be inconsistent and illogical if it wasn't one of those two views.

"By saying that I'm guessing about my odds, you're implying that the game isn't a completely random event."

The odds you're quoting are the average, but you already showed the odds or probability should deviate from the average. If you know there should be deviation, you should know you're guessing.

"So EITHER I'm guessing about my odds (because the game isn't completely random), OR I know them (because the game is.)"

The results of the random events showed the expected deviation from average.

"You can't have it both ways."

Correct because you proved some numbers and some number combinations should deviate from the average probability or odds and the results verified it. You can't say some number combinations won't have better odds by proving some number combinations will be drawn more or less than average.

United States
Member #48046
December 7, 2006
1699 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 26, 2012, 2:27 pm - IP Logged

Which   isn't  all that  Spectacular    .........I Guess

Well Ronnie

Last Night,  was the last night for my  Super Special

Didn't work out for me,       I think once, I got Two numbers right.

Anyway  I'll be saving Up   for the next one

Since my numbers arn't in Play  anymore,

Can you guess what'll Happen?

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 26, 2012, 2:44 pm - IP Logged

If it is truly random, then the odds can be accurately determined.

By saying that I'm guessing about my odds, you're implying that the game isn't a completely random event.

The logic of the statement makes it inherently so.  Either the game is completely random, and non-biased, or it's not completely random, and it is bias.

So EITHER I'm guessing about my odds (because the game isn't completely random), OR I know them (because the game is.)  You can't have it both ways.  I guess you could believe what you want, but the belief would be inconsistent and illogical if it wasn't one of those two views.

If it is truly random, then the odds can be accurately determined.

¿ΨΗΑΤ•ÌŠ•ΓΑñÐÓΜ?

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 26, 2012, 2:45 pm - IP Logged

Well Ronnie

Last Night,  was the last night for my  Super Special

Didn't work out for me,       I think once, I got Two numbers right.

Anyway  I'll be saving Up   for the next one

Since my numbers arn't in Play  anymore,

Can you guess what'll Happen?

Stay Positive!±±±±±

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 26, 2012, 6:39 pm - IP Logged

If it is truly random, then the odds can be accurately determined.

¿ΨΗΑΤ•ÌŠ•ΓΑñÐÓΜ?

RANDOM IS A STATE OF MIND

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 26, 2012, 7:26 pm - IP Logged

The draws can't be completely random, because the numbers can be predictable.

RANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OFRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDMINDRRANDOM IS A STATE OF MINDANDOM IS A STATE OF MIND

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 26, 2012, 7:29 pm - IP Logged

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 3:06 am - IP Logged

Then is it safe to assume that you think I am guessing about odds, rather than knowing them?

I know what you're guessing, and what you're not guessing.  I wonder how many other readers here know too, but are, for some reason, afraid to admit it?  Oh well, here goes again...

Standard Deviation

In the spirit of the old adage "A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words," I offer the following to help lift the fog that seems to have settled on this thread.  Please excuse the use of * to produce this picture, and the rounding used to scale it.  It is based on the output of a Monte Carlo style computer simulation I wrote to show what randomness is capable of producing in the lottery world, using Pick-3 as the vehicle.

In words, the simulation is of 25,000 players buying Five(5) \$1.00 Straight Quick Pick tickets per day for Five(5) Years, or 1825 Days. The payoff is \$500 when they win.  Somewhat arbitrarily, I chose to start each player on day 1 with a "Stake" of \$9125.00, which allows them to lose every bet they make over the five years without having to borrow from their friends.

Each row in the output below represents a subset of the 25,000 people whose results were the same.

In each row, the 3 numerical columns represent:

Win    The amount in \$ left to the players in their subset at the end of the five years
ROI    The Return On Investment of the people in their subset ==> (100*(Win - 9125) / 9125)
#        The number of people in the subset.  (The summation of all rows is 25,000)

*        Each asterisk represents 27 people in its respective row.  You will notice roundoff error
which resulted from scaling to avoid distorting the "picture" through wrap around.  It's not
really important, since the scale used here is fine enough to show you what's going on.
The most obvious roundoff errors are in the "tails" of the distribution.  For example, 35
people (out of the 25,000) ended up with \$500 at the end of the five years.  35 divided by
27 is ~1.3, which rounds off to 1.  Thus 1 * in the 2nd row.

Study these results for a while, and then look below for further discussion. (2)

Win ROI   #
0 -100    3  *
500   -95   35  *
1000  -90   99  ***
1500  -84  311  ***********
2000  -79  765  ****************************
2500  -73 1426  ****************************************************
3000  -68 2171  ********************************************************************************
3500  -62 2958  *************************************************************************************************************
4000  -57 3176  *********************************************************************************************************************
4500  -51 3346  ***************************************************************************************************************************
5000  -46 3065  *****************************************************************************************************************
5500  -40 2551  **********************************************************************************************
6000  -35 1825  *******************************************************************
6500  -29 1318  ************************************************
7000  -24  823  ******************************
7500  -18  535  *******************
8000  -13  283  **********
8500    -7  152  *****
9000    -2   83  ***
9500     4   36  *
10000    9   21  *
10500   15    4  *
11000   20    8  *
11500   26    2  *
12000   31    1  *
13500   47    1  *
14000   53    1  *
15500   69    1  *
For our (practical) purposes, we can treat this distribution as Normal. The Mean(1) of the Win column is 4560, with a Standard Deviation of 1501.50.  As expected(approximately), the Mean ROI was 50.6 with a SD of 16.5.  So, about 76% of the 25,000 people ended up holding between \$3000 and \$6000.  Look above, and you can see what this looks like graphically.  But remember, they all started out with \$9125, so all of these 19,092 people were losers, losing between \$3125 and \$6125 over their 5 years of play.  Which brings us to the BIG losers, and, TA! TA!  The WINNERS!  Yes, randomness produces winners, even over long periods of time.  I'll let you peruse the data and absorb how many BIG losers there were, and how much they lost.  What I want you to play close attention to, though, is the small group of winners that resulted.  There were 75 people who ended up with more than the \$9125 they started out with!  But let's focus on the 18 people who ended up with from \$10,500 to \$15,500, representing gains from \$1375 through \$6375.  Now, let's use our imaginations for a minute.  Let's pretend that our Old Uncle Craig was the sole person out of the 25,000 who ended up with \$15,500, for a return on his investment of 69%  Let's assume further that he had devised a "System" for playing Pick-3 prior to the 5 years of play described above.

Here is the most important part of this posting!  If Old Uncle Craig doesn't know anything about Means and Standard Deviations, or doesn't "Believe" they apply to flying lottery ping pong balls, DO YOU THINK ANYONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO CONVINCE HIM THAT HIS WINNINGS WERE MERELY THE RESULT OF THE LUCK OF THE DRAW, OF RANDOMNESS?

(1) The Means and Std. Deviations mentioned here were calculated on 25,000 rows, so don't expect to get the same results from the data listed above.  This data is a summary, calculated to allow you to view the distribution.

(2)  I ran this simulation multple times, using different Random Number Generator Seeds, and the results were strikingly similar.

--Jimmy4164

P.S.
Boney526:
Since I've taken the time to write this program and present the results, I hope I can count on you to help explain it.

Anyone who has not yet posted in this thread:
If you understand this post, and agree with its conclusions, don't be bashful.  It would be wonderful to discover that there are others here besides Boney526 and myself who are not Fooled By Randomness!

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 9:07 am - IP Logged

If its random, why is it predictable....

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 9:09 am - IP Logged

Im playing this set of 39 for PB. Wed. Dec. 26, 2012.

02 03 06 07 09 11 13 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 34 35 40 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 57 58 59

bonus ball 12

4 of 5 on this draw.........

 Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11 · 13 · 23 · 43 · 54    + 04 \$50 Million

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 9:50 am - IP Logged

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19828 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 11:42 am - IP Logged

4 of 5 on this draw.........

 Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11 · 13 · 23 · 43 · 54    + 04 \$50 Million

Does covering 4of5 with 39of59 mean you've given up trying to cover 5of5 with 28of39?

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

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7313 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 12:14 pm - IP Logged

Does covering 4of5 with 39of59 mean you've given up trying to cover 5of5 with 28of39?

Somebody here believes we're all in a fog and to prove it suggested 25,000 players should buy \$5 worth of pick-3 QPs every day for five years.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19828 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 12:56 pm - IP Logged

Somebody here believes we're all in a fog and to prove it suggested 25,000 players should buy \$5 worth of pick-3 QPs every day for five years.

I didn't think anyone here had the mind set to ever buy a 50¢ pick3 ticket once a week, let alone every day.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 2:15 pm - IP Logged

Somebody here believes we're all in a fog and to prove it suggested 25,000 players should buy \$5 worth of pick-3 QPs every day for five years.

First of all, I didn't suggest any such thing.  Read my post again.

Secondly, if you're suggesting the results of a Monte Carlo simulation of one of the more complex lottery games would produce results significantly different from mine for the Pick-3, perhaps you would like to program a simulation and prove it.

--Jimmy4164

 Page 201 of 353