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

Posted: January 11, 2013, 6:55 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by x1kosmic on January 11, 2013

I was wondering, if, ...

When you were doing "Numbers Deep"

or

How many Draws Back the numbers came from

did you at any time, or any point , come to a conclusion , or mabey a little bit of a concensus,

as Far as something like, you would say, or Think to yourself,

"Hey, ... look at that, There always seems to be a Number that ...

comes from 5 Draws back".

or 3 Draws back

or 20 Draws back

Did you ever get an overall Theme or conclusion, that made you feel you were

on to anything? Those were just examples

RJOh was most helpful in posting past results that show the last 35 drawn numbers hit 5 of 5 about 10% of the time. It was interesting to me that "cold streaks" can run about 20 draws at a time and can be "timed"

Stack is right on the money about hitting 5 of 5 consistently enough to "break even" in hopes of hitting a jackpot along the way..;.......

Was that more than 2 sentences????...... precluding me fron proof reading?????

United States Member #124493 March 14, 2012 7023 Posts Offline

Posted: January 11, 2013, 7:23 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on January 11, 2013

RJOh was most helpful in posting past results that show the last 35 drawn numbers hit 5 of 5 about 10% of the time. It was interesting to me that "cold streaks" can run about 20 draws at a time and can be "timed"

Stack is right on the money about hitting 5 of 5 consistently enough to "break even" in hopes of hitting a jackpot along the way..;.......

Was that more than 2 sentences????...... precluding me fron proof reading?????

I think you might be right boss.

Even cycliclal patterns constituting a multiple of 24 is also an interesting observation that I have noted.

I got in on the madness, and self picked my two lines based on "past observed patterns"

NY United States Member #103217 December 31, 2010 96 Posts Offline

Posted: January 11, 2013, 9:17 pm - IP Logged

Say you have to pick 6 numbers out of 1 through 59. Are you better off picking 6 numbers from the set of first half or the 2nd half as if you were picking 6 numbers from 30 numbers instead of 60 numbers. If luck had it and all the winning numbers are from 1st thirty or last thirty, you are greatly increasing your odds of winning? what do think?

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7313 Posts Offline

Posted: January 11, 2013, 9:52 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on January 11, 2013

You're completely misinterpreting my statement. You CAN reduce your odds by buying more tickets for the lottery, or bettin more numbers on roulette. You CANNOT reduce your odds PER TICKET by doing that. There is a huge difference between those two statements.

"The $1 bettor wins $35 and the $5 bettor wins $31. The only relevance of the other four bets is the $4 deduction from the winnings. For someone ragging on Ronnie because his bets are conditional, you're going over the top to prove his point."

The 1 dollar bettor wins 35 against his 1 dollar bet. The 5 dollar better wins 31 against his 5 dollar bet. I don't see how that's hard to understand. You're not getting 35 minus 4 paid against your 1 dollar, you are getting 35 to 1 and getting 4 dollars taken away. They are seperate. Even though mathemetically, the answer is the same, the logic is not sound and cannot be transfered to other similar problems.

As for your assertion that Ronnie's odds of winning (and I'm assuming you mean 5/5) I didn't do math, but that seems about right. The odds of winning are slightly under 1 in 4 million, and he's playing slightly under 100 thousand. That's not better than anyone else who could play that many lines, though, by any other method.

As for your last point, they are the same, assuming American rules. Call it what you want. If you win any of your 1 dollar bets, you will be paid 35, keep your 1 and have 11 taken from you, leaving you with a profit of 24 dollars. If you win on a 12 dollar bet on that row, you also win 24 dollars. If you lose on either bet you lose 12 dollars.

There the same. If you win, you win 24 if you lose you lose 12. Sounds the same to me, unless you play with some La' Partage rule or whatever they call it.

"You CANNOT reduce your odds PER TICKET by doing that"

But you keep telling me you can reduce your odds PER ROULETTE NUMBER by doing that.

When the $31 is paid, it really doesn't matter what the overall odds on winning number was or if the bettor says he knew only one of the numbers could win, the other four bets would lose, or says he had five chances out of 38. I prefer to look at odds as "to 1" when there is only one outcome knowing whatever number of other chance I bet are "to 1" too.

You keep saying I don't understand, but I mentioned the accumulative effect many times. I know for a fact every extra $1 bet will give me another chance to collect $36 and all the extra bets will be deducted from the $36 collection.

"Even though mathemetically, the answer is the same, the logic is not sound and cannot be transfered to other similar problems."

The math is the same so why should it make any difference how the odds are expressed?

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7313 Posts Offline

Posted: January 11, 2013, 10:23 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on January 11, 2013

RJOh was most helpful in posting past results that show the last 35 drawn numbers hit 5 of 5 about 10% of the time. It was interesting to me that "cold streaks" can run about 20 draws at a time and can be "timed"

Stack is right on the money about hitting 5 of 5 consistently enough to "break even" in hopes of hitting a jackpot along the way..;.......

Was that more than 2 sentences????...... precluding me fron proof reading?????

I haven't done any analysis of the 28 number groups that will match five numbers in five consecutive drawings, but it maybe something worthwhile looking into. Off the top of my head, see how many times none of the numbers were from the last three drawings, eliminate those numbers and choose 28 numbers from the remaining 41 or less numbers. Or the percentage of when the last three drawings produces 2 or 3 hits.

The lottery pessimists will say it's not logical and makes no sense and the lottery optimists will explore the potential.

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

Posted: January 12, 2013, 7:55 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on January 11, 2013

"You CANNOT reduce your odds PER TICKET by doing that"

But you keep telling me you can reduce your odds PER ROULETTE NUMBER by doing that.

When the $31 is paid, it really doesn't matter what the overall odds on winning number was or if the bettor says he knew only one of the numbers could win, the other four bets would lose, or says he had five chances out of 38. I prefer to look at odds as "to 1" when there is only one outcome knowing whatever number of other chance I bet are "to 1" too.

You keep saying I don't understand, but I mentioned the accumulative effect many times. I know for a fact every extra $1 bet will give me another chance to collect $36 and all the extra bets will be deducted from the $36 collection.

"Even though mathemetically, the answer is the same, the logic is not sound and cannot be transfered to other similar problems."

The math is the same so why should it make any difference how the odds are expressed?

I never said you can reduce your odds per roulette bet, either. I never said that, at all....

The math is not the same, I said the ANSWER is the same. 2x=1+1 when x=1 but not when x=2. It's that type of coincidence, your math is fundamentally wrong. You did the math wrong, and happened to get the right answer. It almost looks like you used the answer to try to figure out the math.

And the thing is that 33 to 5 reduces down to 6.6 to 1, not 33 to 1. To think the latter is silly.

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

Posted: January 12, 2013, 8:08 am - IP Logged

"You keep saying I don't understand, but I mentioned the accumulative effect many times. I know for a fact every extra $1 bet will give me another chance to collect $36 and all the extra bets will be deducted from the $36 collection."

Right so the payout is 31 to every 5 you bet. Not 31 to every 1. That would imply you only lose 1 dollar when you lose. As you can see, that's wrong.

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

Posted: January 12, 2013, 9:24 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jaggudada on January 11, 2013

Say you have to pick 6 numbers out of 1 through 59. Are you better off picking 6 numbers from the set of first half or the 2nd half as if you were picking 6 numbers from 30 numbers instead of 60 numbers. If luck had it and all the winning numbers are from 1st thirty or last thirty, you are greatly increasing your odds of winning? what do think?

Yes it will greatly increase your odds. In fact, when you successfully remove half of the number pool you have eliminated around 97.4% of the combinations.

Columbia, SC United States Member #135285 November 21, 2012 584 Posts Offline

Posted: January 12, 2013, 12:56 pm - IP Logged

I think I look at lottery drawings differently than some when it comes to computerized drawings.......Instead of watching for which numbers are comparable with others, I'm usually looking for a total sum of the drawing, so when it comes to this method, some numbers are comparable, but it's according to the total amount of the sum I'm "guesstimating"....Since I put most of my time into the Carolina 5 drawings, it's even tougher because alot of the drawings have paired numbers which makes the method even more complicating...DAM* THEM! lol

"If you can DREAM it, you can DO it!"- Walt Disney

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7313 Posts Offline

Posted: January 12, 2013, 1:06 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on January 12, 2013

I never said you can reduce your odds per roulette bet, either. I never said that, at all....

The math is not the same, I said the ANSWER is the same. 2x=1+1 when x=1 but not when x=2. It's that type of coincidence, your math is fundamentally wrong. You did the math wrong, and happened to get the right answer. It almost looks like you used the answer to try to figure out the math.

And the thing is that 33 to 5 reduces down to 6.6 to 1, not 33 to 1. To think the latter is silly.

"And the thing is that 33 to 5 reduces down to 6.6 to 1"

And that's the accumulative effect by betting four other numbers, but the only effect on the first bet is a slight decrease in the payoff.

"not 33 to 1."

It's five chances to match one number and only slightly reduces the odds against any one of those numbers winning. It's just as correct to say the odds against any one of those chances winning is 33 to 1 as to say the accumulative effect gives the overall bet odds of 6.6 to 1.

I'll use the number "17" as the first bet. You're making it sound like the other bets increases the chances of "17" winning because of the accumulative effect. The odds against winning the accumulative bet become 6.6 to 1, but the odds against "17" winning are still the 33 to 1 because the accumulative effect reduced the number of losing outcomes, but doesn't increase the chances of "17" winning. The house will payout $35 if "17" wins because that's what they payoff for a single number win.

When the number "17" hits, it's impossible for any of those extra chances to win. If it makes you sleep better believing playing those 4 extra numbers give "17" a better chance of being the winning number, there is nothing I can say.

This doesn't simplify anything, it's silly. Get real, you're no more likely to have a lottery with only 10 possible outcomes than one decided by the flip of a coin. Who's dreaming and making up stuff now?

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

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

Posted: January 12, 2013, 2:41 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on January 12, 2013

"And the thing is that 33 to 5 reduces down to 6.6 to 1"

And that's the accumulative effect by betting four other numbers, but the only effect on the first bet is a slight decrease in the payoff.

"not 33 to 1."

It's five chances to match one number and only slightly reduces the odds against any one of those numbers winning. It's just as correct to say the odds against any one of those chances winning is 33 to 1 as to say the accumulative effect gives the overall bet odds of 6.6 to 1.

I'll use the number "17" as the first bet. You're making it sound like the other bets increases the chances of "17" winning because of the accumulative effect. The odds against winning the accumulative bet become 6.6 to 1, but the odds against "17" winning are still the 33 to 1 because the accumulative effect reduced the number of losing outcomes, but doesn't increase the chances of "17" winning. The house will payout $35 if "17" wins because that's what they payoff for a single number win.

When the number "17" hits, it's impossible for any of those extra chances to win. If it makes you sleep better believing playing those 4 extra numbers give "17" a better chance of being the winning number, there is nothing I can say.

" If it makes you sleep better believing playing those 4 extra numbers give "17" a better chance of being the winning number, there is nothing I can say."

Again, I never said that or made any claim remotely similar to that.

"The odds against winning the accumulative bet become 6.6 to 1, but the odds against "17" winning are still the 33 to 1 because the accumulative effect reduced the number of losing outcomes, but doesn't increase the chances of "17" winning."

The first part of that statement is absolutely correct. But the second part is wrong. The odds of just 17 hitting are 37 to 1. But that's pretty useless information taken alone, since you've made 4 other bets along with it. No matter how you slice it, you can only express your odds as some multiple of 6.6 to 1. Again, that's the SAME as 33 to 5, so that's not what I take issue with.

It's that you are saying that 6.6 to 1 and 33 to 1 are the same thing if you call one accumulative. They are not the same by any standardized measurement, and expressing your odds as 33 to 1 is wrong.

If you are looking at JUST the number "17" THEN you can define the odds as 37 to 1. You cannot just ignore 4 numbers that cannot win if 17 does. By that logic you have to ignore all the possibilities except "win" or "lose" and you would end up with 1 to 1, which is clearly WRONG. And either way you shouldn't be looking at just 17 if you bet 17 along with 4 other numbers.

If it makes you sleep better to do so, you can, but it's incorrect and you know it. You can't just ignore certain possibilities simply because they cannot all occur together. How you can think that is mind boggling. The odds are 6.6 to 1 and they will pay you 6.2 to 1 if you win. Plain and simple.