Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 7:43 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
4.820
PrintE-mailLink
RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19825 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 * 
   
             Evil Looking       

    jimjwright's avatar - Yellow 3.png
    Park City, UT
    United States
    Member #69864
    January 18, 2009
    993 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.

          RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
          mid-Ohio
          United States
          Member #9
          March 24, 2001
          19825 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 * 
             
                       Evil Looking       

            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
            mid-Ohio
            United States
            Member #9
            March 24, 2001
            19825 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 * 
               
                         Evil Looking       


              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.

                Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                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.

                  Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                  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)

                    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                    mid-Ohio
                    United States
                    Member #9
                    March 24, 2001
                    19825 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 * 
                       
                                 Evil Looking       


                      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

                                 Patriot


                            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?

                            Green laughI 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

                              Green laughI 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