Welcome Guest
You last visited August 20, 2017, 5:03 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 214 of 353
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20111 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 12:12 am - IP Logged

RJOh,

I'm still confident that there is an error in your analysis.

Like I said, using the formula (44/56)*(43/55)*(42/54)*(41/53)*(40/52) I get roughly 1 in 28 against your eliminating 12 numbers sucessfully, rather than 1 in 487.  The formula being the product of the odds of each indivdual balling NOT hitting one of those 12.

I see the math you did to get 1 in 487 but I'm pretty sure the logic is wrong.

You were right when you first said the chart with odds(1:2) of matching zero was for one line of 3,819,,816 but the chart change shows the odds of matching zero for 792 lines of 3,819,816 as 487:1 not 1:487.  The 487:1 is for 792 lines which would be 487/792 or 1:1.626  or roughly 2:3

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

Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
1003 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 1:38 am - IP Logged

The odds of a number not repeating from the previous draw is typically around 62-63% for the big games and that is just eliminating 5 balls.

Jimmy

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 3:16 am - IP Logged

Get a grip bro.

I was trying to ask him if I made an error in my math, or if he did.  Calm down.  I had a busy morning and hadn't gotten to eating yet, so I was a bit tired.

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 3:22 am - IP Logged

Stack47,

Your responses to both of the clips you quoted from my post are very telling.  And in a way, they're puzzling.  Look above.   In response to me encouraging you to present your potentially revolutionary ideas to a premier mathematical software publisher, instead of thanking me and making inquiries at Mathworks, you go on the defensive and make statements clearly indicating you are not confident in your beliefs. Perhaps you feel your ideas need to be peer reviewed before presenting them to a potential employer or publisher.  If that's the case, why not prepare an article for one of the math or science journals?  A more modest approach might be to establish an account at Wikipedia and present your ideas there.

This should get you started:

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Getting_started

--Jimmy4164

If that's the case, why not prepare an article for one of the math or science journals?  A more modest approach might be to establish an account at Wikipedia and present your ideas there.

For one thing those who crunch with scientific method have limited time.  So the time it takes to prepare an article could potentially be self-defeating in the effort to win a Jackpot.  Just the time replying to this post is cutting into my workout time, and I will need to make adjustments accordingly.

Second a wikipedia article might be interesting but at some point you stop trying to sway the infidels.  I mean for petes sake, they dont even have the flag formation on wikipedia, so as far as a good source of knowledge, i have to think twice.

Third as far as mathworks is concerned they wouldn't believe it any way.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20111 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 3:50 am - IP Logged

The odds of a number not repeating from the previous draw is typically around 62-63% for the big games and that is just eliminating 5 balls.

Jimmy

I not only consider PB and MM big games but also Ohio's Classic Lotto which is a 6/49 game which has matched 1-3 of the numbers in the previous drawing 56% of its 932 drawings.

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

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20111 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 3:58 am - IP Logged

If that's the case, why not prepare an article for one of the math or science journals?  A more modest approach might be to establish an account at Wikipedia and present your ideas there.

For one thing those who crunch with scientific method have limited time.  So the time it takes to prepare an article could potentially be self-defeating in the effort to win a Jackpot.  Just the time replying to this post is cutting into my workout time, and I will need to make adjustments accordingly.

Second a wikipedia article might be interesting but at some point you stop trying to sway the infidels.  I mean for petes sake, they dont even have the flag formation on wikipedia, so as far as a good source of knowledge, i have to think twice.

Third as far as mathworks is concerned they wouldn't believe it any way.

".............for petes sake, they dont even have the flag formation on wikipedia,......"

The only folks who know about the flag formation are those who read Gail Howard's book and what little they know haven't helped them win anything or explain what the hell they're talking about to anyone else.

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

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 4:01 am - IP Logged

".............for petes sake, they dont even have the flag formation on wikipedia,......"

The only folks who know about the flag formation are those who read Gail Howard's book and what little they know haven't helped them win anything or explain what the hell they're talking about to anyone else.

thats not entirely true. besides there is much more than just LFF in the book.

granted to win with the LFF takes much practice, patience and observation and experimentation and experience to make it work, but I agree its not the end all or be all, but to ignore it and to pretend it doesn't exist is quite novice.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 7:02 am - IP Logged

".............for petes sake, they dont even have the flag formation on wikipedia,......"

The only folks who know about the flag formation are those who read Gail Howard's book and what little they know haven't helped them win anything or explain what the hell they're talking about to anyone else.

That's because they're studying something that has no relevance....

If Gail Howard actually knew how to beat the lottery, trust me, she wouldn't be selling books.  The only thing Gail Howard is good at is marketing books to suckers.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 7:06 am - IP Logged

You were right when you first said the chart with odds(1:2) of matching zero was for one line of 3,819,,816 but the chart change shows the odds of matching zero for 792 lines of 3,819,816 as 487:1 not 1:487.  The 487:1 is for 792 lines which would be 487/792 or 1:1.626  or roughly 2:3

I see that, but I'm pretty confident the methodology you used is incorrect, seeing as my math should show the odds of eliminating 12.

Can you explain the logic behind the math?  I'm actually interested to see whose right, although with us getting such a huge difference in our answers I suppose it'd be easy enough to just go check which it is closer to.  (1 in 487 or 1 in 28)

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20111 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 8:54 am - IP Logged

I see that, but I'm pretty confident the methodology you used is incorrect, seeing as my math should show the odds of eliminating 12.

Can you explain the logic behind the math?  I'm actually interested to see whose right, although with us getting such a huge difference in our answers I suppose it'd be easy enough to just go check which it is closer to.  (1 in 487 or 1 in 28)

I've already explained 487:1 (from the chart) is not 1 in 487 and the 487:1 is for 792 chances which would be 487/792 or roughly 2/3.   Can you explain your logic for thinking 487:1 is the same as 1:487?

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

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 10:23 am - IP Logged

Stack47,

Your responses to both of the clips you quoted from my post are very telling.  And in a way, they're puzzling.  Look above.   In response to me encouraging you to present your potentially revolutionary ideas to a premier mathematical software publisher, instead of thanking me and making inquiries at Mathworks, you go on the defensive and make statements clearly indicating you are not confident in your beliefs. Perhaps you feel your ideas need to be peer reviewed before presenting them to a potential employer or publisher.  If that's the case, why not prepare an article for one of the math or science journals?  A more modest approach might be to establish an account at Wikipedia and present your ideas there.

This should get you started:

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Getting_started

--Jimmy4164

Don't take this ass clown seriously Stack...... Only a schizo would post extremely sarcastic comments and then IN THE VERY NEXT POST claim that he was being sincere and criticize the responses.

FYI.... Jimmy4164 started this exchange by referring to people on this thread as ignorant and buffoons.....

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 10:28 am - IP Logged

Here are my 12 losing numbers for tonight's PB draw.

01 08 11 12 15 21 24 44 45 48 51 59

Looks like my losing numbers were stinky enough to MISS all 5 winning numbers.

Chalk up another point for....... Getting BETTER ODDS is so easy a buffoon could do it.........

 Wednesday, January 02, 2013 18 · 20 · 28 · 35 · 53    + 20 \$50 Million

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 10:42 am - IP Logged

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 10:44 am - IP Logged

I've already explained 487:1 (from the chart) is not 1 in 487 and the 487:1 is for 792 chances which would be 487/792 or roughly 2/3.   Can you explain your logic for thinking 487:1 is the same as 1:487?

I think I may be wrong, but I think your calculations are incorrect RJ.

I do trust boney when he says Gail Howard has never won a cent in the lottery.  As a matter of fact I trust him so much there is a nice bridge he said that I can get pretty cheap and I cant wait to engrave LOTTOBONER BRIDGE on it.

And  I doubly trust him when he says the twin towers melted because of jet fuel.  That whole story about asbestos, was just a story.

Yes logically It all makes sense.  Even though I may be wrong because I have not had my wheaties and I am still waiting for the chickens to wake up so I can have my glass of raw eggs.

RJ Can you please explain to me the logic of 2+2=4?

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 3, 2013, 10:48 am - IP Logged

I think I may be wrong, but I think your calculations are incorrect RJ.

I do trust boney when he says Gail Howard has never won a cent in the lottery.  As a matter of fact I trust him so much there is a nice bridge he said that I can get pretty cheap and I cant wait to engrave LOTTOBONER BRIDGE on it.

And  I doubly trust him when he says the twin towers melted because of jet fuel.  That whole story about asbestos, was just a story.

Yes logically It all makes sense.  Even though I may be wrong because I have not had my wheaties and I am still waiting for the chickens to wake up so I can have my glass of raw eggs.

RJ Can you please explain to me the logic of 2+2=4?

I have to go with Boney on this one too....... Everyone should keep a spare bridge around, at ALL times.

 Page 214 of 353