Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 3, 2016, 4:44 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 203 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: December 28, 2012, 9:29 am - IP Logged

I think I'm beginning to get some insight into the compensation schedule here.  When an intelligent rebuttal to a posting that challenges the belief in successful prediction of lottery outcomes is not easily composed, 2nd tier prizes must be awarded to those most punctual in pushing said posting out of sight. 

Maybe the real brainpower at this sight is preoccupied with holiday activities.

Or, maybe they're busy trying to tweak their systems to push themselves closer to the right hand tail of the ROI distribution. Smile

And your so self conscious that you actually think your posts are getting "pushed back" lol. lol. lol.


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 28, 2012, 9:31 am - IP Logged

    Perhaps you should try posting some losing numbers like Boney did.....

    You guys can be a losing team together, and prove that some number combinations have WORSE ODDS.


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: December 28, 2012, 9:43 am - IP Logged

      Set of 28 for MM. Fri. Dec. 28, 2012.

      03 05 07 08 11 12 13 18 19 22 24 26 28 29 32 33 34 37 41 42 43 44 47 48 51 52 54 56

      bonus ball 10


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 28, 2012, 10:07 am - IP Logged

        Set of 12 for MM. Fri. Dec. 28, 2012.

        03 05 07 11 12 13 19 26 28 32 44 54

        bonus ball 10


          United States
          Member #116268
          September 7, 2011
          20244 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 28, 2012, 10:12 am - IP Logged

                 


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 28, 2012, 10:25 am - IP Logged

            I thought that's what you meant when you started this thread over six months ago. We agreed 98,280 QPs have the same odds as a group of 28 numbers and distinguished how the odds changed only when both matched five numbers.

            On page 5 you said "The objective is to at least TRY to hit to a JP." and I have no idea why the discussion drifted from that goal.

            Thank you Stack, you are exactly right. From the beginning the objective has been to use trial and error in trying to hit a jackpot. Anyone can sit around and talk about how it cant be done without ever having tried.

            It took me exactly 18 draws to post a winning 5+1 prediction and I was not the only one to hit 5+1.


              United States
              Member #116268
              September 7, 2011
              20244 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: December 28, 2012, 10:36 am - 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.

               you've admitted that you pull the numbers out of your ass,

              I think we can all rest assured that my ass gets BETTER ODDS than your RNG computer program.


                United States
                Member #116268
                September 7, 2011
                20244 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: December 28, 2012, 10:38 am - IP Logged

                       

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7295 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: December 28, 2012, 10:59 am - IP Logged

                  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

                  To answer your first question, I read it twice it sure looks like you said,

                  "25,000 players buying Five(5) $1.00 Straight Quick Pick tickets per day for Five(5) Years, or 1825 Days."

                  and I understand it just a simulation, but you're not simulating anything resembling average or a even unique play. Boney and I calculated the standard deviation for the frequency of each of the 56 MM numbers over 700 trials and found the results mirrored the STD. The only fog in this discussion is if someone knows some numbers should be drawn more than others, they should know some number will have better chances, odds, and/or probability of being drawn.

                  What I find problematic about you simulation is after 100 days about 50% of your mythical players would out $500 and you're suggesting they'll continue to make bets when the most they can win is $500. On the 101 day they will bet $505 to win $500 and many will be out $1000 after 200 days and they will bet $1005 to $500. Maybe your mythical players don't know their betting strategy is terrible, it's time to quit, and try something else, but most real players will figure it out.

                  On a positive note, simulating betting $125,000 a drawing is similar to betting the $98,280 Ronnie suggested.

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7295 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: December 28, 2012, 11:10 am - IP Logged

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

                    There probably are stores that sold lottery tickets for years and not one clerk has ever pushed the pick-3 $1 straight QP button. Some players do play pick-3 QPs but considering the fact for the same $1 they could win $5000 to $652 million, trying to win $500 just doesn't compute. The $1 scratch-offs players get better overall odds..

                      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                      mid-Ohio
                      United States
                      Member #9
                      March 24, 2001
                      19816 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: December 28, 2012, 12:37 pm - IP Logged

                      There probably are stores that sold lottery tickets for years and not one clerk has ever pushed the pick-3 $1 straight QP button. Some players do play pick-3 QPs but considering the fact for the same $1 they could win $5000 to $652 million, trying to win $500 just doesn't compute. The $1 scratch-offs players get better overall odds..

                      I know the pick3 and pick4 games have a huge following but it would surprise me if any of them follow this thread where posters write so passionately about winning a big life changing jackpot.   Many states say those games (pick3 and pick4) are their biggest money maker but it's the jackpot games that keep things interesting. 

                      While I seldom give a thought to pick3 and pick4, I've had those who play those games ask how I could ever think about winning without at least considering those games.  They have even suggested if I spent half as much time trying to win them as I have the jackpot games, I would have won a small bundle by now.   They even suggest play pick3 and pick4 is the first logical step to learning how to win.

                      When it comes to lotteries, everyone have their own ideas and other players logic doesn't matter.

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

                        Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                        New Jersey
                        United States
                        Member #99032
                        October 18, 2010
                        1439 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: December 28, 2012, 12:53 pm - IP Logged

                        To answer your first question, I read it twice it sure looks like you said,

                        "25,000 players buying Five(5) $1.00 Straight Quick Pick tickets per day for Five(5) Years, or 1825 Days."

                        and I understand it just a simulation, but you're not simulating anything resembling average or a even unique play. Boney and I calculated the standard deviation for the frequency of each of the 56 MM numbers over 700 trials and found the results mirrored the STD. The only fog in this discussion is if someone knows some numbers should be drawn more than others, they should know some number will have better chances, odds, and/or probability of being drawn.

                        What I find problematic about you simulation is after 100 days about 50% of your mythical players would out $500 and you're suggesting they'll continue to make bets when the most they can win is $500. On the 101 day they will bet $505 to win $500 and many will be out $1000 after 200 days and they will bet $1005 to $500. Maybe your mythical players don't know their betting strategy is terrible, it's time to quit, and try something else, but most real players will figure it out.

                        On a positive note, simulating betting $125,000 a drawing is similar to betting the $98,280 Ronnie suggested.

                        Yes, that's what we did.  Of course, people ignore that the results of the draws pretty much match the expectations, and therefore fit the definition of "no evidence of bias found."

                         

                        But Jimmy's simulation had a different point, which people here are missing.  It really doesn't matter that no average player would play that way, the reality is that any players' simulation results on any game would look similar, given that he was trying to show that it's completely possible to RANDOMLY end up ahead even after thousands of plays against a 50% edge in a game with variance.

                         

                        He was showing that STANDARD DEVIATIONS can trick you if you fall on the right end tail, and then think you're predictions more accurate than anyone elses. Of course if you are ahead your past predictions have been, but your future picks hold no extra weight.  You are just as unliklely to win from that point on as anyone else.

                         

                        By ignoring the results of his simulation, many members here are showing their ignorance of basic statistics.  Which would be fine, as most people don't study statistics, except that are making outlandish claims about odds that fly in the face of probability theory, which has been shown to be true for hundreds of years.

                         

                        Rest assured, a simulation for the Powerball or Mega Millions would have very similar looking results.  The variance is higher, so the simulation would have to be longer to make a rough bell curve, but that's besides the point.

                         

                        What makes the Lottery any different than roulette or a slot machine?  If people could even change their odds from an average 50% payback to 75% payback through predictive powers, they are in the wrong place, as they could make an absolute killing on a game like Roulette.

                         

                        But that's not possible, and casinos and lotteries are still in business.  And the Lotteries take about .50 per dollar spent by people.  So even though you won't buy millions of tickets in your life, millions will be sold, and you cannot ignore the reality that you have to be LUCKY to win a jackpot, and nothigng else can help you save buying more tickets (which will actually be more likely to cost you!)

                         

                         

                         

                        Also - the betting strategy followed by these QP players is just fine, at least, there is no way to increase the average result.  Given that you gave them a betting strategy to raise their bets, all you'd find is a few more small winners, probably a couple of big winners and many, many more huge losers.  Look at the long term results of any martingale betting scheme for evidence.

                          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                          New Jersey
                          United States
                          Member #99032
                          October 18, 2010
                          1439 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: December 28, 2012, 1:07 pm - IP Logged

                          And your so self conscious that you actually think your posts are getting "pushed back" lol. lol. lol.

                          Considering you make like 15 seperate one line posts one after another, it seemed like a plausible thought to have.  I mean why else would you see the need to log on, and then make 6-10 posts in a row, when clearly you'd only really need one or two to address all the points you'd need to in an intelligent debate....


                            United States
                            Member #93947
                            July 10, 2010
                            2180 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: December 28, 2012, 1:15 pm - IP Logged

                            Thanks Boney526,

                            You've covered all the bases.  I hope you were able to enlighten Stack47 who delights in pointing out that "real" players don't bet the way simulated ones do.  He was relentless in that vein when I followed Maddog's Powerball prediction thread.

                            It's ironic to  me that the most enthusiastic political flag wavers here are the ones who expend the most energy trying to obfuscate any efforts to increase the understanding of math and the scientific method, which, in the long run, will decrease the chances of our country competing with the rest of the world.

                            --Jimmy4164


                              United States
                              Member #116268
                              September 7, 2011
                              20244 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: December 28, 2012, 2:55 pm - IP Logged

                                 
                                Page 203 of 353