Welcome Guest
You last visited December 10, 2016, 9:32 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 207 of 353

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 29, 2012, 7:09 pm - IP Logged

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!

Ronnie:  Please note that you distorted the chart of my original post.  See above.

Boney526:  Since there seems to be no interest in this thread other than from the clowns and minders, I think it's a waste of time to try to demonstrate how randomness can produce winners, as well as losers, even in a game where the house has a 50% edge.

As for political matters, you are the kind of conservative that an open minded liberal could engage in constructive dialogue with.  However, this is not the place for it.  Too many buffoons.  Check out the comment areas at Huffington Post.

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7322 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 29, 2012, 7:58 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie:  Please note that you distorted the chart of my original post.  See above.

Boney526:  Since there seems to be no interest in this thread other than from the clowns and minders, I think it's a waste of time to try to demonstrate how randomness can produce winners, as well as losers, even in a game where the house has a 50% edge.

As for political matters, you are the kind of conservative that an open minded liberal could engage in constructive dialogue with.  However, this is not the place for it.  Too many buffoons.  Check out the comment areas at Huffington Post.

--Jimmy4164

Get a grip.

I know it disheartening that Ronnie's topic got 300,000 views and almost 3100 replies when you were the only one replying to your Kelly Criterion thread, but this isn't the type of forum where you can just take your ball home and whine to mommy when you're not the center of attention.

"Please note that you distorted the chart of my original post."

You never gave the methodology you use to distribute the daily 125,000 QPs or the method you use as random drawings. And without it, your conclusions are probably distorted. At least this set of 25,000 mythical QP players is slightly more reasonable than the 50,000 mythical players buying one QP every day for 50,000 drawings in your last try.

Believe it or not, we all know 51 numbers won't be drawn in the next MM drawing, odds are determine by what won't happen, and we don't need you to remind us.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 2:19 am - IP Logged

Get a grip.

I know it disheartening that Ronnie's topic got 300,000 views and almost 3100 replies when you were the only one replying to your Kelly Criterion thread, but this isn't the type of forum where you can just take your ball home and whine to mommy when you're not the center of attention.

"Please note that you distorted the chart of my original post."

You never gave the methodology you use to distribute the daily 125,000 QPs or the method you use as random drawings. And without it, your conclusions are probably distorted. At least this set of 25,000 mythical QP players is slightly more reasonable than the 50,000 mythical players buying one QP every day for 50,000 drawings in your last try.

Believe it or not, we all know 51 numbers won't be drawn in the next MM drawing, odds are determine by what won't happen, and we don't need you to remind us.

Stack47,

Disheartened?  LOL!  What the comparison tells me is that the state of knowledge of math and the scientific method here at LP is dramatically deficient.  Some might find this amusing.  I find it pathetic.

If you don't know the methodology used to write a simulation as I described it, I suggest reading my earlier thread on Monte Carlo Methods.  You might also check out the BASIC code I published of a roulette simulation.  Your memory seems to be slipping.

You'll have to refresh MY memory of the 50,000 "mythical" players you refer to.  That sounds more like what Ronnie requested earlier in this thread.

--Jimmy4164

Athens
Greece
Member #133234
September 24, 2012
188 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 7:13 am - IP Logged

Stack47,

Disheartened?  LOL!  What the comparison tells me is that the state of knowledge of math and the scientific method here at LP is dramatically deficient.  Some might find this amusing.  I find it pathetic.

If you don't know the methodology used to write a simulation as I described it, I suggest reading my earlier thread on Monte Carlo Methods.  You might also check out the BASIC code I published of a roulette simulation.  Your memory seems to be slipping.

You'll have to refresh MY memory of the 50,000 "mythical" players you refer to.  That sounds more like what Ronnie requested earlier in this thread.

--Jimmy4164

> What the comparison tells me is that the state of knowledge of math and the scientific method here at LP is dramatically deficient.

Because from the posts I've been reading in general for 2 months now here at LP I see the exact opposite.

6/49 dis(assembly)

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 10:59 am - IP Logged

Ronnie:  Please note that you distorted the chart of my original post.  See above.

Boney526:  Since there seems to be no interest in this thread other than from the clowns and minders, I think it's a waste of time to try to demonstrate how randomness can produce winners, as well as losers, even in a game where the house has a 50% edge.

As for political matters, you are the kind of conservative that an open minded liberal could engage in constructive dialogue with.  However, this is not the place for it.  Too many buffoons.  Check out the comment areas at Huffington Post.

--Jimmy4164

Thanks for admitting that Boney is a Lib, he could not bring himself to do it.........

As for Buffoons, I suppose it takes one to know one...................

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 11:01 am - IP Logged

Im playing this set of 39 for PB. Sat. Dec. 29, 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...........

 Saturday, December 29, 2012 36 · 46 · 50 · 52 · 55    + 14 \$40 Million
New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 1:56 pm - IP Logged

Thanks for admitting that Boney is a Lib, he could not bring himself to do it.........

As for Buffoons, I suppose it takes one to know one...................

Ronnie, you'r a nut.  I'm actually one of the most Conservative people I know, and I can assure you that I'm way more fiscally conservative than almost any member on this site.  Progressivism disguists me, but that's a topic for another site.

I'm done writing actual points, b/c your so nutty you somehow take them as the opposite of what I say.

I agree with Jimmy, the people on this site are profoundly ignorant.  And there's nothing I can do for most of them.

I will make one last reply in regard to Stack47 quoting me at some point, and if anyone cares to have a constructive discussion, I will.

If you want to put words in my mouth, call me a liberal, make up your own definitions for words, or just ignore the points I make then I will not respond anymore.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 3:59 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie, you'r a nut.  I'm actually one of the most Conservative people I know, and I can assure you that I'm way more fiscally conservative than almost any member on this site.  Progressivism disguists me, but that's a topic for another site.

I'm done writing actual points, b/c your so nutty you somehow take them as the opposite of what I say.

I agree with Jimmy, the people on this site are profoundly ignorant.  And there's nothing I can do for most of them.

I will make one last reply in regard to Stack47 quoting me at some point, and if anyone cares to have a constructive discussion, I will.

If you want to put words in my mouth, call me a liberal, make up your own definitions for words, or just ignore the points I make then I will not respond anymore.

I never stopped being constructive Boney even when I'm acting "nutty".

"Progression" in and of itself would be a good thing except the people who call themselves "progressive" are progressing toward a socialist welfare state whose biggest accomplishment is dependency on the state.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 4:08 pm - IP Logged

Sorry if you dont like separate posts, but I like to complete a thought (or two) before I move on to more thoughts. I don't think in short stories or book chapters like some people around here tend to think.......

I ignore a lot of your statements because while they may seem true to you in your mind and your way of thinking they are not true at all in a practical sense. (which by the way, is a hallmark of Libs)

As an example you said that Im not doing anything "new" here but when have you or anyone else here successfully predicted 5+1 or even 5+0 for that matter using ANY number of lines????

Here goes a 4th paragraph, and I'm NOT likely to do this again so I hope you can get a small amount of sense out of what I'm saying and get a glimpse into the reality that not everyone thinks as you think. lol. lol.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 4:15 pm - IP Logged

Ok, one more thought. You may be correct that the statistical odds can not be beaten, but the real live practical truth is the fact that I did beat the statistical odds 5 times over in in 39 draw trial. Call it a quirk if you want but don't say that its not something new or at least a new twist on looking at playing the lottery.

And don't forget that I went down to my lottery office and asked them if I could play 98,820 lines and they not only said yes, they said they had workers available to run the play slips through the machine.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 4:18 pm - IP Logged

Thats right Boney........ I may be a "nut" but if I had played the \$98.820. live each draw I would have been the one who was up \$16 million after 18 draws and if you think no one would ever spend that on gambling talk to Charles Barkley who recently said on "30/30" that he has easily spent \$10 million on gambling.........

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 4:22 pm - IP Logged

You talk about having "constructive conversation" but you never take the time to consider other peoples point of view. If you want to step outside your cosmic egg and have rational discussion Im all for it. Otherwise you will get the "Talk to the hand" message from me the same as you did from LottoBoner............

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 4:23 pm - IP Logged

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 4:23 pm - IP Logged

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 30, 2012, 4:25 pm - IP Logged

 Page 207 of 353