United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 4:39 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by LottoBoner on January 6, 2013

Finally, Thomas Bayes wrote an essay discussing theological implications of de Moivre's results: his solution to a problem, namely that of determining the probability of an event by its relative frequency, was taken as a proof for the existence of God by Bayes.^{[30]} Finally in 1812, Pierre-Simon Laplace published his Théorie analytique des probabilités in which he consolidated and laid down many fundamental results in probability and statistics such as the moment generating function, method of least squares, inductive probability, and hypothesis testing, thus completing the final phase in the development of classical probability. Indeed, in light of all this, there is good reason Bernoulli's work is hailed as such a seminal event; not only did his various influences, direct and indirect, set the mathematical study of combinatorics spinning, but even theology was impacted.

These guys proved the existence of God AND better odds. That what I call "killing two birds with one stone"

Whiskey Island United States Member #90216 April 24, 2010 12752 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 4:55 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by LottoBoner on January 6, 2013

Finally, Thomas Bayes wrote an essay discussing theological implications of de Moivre's results: his solution to a problem, namely that of determining the probability of an event by its relative frequency, was taken as a proof for the existence of God by Bayes.^{[30]} Finally in 1812, Pierre-Simon Laplace published his Théorie analytique des probabilités in which he consolidated and laid down many fundamental results in probability and statistics such as the moment generating function, method of least squares, inductive probability, and hypothesis testing, thus completing the final phase in the development of classical probability. Indeed, in light of all this, there is good reason Bernoulli's work is hailed as such a seminal event; not only did his various influences, direct and indirect, set the mathematical study of combinatorics spinning, but even theology was impacted.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7322 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 5:17 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 6, 2013

Boney526,

I agree. There really isn't a more delicate way to put it.

People like Stack47 are either true believers or are paid for their efforts here. If they truly are believers, they either experienced short term winnings way out in the right hand tail of an ROI distribution, or know someone well who did. Retired casino employees often start to believe in systems as a result of observing customers win with [E.G.] roulette systems, particularly the kind discussed above.

Even when presented with the skewed distribution of randomly generated ROIs that I put up recently, Stack47's thinking causes him to proclaim that there are ways to increase your chances of being in the right hand tail.

It would be encouraging if believers would stop asking us when we are going to contribute something "constructive." If they stopped, perhaps we could assume they finally get the message that if constructive is defined as devising ways to "increase odds of winning," there are none.

All that can be hoped for is that a few curious readers here discover the wisdom of probability theory, which had its beginnings in the 1600's. Mathematicians at the University of Texas have a concise summary of these beginnings with Links to other interesting sites as well:

P.S. It really would be interesting to read a substantive explanation of just what people here believe the physical causative factors are behind a "streak" in, say, roulette.

--Jimmy4164

"People like Stack47 are either true believers or are paid for their efforts here."

Speaking of hypocrisy, I'll ask you the same question you asked Ridge.

"how could an ordinary, run of the mill, anonymous poster at LP, such as yourself, know anything about another anonymous poster at LP?"

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7322 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 5:38 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on January 6, 2013

What your saving makes perfect sense Stack.......

You clearly said IF a person can hit three times in a row they gain an advantage.

Its just too simple and strait forward for Boney to grasp. I think he has reached the point of just being confrontational no matter what the subject matter is.

Boney is just being confrontational because unless they are completely stupid, they should know any time anyone makes a bet, there is a risk of losing. Jimmy is just distraction who appears to be a crusader against gambling in general.

"IF a person can hit three times in a row they gain an advantage."

And exactly what we have said throughout this discussion; IF a person can match five out of 28 numbers, they reduce the odds to 98,280 to 1 of having a five number match. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 5:55 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on January 6, 2013

Boney is just being confrontational because unless they are completely stupid, they should know any time anyone makes a bet, there is a risk of losing. Jimmy is just distraction who appears to be a crusader against gambling in general.

"IF a person can hit three times in a row they gain an advantage."

And exactly what we have said throughout this discussion; IF a person can match five out of 28 numbers, they reduce the odds to 98,280 to 1 of having a five number match. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

But nobody CAN do that any more consistantly than the odds dictate, so the point is moot.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7322 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 8:04 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on January 6, 2013

But nobody CAN do that any more consistantly than the odds dictate, so the point is moot.

Good luck on your crazy quest.

Unless you're calculating the odds different than me, it's 39 to 1 against any group of 28 numbers matching five numbers. The question here isn't about changing those odds, but asking if some 28 number groups can get more than one match in 39 drawings. The answer is "YES" because we know for a fact over 19,000 groups will match five number in five consecutive drawings so in 39 drawings, over 741,000 groups will get five consecutive five number matches.

If you check the results of any 39 drawing period, you'll find that other groups matched five numbers in five or more drawings, but not consecutively. There were only 20 different numbers drawn in the last five MM drawings so it's a fact over 19,000 groups will match five numbers in six consecutive drawings.

(1) we know the odds are 39 to 1, (2) we know some groups will have more than one five number match, some will have five, and some will will get more in 39 drawings, (3) we know it's possible for someone to predict five groups will match five numbers before the drawing in less than 39 drawings, (4) we know it's difficult to create a group that will match five numbers five times in 60 drawings, (5) we know we are taking a risk when we make a bet, and (6) we even know it possible someone won't get a five number match in 39 drawings .

"Good luck on your crazy quest."

I see nothing crazy about knowing it's probable that once in every 39 drawings a group of 28 numbers should match five numbers and trying to isolate some of the thousands of groups that will match in five or more drawings in every 39 drawings. Even if we aren't successful after making a bet, we already knew there was a risk before making the bet.

The majority of your criticism is base on what we didn't say so it's not even constructive criticism. You and Jimmy ought to start your own thread where he can post about the evils of gambling you tell everybody the horrible odds against winning. You can debate the difference between short term and long term by pointing out that based on the current two drawing a week, it will take over 1682 years before it's possible that even 0.01% of the total combinations can be drawn.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7322 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 9:40 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 6, 2013

Seriously, I can't imagine a world without the "IF" statement. Ronnie316 is using

conditional odds. For example IF he is able to trap the 5 correct numbers in a pool

of 29 numbers he has improved his chances of winning regardless of the odds for

the game.

Are his methods of selection giving him an edge in the game, I could say yes or I could

say no but regardless of what one believes chance plays a role.

The only way to change the odds is to change the matrix of the game, Ronnie316 is

not really doing this because regardless of which numbers he removes the balls are not

removed from the hopper, RNG etc.....

Jimboozoo in the last couple years has stumbled upon statistics and it changed his life

in such a way that he now views himself as an enlightened being. Around 20 years ago

I wrote my first lottery program which was math based. One of very first things I noticed

was that math was limited as far as helping me win.

Some believe they can better there chances of winning and some do not. Is a winning

streak just a chance occurrence or is it something more. It can't be proven one way or

the other regardless of what one believes. Will a winning streak last forever or will it end

the next drawing? Most if not all winning methods are based on short term patterns that

render back testing useless. Find something that can be defined within the randomness

of the draw and make a few calculations for it's next expected show and wait until it's in

a prime position to show and then jump in, kind of like card counting.

Anyone interested in trying to predict something like the next lottery number set should

do a little study into random sampling and CLT "central limit theorem." Forget the balls

bouncing around inside a hopper and view the draw as an assortment of biased variables.

Find a bias for one variable and you have a starting point then keep adding more and more

as you find them.

The surest way to loose is to play every game.

RL

"Are his methods of selection giving him an edge in the game, I could say yes or I could say no but regardless of what one believes chance plays a role."

When a player sits down at a Blackjack table the only conscious choices they can make is should they bet and if so how much with no thoughts of having an edge unless their choice to make the bet is based on the edge of card counting. They have another choice after seeing the two cards and can determine if hitting or standing will give them an edge based on the dealers exposed card. But when the results are known, it's possible all the right choices were made to get an edge but still lose the hand.

"Ronnie316 is using conditional odds."

Exactly and considering the number of times the word "IF" was used, I don't understand why it's necessary for us to explain it.

"Find a bias for one variable and you have a starting point then keep adding more and more as you find them."

But without knowing all the variables, Jimmy couldn't use his handy dandy Monte Carlo simulator.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 9:44 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on January 6, 2013

Thank you. Whats really sad is how they treat everyone like they are too stupid to understand that there is no long tern "statistical" advantage when lottery players are NOT even trying to get a long term advantage.

As I said before.... These guys could care less about the lottery............

Ronnie316,

"Thank you. Whats really sad is how they treat everyone like they are too stupid to understand that there is no long tern 'statistical' advantage when lottery players are NOT even trying to get a long term advantage."

If you are not even trying to get a long term advantage because you understand that there is none, then just what is it you hope to accomplish, financially that is?

It makes me feel good when I see text extracted from mathematical books and articles and pasted here without attribution. It tells me that, even though I see no evidence of understanding surrounding these pastes, at least, my recent links got a few people to read something they most likely would never have found on their own.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 10:03 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on January 6, 2013

"People like Stack47 are either true believers or are paid for their efforts here."

Speaking of hypocrisy, I'll ask you the same question you asked Ridge.

"how could an ordinary, run of the mill, anonymous poster at LP, such as yourself, know anything about another anonymous poster at LP?"

Stack47,

Read your post above again. I used the construction, Either / Or. I don't KNOW what category you fall into. However, I seem to recall you said you were a former casino worker, which, for me, supports the idea that you are a believer. On the other hand, your posting content, patterns, and your longevity here, might suggest the fee for service alternative.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: January 6, 2013, 10:17 pm - IP Logged

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

Since you seem to think it matters how early someone used statistics and computers, I thought I would clarify an allusion you made in your last post.

If you were truthful in a PM over a year ago when you alluded to your age, I was programming large room-size computers in the military before you entered high school.