Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 9, 2016, 2:29 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 204 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink

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

    x1kosmic's avatar - neptune vg2.gif

    United States
    Member #48046
    December 7, 2006
    1699 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 28, 2012, 3:23 pm - IP Logged

    I haven't done  28  in awhile

     

    2  5  6  8  9     10  11  12  13     22  24  26  28  29       31 32 33  34  37

                    41  42  43  44  48       51  52  54  56

                                 Still riding   Bonus Ball 

                                              24

    I'm  "Highly Balanced"   with at least Four in every catagory

                                    Jack-in-the-Box  Boing


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: December 28, 2012, 5:06 pm - IP Logged

      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....

      Thanks Boney526,

      You've covered all the bases, including this reply to Ronnie.  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

        Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
        New Jersey
        United States
        Member #99032
        October 18, 2010
        1439 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 28, 2012, 5:27 pm - IP Logged

        Thanks Boney526,

        You've covered all the bases, including this reply to Ronnie.  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

        It is interesting to talk about the (probably true) perception that more educated people tend to be liberal, and tend not to be too politically active.  That doesn't describe me at all, but I think academia in general has a heavy left wing bias that causes that....

         

        So many people who go to college for non politics related studies end up with a left leaning slant, and are better debaters than people who didn't.  I do tend to lean right, so I don't agree with most of those people on political issues, but it is an intereseting point to make that the most politically adamant people can tend to be very, very ignorant on matters of science and math (that includes people on the left, too, as an example, scientists who won't even consider other possible reasons for global warming than human industry.)  I'm no expert on these subjects at all, in fact, I'm a political science student - and I readily admit that the only math I have a good understanding of is everything you learn up to high school, and basic statistics and trig.  As far as science, I took one Chemistry course because I was required to.

         

        And I don't think that just because the left wing voters are generally better educated than right wing voters, that makes them right on political issues any more often.  In fact, I think that it leads them to think they can make better decisions for other people, and that they end up with really biased ways of looking at political issues that causes them to want more regulation and ultimately harms our freedom and prosperity.  In the end, the smart guy who tries to control your life is much more harmful than the ignorant guy who wants nothing to do with you.  Not that the right wing is actually for de-regulation, just their own version of regulation..... but I digress....

         

        While these issues regarding political electorats is interesting to me, and sucks for a conservative who like me, it is completely off topic here so I'll stop talking about that....

         

         

         

        It's unlikely that we'll change anyone's mind, even if they see all the evidence.  It's like those people who really think their betting system will beat roulette.  They want to believe it so badly they won't ever change their mind, even after years of losing.

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32652
          February 14, 2006
          7314 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 28, 2012, 6:36 pm - IP Logged

          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.

          "But Jimmy's simulation had a different point, which people here are missing."

          I'm not knocking Jimmy's efforts just questioning if it's useful and/or practical information. RJ and discussed playing pick-3 QPs and from our experience very few players do. When somebody says this is the expected results of playing QPs, we could be polite and say "how about that" while thinking "so what" because very few players get QPs.

          "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."

          I mentioned the anomaly that happened with the Kentucky pick-3 drawing the month of July. Granted it was lucky for the players that four triples plus 123 were drawn and the lottery paid out 97% of the month's sales to the winners. A QP simulation would show the state getting the usual 50% rake and paying out the average 50% of the total sales the same month.

          I'll ask you the same question I asked Jimmy many times. Why are you assuming we don't already know the house edge?

          Jimmy has a history of telling us what we already know.

          "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."

          It won't trick anybody using five years worth of drawings. Let's talk probability.

          In pick-3 there is a 72% probability all three digits will be different so if we were to select five straight numbers, having four with three different digits every drawing for 5 years would give us better chance of winning. The QP players have no clue what their straights will look like. Check the last five year results of any pick-3 game and the percentage of three different number shouldn't vary either way more than 1%. The point you're missing by tauting QP simulated results is the fact players can choose the five straight combos based on many probabilities and QP players can't.

          "your future picks hold no extra weigh."

          I can say with a 100% certainty over 19,000 groups of 28 will have a five number match in five consecutive drawings. Instead of boring us with useless information, how about helping us find a way to choose one of those groups.

          "What makes the Lottery any different than roulette or a slot machine?"

          The obvious is roulete doesn't offer a QP option. And bets can be made after the results process starts. Even hear of "wheel trackers"?

          There is similarity too because groups of numbers can be played in both games. People play roulette and slot machines and some win, but you'll find the players who consistently show a profit in the poker room.

          "Also - the betting strategy followed by these QP players is just fine, at least, there is no way to increase the average result"

          And making it impossible to win enough one month in KY to easily cover the five years of bets. The playing and betting strategies are terrible because QPs can't use known probabilities and the bets can't change. If you're talking about the next 1825 MM, PB, Pick-5, or lotto drawings maybe, but you're talking about winning at the most in any one drawing $500.

          "Given that you gave them a betting strategy to raise their bets,"

          I actually suggested 50% of the players would see the betting and playing strategy is useless after 200 drawings, quit and try something else.

          "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,"

          That's what we were telling Thrifty for over a year now.


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 28, 2012, 7:02 pm - IP Logged

            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....

            When exactly did you come to the conclusion that I was here to have "intelligent debate" with you Boney?


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

              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.

              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

              Honestly Boney, do you really believe that because something has "shown to be true for hundreds of years" it is impossible to be proven false......????

                Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                New Jersey
                United States
                Member #99032
                October 18, 2010
                1439 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: December 28, 2012, 7:29 pm - IP Logged

                When exactly did you come to the conclusion that I was here to have "intelligent debate" with you Boney?

                Well since you've been attempting to refute my points, that would indicate that you were debating, but I would have to say that you haven't been doing so intelligently.

                  Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                  New Jersey
                  United States
                  Member #99032
                  October 18, 2010
                  1439 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: December 28, 2012, 7:32 pm - IP Logged

                  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

                  Honestly Boney, do you really believe that because something has "shown to be true for hundreds of years" it is impossible to be proven false......????

                  No, but since you have no logical basis for your claim, since you refuse to realize the significance of statistics and you seem to be completely opposed to the use of the scientific method, I think that you won't be able to prove it false.

                   

                  And in the case of probability theory, I think it's safe to assume that it's well understood.

                    Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                    New Jersey
                    United States
                    Member #99032
                    October 18, 2010
                    1439 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: December 28, 2012, 7:32 pm - IP Logged

                    Stack, I don't have time to reply to your post ATM, but I'll get back to it soon.


                      United States
                      Member #116268
                      September 7, 2011
                      20244 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: December 28, 2012, 7:34 pm - IP Logged

                      Well since you've been attempting to refute my points, that would indicate that you were debating, but I would have to say that you haven't been doing so intelligently.

                      I don't need to do so "intelligently" Boney because I'm not in a debate with you. I offer evidence through trial and error, time will tel who is right and who is wrong.........................

                      You bring nothing to the table besides doubt and skepticism.


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

                        No, but since you have no logical basis for your claim, since you refuse to realize the significance of statistics and you seem to be completely opposed to the use of the scientific method, I think that you won't be able to prove it false.

                         

                        And in the case of probability theory, I think it's safe to assume that it's well understood.

                        How does looking for a new and BETTER way translate into "you refuse to realize the significance of statistics"

                        What?

                          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                          New Jersey
                          United States
                          Member #99032
                          October 18, 2010
                          1439 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: December 28, 2012, 7:45 pm - IP Logged

                          How does looking for a new and BETTER way translate into "you refuse to realize the significance of statistics"

                          What?

                          You are not looking for a new way, though, you're just picking numbers based on (what are actually) arbitrary predictions and wheeling them in different ways.

                           

                          Plenty of people have done that.  And they've done just as bad, as on average of their wagers vs. winnings, as everyone else.

                           

                          You offer nothing to the table, really.  And you have seemed to refuse to realize the significance in statistical tests to determine Confidence Intervals, to determine how confident you can be that the anomoly is actually non random, or "your prediction system worked"

                           

                          You saying you are not debating is like how you say you have better odds.  You must define things differently than the rest of the world, b/c the post I'm quoting was part of a DEBATE between you and me.  You can't just claim things and have them be true, Ronnie.  That's not how the world works.  You have been debating for quite some time, even if in between you've posted other things.


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: December 28, 2012, 7:57 pm - IP Logged

                            You are not looking for a new way, though, you're just picking numbers based on (what are actually) arbitrary predictions and wheeling them in different ways.

                             

                            Plenty of people have done that.  And they've done just as bad, as on average of their wagers vs. winnings, as everyone else.

                             

                            You offer nothing to the table, really.  And you have seemed to refuse to realize the significance in statistical tests to determine Confidence Intervals, to determine how confident you can be that the anomoly is actually non random, or "your prediction system worked"

                             

                            You saying you are not debating is like how you say you have better odds.  You must define things differently than the rest of the world, b/c the post I'm quoting was part of a DEBATE between you and me.  You can't just claim things and have them be true, Ronnie.  That's not how the world works.  You have been debating for quite some time, even if in between you've posted other things.

                            You write posts that require lengthy responses and I'm not going that direction with you Boney.

                            You are wrong that Im using arbitrary predictions, if you had been paying attention instead of incessantly skeptical would know that  my developing premise is that humans can pick BETTER than RNG numbers can. \

                            There is also recently drawn numbers that have BETTER ODDS.

                              Avatar
                              Kentucky
                              United States
                              Member #32652
                              February 14, 2006
                              7314 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: December 28, 2012, 8:02 pm - IP Logged

                              It is interesting to talk about the (probably true) perception that more educated people tend to be liberal, and tend not to be too politically active.  That doesn't describe me at all, but I think academia in general has a heavy left wing bias that causes that....

                               

                              So many people who go to college for non politics related studies end up with a left leaning slant, and are better debaters than people who didn't.  I do tend to lean right, so I don't agree with most of those people on political issues, but it is an intereseting point to make that the most politically adamant people can tend to be very, very ignorant on matters of science and math (that includes people on the left, too, as an example, scientists who won't even consider other possible reasons for global warming than human industry.)  I'm no expert on these subjects at all, in fact, I'm a political science student - and I readily admit that the only math I have a good understanding of is everything you learn up to high school, and basic statistics and trig.  As far as science, I took one Chemistry course because I was required to.

                               

                              And I don't think that just because the left wing voters are generally better educated than right wing voters, that makes them right on political issues any more often.  In fact, I think that it leads them to think they can make better decisions for other people, and that they end up with really biased ways of looking at political issues that causes them to want more regulation and ultimately harms our freedom and prosperity.  In the end, the smart guy who tries to control your life is much more harmful than the ignorant guy who wants nothing to do with you.  Not that the right wing is actually for de-regulation, just their own version of regulation..... but I digress....

                               

                              While these issues regarding political electorats is interesting to me, and sucks for a conservative who like me, it is completely off topic here so I'll stop talking about that....

                               

                               

                               

                              It's unlikely that we'll change anyone's mind, even if they see all the evidence.  It's like those people who really think their betting system will beat roulette.  They want to believe it so badly they won't ever change their mind, even after years of losing.

                              "While these issues regarding political electorats is interesting to me, and sucks for a conservative who like me, it is completely off topic here so I'll stop talking about that...."

                              Just don't bring up the Republican Party's position on Internet gambling and you'll be fine.

                                 
                                Page 204 of 353