Welcome Guest
You last visited December 2, 2016, 2:44 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 235 of 353
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 12, 2013, 5:05 pm - IP Logged

" 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.

"The odds of just 17 hitting are 37 to 1."

And the odds against Black are 1.11 to 1, but that doesn't increases the chance of "17" winning.

"But that's pretty useless information taken alone, since you've made 4 other bets along with it."

I explained the real effect; it lowers the chances against by one and lowers the payoff by \$1 for every additional bet. Do you really believe betting on Black will decrease the odds of a bet on "17" against winning?

"It's that you are saying that 6.6 to 1 and 33 to 1 are the same thing if you call one accumulative."

I'm talking about the odds against any of the chances in the accumulative bet not the accumulative effect of saying "I bet \$5 to win \$31" and quickly doing additional math and explaining to the guy standing next to me (who could care less) why that accumulative bet got payoff odds of 6.2 to 1. If they both bet on "17", they are both paid \$35 regardless of any other bet they made.

The four additional chances reduces the odds against by four, but none of them increases the chances of "17" winning. Will making place and show bets on a horse increase that horse's chances of winning the race?

Additional bets only effect the odds on overall wager and exactly why lottery players wheel multiple numbers. When a group of 28 numbers matches five numbers, 33,649 of the combos will not match one number. And four of the five Roulette bets will lose.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 12, 2013, 8:12 pm - IP Logged

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?

RJOh,

You missed the point, completely!  Of course there are no Lotto games of this size.  The idea here is to  allow people to apply their System ideas to a scaled down Lotto game that allows them to test hypotheses, in many cases, by inspection, or with a few simple calculations. For example, think about the ongoing discussion in this thread about selecting subsets of 28 numbers to wheel.  I gave you/them a start to further check that out.

Don't you get it?

Take another look.

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 12, 2013, 8:26 pm - IP Logged

One of the many wonders of a self pick number is that it can be played over and over until it wins.

My idea for "community numbers" was having 5 people volunteering the use of there favorite self pick line for  play by all 5 people in the group. (or pool) Everyone plays all 5 lines and when it hits, it splits.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 12, 2013, 8:33 pm - IP Logged

RJOh,

You missed the point, completely!  Of course there are no Lotto games of this size.  The idea here is to  allow people to apply their System ideas to a scaled down Lotto game that allows them to test hypotheses, in many cases, by inspection, or with a few simple calculations. For example, think about the ongoing discussion in this thread about selecting subsets of 28 numbers to wheel.  I gave you/them a start to further check that out.

Don't you get it?

Take another look.

--Jimmy4164

Jimmy, were you born on April fools day, 1964?

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 12, 2013, 8:34 pm - IP Logged

Just wondering.........

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19814 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 12, 2013, 8:56 pm - IP Logged

RJOh,

You missed the point, completely!  Of course there are no Lotto games of this size.  The idea here is to  allow people to apply their System ideas to a scaled down Lotto game that allows them to test hypotheses, in many cases, by inspection, or with a few simple calculations. For example, think about the ongoing discussion in this thread about selecting subsets of 28 numbers to wheel.  I gave you/them a start to further check that out.

Don't you get it?

Take another look.

--Jimmy4164

I won't waste any time taking another look because in my opinion it doesn't even resemble a lottery and nothing about it would be useful as far as coming up with any ideas that could apply to a real lottery or aid in developing a system that might apply to a real game.  If you had picked a matrix of 5/10, at least it would have had some semblance of the real thing.

possible combos of 5/10 numbers = 252
MATCH   ODDS     WINNING COMBOS
5/5    1 : 252     1
4/5    1 : 10      25
3/5    1 : 3       100
_____________________________________
overall odds 1 : 2 0.

It only has 252 possible outcomes which is small enough to be understand and has all the elements of games that are actually played.  Once understood, it would be simple to expand it to a matrix of 5/39 which is played in many states.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 12, 2013, 9:55 pm - IP Logged

I won't waste any time taking another look because in my opinion it doesn't even resemble a lottery and nothing about it would be useful as far as coming up with any ideas that could apply to a real lottery or aid in developing a system that might apply to a real game.  If you had picked a matrix of 5/10, at least it would have had some semblance of the real thing.

possible combos of 5/10 numbers = 252
MATCH   ODDS     WINNING COMBOS
5/5    1 : 252     1
4/5    1 : 10      25
3/5    1 : 3       100
_____________________________________
overall odds 1 : 2 0.

It only has 252 possible outcomes which is small enough to be understand and has all the elements of games that are actually played.  Once understood, it would be simple to expand it to a matrix of 5/39 which is played in many states.

I'm really surprised that you don't understand the value of the smaller model.

Unfortunately, there isn't any more I can say to help you regarding that.

But if you prefer to work with the additional complexity of your proposal,

perhaps you could explain Ronnie and Stack's subset theory in terms of it.

And work out the probabilities of selecting the correct subset.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2013, 1:25 am - IP Logged

"The odds of just 17 hitting are 37 to 1."

And the odds against Black are 1.11 to 1, but that doesn't increases the chance of "17" winning.

"But that's pretty useless information taken alone, since you've made 4 other bets along with it."

I explained the real effect; it lowers the chances against by one and lowers the payoff by \$1 for every additional bet. Do you really believe betting on Black will decrease the odds of a bet on "17" against winning?

"It's that you are saying that 6.6 to 1 and 33 to 1 are the same thing if you call one accumulative."

I'm talking about the odds against any of the chances in the accumulative bet not the accumulative effect of saying "I bet \$5 to win \$31" and quickly doing additional math and explaining to the guy standing next to me (who could care less) why that accumulative bet got payoff odds of 6.2 to 1. If they both bet on "17", they are both paid \$35 regardless of any other bet they made.

The four additional chances reduces the odds against by four, but none of them increases the chances of "17" winning. Will making place and show bets on a horse increase that horse's chances of winning the race?

Additional bets only effect the odds on overall wager and exactly why lottery players wheel multiple numbers. When a group of 28 numbers matches five numbers, 33,649 of the combos will not match one number. And four of the five Roulette bets will lose.

I don't know where you keep getting the idea that I think anything changes the odds of anything winning.

I NEVER said that.  You simply kept insisting that I said that.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19814 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2013, 1:30 am - IP Logged

I'm really surprised that you don't understand the value of the smaller model.

Unfortunately, there isn't any more I can say to help you regarding that.

But if you prefer to work with the additional complexity of your proposal,

perhaps you could explain Ronnie and Stack's subset theory in terms of it.

And work out the probabilities of selecting the correct subset.

I didn't think what I wrote was complex, it's basics for understanding figuring probabilities.

As for Ronnie and Stack's theories, they're as capable of explaining their theories as you are at explaining how studying a 2/5 matrix can help one design  a better lottery system.

Good luck to you all.

* 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 13, 2013, 1:34 am - IP Logged

I didn't think what I wrote was complex, it's basics for understanding figuring probabilities.

As for Ronnie and Stack's theories, they're as capable of explaining their theories as you are at explaining how studying a 2/5 matrix can help one design  a better lottery system.

Good luck to you all.

I suspect his whole reason to post that was to show that no lottery system could perform better than any other, not to try to prove you can develop a better system (which you can't!)

It's much easier to see that when you take a relatively large pool of numbers, and make them smaller.  The math still applies to the larger games, but it is very easy to see why no system will work against a small field of numbers.  Less variance to weave through.  It's nice and simple to notive you're LOSING on these games that don't exist.

It seems pretty obvious why they don't exist.  They'd virtually assure everyone's a loser.  With the lottery, and other games with enough variance, there will be some winners in the sea of losers.  So it can actually be entertaining, even if it's not a good investment.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2013, 10:45 am - IP Logged

I suspect his whole reason to post that was to show that no lottery system could perform better than any other, not to try to prove you can develop a better system (which you can't!)

It's much easier to see that when you take a relatively large pool of numbers, and make them smaller.  The math still applies to the larger games, but it is very easy to see why no system will work against a small field of numbers.  Less variance to weave through.  It's nice and simple to notive you're LOSING on these games that don't exist.

It seems pretty obvious why they don't exist.  They'd virtually assure everyone's a loser.  With the lottery, and other games with enough variance, there will be some winners in the sea of losers.  So it can actually be entertaining, even if it's not a good investment.

You guys really are fixated on losing....... Its no surprise to the rest of us that there are a sea of losers for every winner in a lottery draw. You guys are trying to prove something that everyone already knows.........

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2013, 10:48 am - IP Logged

I'm really surprised that you don't understand the value of the smaller model.

Unfortunately, there isn't any more I can say to help you regarding that.

But if you prefer to work with the additional complexity of your proposal,

perhaps you could explain Ronnie and Stack's subset theory in terms of it.

And work out the probabilities of selecting the correct subset.

I thought it was a cool little matrix even though it has no relevance to winning. Now I can see that it has great relevance to losing so Im sure it a awesome system that you a boney could work together perfecting........

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2013, 10:49 am - IP Logged

Wait...... Are we working our way backwards to the coin flip lesson...........

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2013, 10:50 am - IP Logged

You guys are looking more and more like anti-loottery trolls all the time...............

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2013, 10:52 am - IP Logged

You guys really are fixated on losing....... Its no surprise to the rest of us that there are a sea of losers for every winner in a lottery draw. You guys are trying to prove something that everyone already knows.........

They also invariably love to use the words "cannot" "will not" and "never" in a possesive incantation.

Definately lacking in PEF.

And then they expect us to take them seriously.  Really?

 Page 235 of 353