Welcome Guest
You last visited January 23, 2017, 1:46 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 239 of 353
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 14, 2013, 7:25 pm - IP Logged

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.

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

You're talking about the same type of conditional bet we talked about for 230 pages. But when I said the odds against any one of the bets can be only lowered by one chance against for every additional chance because only one chance can win, you want to argue the odds are five times lower. I agreed the accumulative effect gave the overall bet 6.6:1 odds, but the probability against the the conditions being met is still 86.8%.

There are only two ways to pick the 1 winning MM combination and that's either correctly eliminate the 51 numbers that won't be drawn or correctly pick the five numbers that are drawn. By correctly eliminating half the numbers (28) and using the same 33:5 formula, the accumulative bet reduces the odds to 3,721,536:98,280 or 37.87:1.

"I NEVER said that."

I never said the odds can change either, just saying the number of losing chances are reduced by one for every additional bet made. The \$1 on five different numbers players knows only one number can win and is betting none of the other 33 numbers will win. And Ronnie knows only five numbers can be drawn and is betting the other 28 numbers won't be drawn.

The question has always been "is it possible to get more than one five number match, more than once in 39 drawings" and it's not just possible, but a mathematical fact you keep ignoring. Looking for better ways to meet the conditions is not the same as saying "we can change the odds".

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 14, 2013, 8:16 pm - IP Logged

Yes, always.

1.0 = 100%.  The odds of you picking the right subset of numbers is never 100%.

You can call him dumb, but all you're showing is that you don't know the fundementals of mathemtics.  In probability you can express percentages as numbers, where .5 is 50% and 1.0 is 100%.  So 50% of 10 dollars is .5*\$10=\$5.

Or did you not know that you could express percentages as a number?  LOL.  And you guys accuse me of not knowing 5th grade math.  This is literally elementary school math.  Forgive me if I don't remember whether it's 4rth or 5th grade.

First of all boney, I never claimed to know the fundamentals of mathematics..............

Secondly, I didnt "call him dumb" I said "he says the dumbest things" which is a opinion about what he said.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 14, 2013, 8:21 pm - IP Logged

Have you ever stopped to wonder about why your so self conscience about making a mistake or being wrong about something boney? Or why you are so quick to criticize and complain when you see a fault?

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 14, 2013, 8:29 pm - IP Logged

Have to check out...... Have a good night everyone,,,,,

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 14, 2013, 8:45 pm - IP Logged

He was obviously refering to a 4 out of 8 game, in reference to Jimmy's 2/10 game.

It's silly enough that Jimmy is suggesting using a 2/10 game as a model, but you're now arguing about a mythical game with a top prize is 35 bucks.

Burnsville
United States
Member #107244
March 4, 2011
853 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 14, 2013, 8:46 pm - IP Logged

Although your almost snippable hyperbole is an overstatement, there is concern that a big win by someone using one of your glorified Random Number Generators will serve the sad purpose of pushing our country further behind many other nations in math and science because it will convince even more Americans that the Gambler's Fallacy is not really a fallacy and/or that probability theory is not to be trusted.

--Jimmy4164

Well, I was going to stay out of this on the simple fact that I don't care for dissention, negativity and can'ts. But, thinking that someone working with lottery numbers trying to do something their minds tell them they can do, is going to affect the learning abilities of a child, just kind of got to me. I can kind of see everyones point here thru this. It's the way the world has always been since, well, there has been people. There is always the can's and the cant's. It's just life. It's never going to change. As far as that goes. Change in that would only occur when understanding that everyone has their own ways. Their own ways of doing anything. Everything, as far as i know in this world that has been done, is a result of can's. Not one time in human history has anything been accomplished from "I can't". That I can think of anyway. It's preached to us all the time from the politicians. It's "yes we can" until they get elected. Then it's "well congress says we can't". Or the Pres. says we can't or we would. It's always been the powers that be saying the we can's until they get what they want. Then it's like they have the power, so we can't.

While we only use 10% of our brains abilites, it doesn't take a numeric genius to figure out that there is 90% there that has the capability to do just about anything. If we look at what has been accomplished with just that 10% alone. Even upping the usage to 30% of what the brain can do, produces some amazing reslults. "Can't" is, and always has been a negative. Being it's a negative, that kind of puts it well below the 10% range of usage doesn't it? I mean if you have "can" on one end of a rope and "can't" on the other, my money is on the can. Everytime.

Ever see any boxing matches where they say the other guys has no chance of "WINNING", then he does "WIN"? Or how about the times they say, "This guy can't "LOSE", then he LOSES? See the difference there? While the mentality of both has an undertone of can't, there is the final outcome of can breaking thru in the end. It never fails. LOL. Tyson was in no way going to lose to Douglas was he? Kind of sounds like your Gambler's Fallacy doesn't it? From what I've read on it it does to me. Just because something that has happend over and over again, it does not mean it will happen again the next time. I watched the side of the screen in the WIki article where they flipped the red and blue quarter over and over again. It was pretty close. But, there where times that blue was ahead by a few, then red was ahead by a few. It's those times when the one is ahead of the other that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the test doesn't it and kind of disproves the whole thing. I mean if you do flip a quarter 100 times, there will always be one, that for even a few times, comes up more than the other. It's when you decide to stop flipping the quarter that kind of decides the outcome doesn't it? If you stop on 50/50 then it's most definitely going to be 50%. If you wait on it though, it can be 70/30. Can be 20/80. Who knows? Point is, stopping at 50% is kind of a waste of time isn't it?

And probability, is a matter of what your probabilitizing. If your, probably going to always lose the lottery, your probably going to lose. If your going to try to win the lottery, while it doesn't mean you are going to win, it probably means you stand a better chance if you try. So it's pretty much in the mindset of what your probably trying to accomplish.

I can also say that, by trying and thinking with the possibilty of can in my mind, I've seen that it can be done. It can be done with the mathematical skills of what I learned in kindergarten. Nothing more than -/+. I've seen it many, many times now. From what peoples showed on here to my own work. How many times can you go back and take the last two games of a draw and get the next numbers by simply adding/subtracting the two previous draws alone. I've seen a plenty. So i say, if you wanna help a kid learn some math, give them the numbers. Give them a PC or pad and pen. Tell them how it's never been done and the large sums of money they can attain if they can do it. And see how much they learn from the lottery. I bet you it's more than they'll learn from trying to figure out how many credits they need to get that new gun in some video game.

Well, I'm going back to my world of can now.  And in a world of can's and cant's or positive and negatives, since opposites attract, if we'll simply just turn around, the energy will shoot us the other direction instead of pulling us on into it.

You can't steal second and keep your foot on FIRST!!!

When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength”.

-Arnold (Ahnald) Schwarzenegger-

Whiskey Island
United States
Member #90216
April 24, 2010
12808 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 14, 2013, 8:52 pm - IP Logged

Well, I was going to stay out of this on the simple fact that I don't care for dissention, negativity and can'ts. But, thinking that someone working with lottery numbers trying to do something their minds tell them they can do, is going to affect the learning abilities of a child, just kind of got to me. I can kind of see everyones point here thru this. It's the way the world has always been since, well, there has been people. There is always the can's and the cant's. It's just life. It's never going to change. As far as that goes. Change in that would only occur when understanding that everyone has their own ways. Their own ways of doing anything. Everything, as far as i know in this world that has been done, is a result of can's. Not one time in human history has anything been accomplished from "I can't". That I can think of anyway. It's preached to us all the time from the politicians. It's "yes we can" until they get elected. Then it's "well congress says we can't". Or the Pres. says we can't or we would. It's always been the powers that be saying the we can's until they get what they want. Then it's like they have the power, so we can't.

While we only use 10% of our brains abilites, it doesn't take a numeric genius to figure out that there is 90% there that has the capability to do just about anything. If we look at what has been accomplished with just that 10% alone. Even upping the usage to 30% of what the brain can do, produces some amazing reslults. "Can't" is, and always has been a negative. Being it's a negative, that kind of puts it well below the 10% range of usage doesn't it? I mean if you have "can" on one end of a rope and "can't" on the other, my money is on the can. Everytime.

Ever see any boxing matches where they say the other guys has no chance of "WINNING", then he does "WIN"? Or how about the times they say, "This guy can't "LOSE", then he LOSES? See the difference there? While the mentality of both has an undertone of can't, there is the final outcome of can breaking thru in the end. It never fails. LOL. Tyson was in no way going to lose to Douglas was he? Kind of sounds like your Gambler's Fallacy doesn't it? From what I've read on it it does to me. Just because something that has happend over and over again, it does not mean it will happen again the next time. I watched the side of the screen in the WIki article where they flipped the red and blue quarter over and over again. It was pretty close. But, there where times that blue was ahead by a few, then red was ahead by a few. It's those times when the one is ahead of the other that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the test doesn't it and kind of disproves the whole thing. I mean if you do flip a quarter 100 times, there will always be one, that for even a few times, comes up more than the other. It's when you decide to stop flipping the quarter that kind of decides the outcome doesn't it? If you stop on 50/50 then it's most definitely going to be 50%. If you wait on it though, it can be 70/30. Can be 20/80. Who knows? Point is, stopping at 50% is kind of a waste of time isn't it?

And probability, is a matter of what your probabilitizing. If your, probably going to always lose the lottery, your probably going to lose. If your going to try to win the lottery, while it doesn't mean you are going to win, it probably means you stand a better chance if you try. So it's pretty much in the mindset of what your probably trying to accomplish.

I can also say that, by trying and thinking with the possibilty of can in my mind, I've seen that it can be done. It can be done with the mathematical skills of what I learned in kindergarten. Nothing more than -/+. I've seen it many, many times now. From what peoples showed on here to my own work. How many times can you go back and take the last two games of a draw and get the next numbers by simply adding/subtracting the two previous draws alone. I've seen a plenty. So i say, if you wanna help a kid learn some math, give them the numbers. Give them a PC or pad and pen. Tell them how it's never been done and the large sums of money they can attain if they can do it. And see how much they learn from the lottery. I bet you it's more than they'll learn from trying to figure out how many credits they need to get that new gun in some video game.

Well, I'm going back to my world of can now.  And in a world of can's and cant's or positive and negatives, since opposites attract, if we'll simply just turn around, the energy will shoot us the other direction instead of pulling us on into it.

Very Deep and Thought out and Right on the Money in Every Way !!!

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 15, 2013, 1:07 am - IP Logged

It's silly enough that Jimmy is suggesting using a 2/10 game as a model, but you're now arguing about a mythical game with a top prize is 35 bucks.

The point is that if somebody cannot even do the simple math to explain the odds of winning a 4/8 game, then their claim that they have better odds than others is certainly without merit.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 15, 2013, 3:05 am - IP Logged

Well, I was going to stay out of this on the simple fact that I don't care for dissention, negativity and can'ts. But, thinking that someone working with lottery numbers trying to do something their minds tell them they can do, is going to affect the learning abilities of a child, just kind of got to me. I can kind of see everyones point here thru this. It's the way the world has always been since, well, there has been people. There is always the can's and the cant's. It's just life. It's never going to change. As far as that goes. Change in that would only occur when understanding that everyone has their own ways. Their own ways of doing anything. Everything, as far as i know in this world that has been done, is a result of can's. Not one time in human history has anything been accomplished from "I can't". That I can think of anyway. It's preached to us all the time from the politicians. It's "yes we can" until they get elected. Then it's "well congress says we can't". Or the Pres. says we can't or we would. It's always been the powers that be saying the we can's until they get what they want. Then it's like they have the power, so we can't.

While we only use 10% of our brains abilites, it doesn't take a numeric genius to figure out that there is 90% there that has the capability to do just about anything. If we look at what has been accomplished with just that 10% alone. Even upping the usage to 30% of what the brain can do, produces some amazing reslults. "Can't" is, and always has been a negative. Being it's a negative, that kind of puts it well below the 10% range of usage doesn't it? I mean if you have "can" on one end of a rope and "can't" on the other, my money is on the can. Everytime.

Ever see any boxing matches where they say the other guys has no chance of "WINNING", then he does "WIN"? Or how about the times they say, "This guy can't "LOSE", then he LOSES? See the difference there? While the mentality of both has an undertone of can't, there is the final outcome of can breaking thru in the end. It never fails. LOL. Tyson was in no way going to lose to Douglas was he? Kind of sounds like your Gambler's Fallacy doesn't it? From what I've read on it it does to me. Just because something that has happend over and over again, it does not mean it will happen again the next time. I watched the side of the screen in the WIki article where they flipped the red and blue quarter over and over again. It was pretty close. But, there where times that blue was ahead by a few, then red was ahead by a few. It's those times when the one is ahead of the other that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the test doesn't it and kind of disproves the whole thing. I mean if you do flip a quarter 100 times, there will always be one, that for even a few times, comes up more than the other. It's when you decide to stop flipping the quarter that kind of decides the outcome doesn't it? If you stop on 50/50 then it's most definitely going to be 50%. If you wait on it though, it can be 70/30. Can be 20/80. Who knows? Point is, stopping at 50% is kind of a waste of time isn't it?

And probability, is a matter of what your probabilitizing. If your, probably going to always lose the lottery, your probably going to lose. If your going to try to win the lottery, while it doesn't mean you are going to win, it probably means you stand a better chance if you try. So it's pretty much in the mindset of what your probably trying to accomplish.

I can also say that, by trying and thinking with the possibilty of can in my mind, I've seen that it can be done. It can be done with the mathematical skills of what I learned in kindergarten. Nothing more than -/+. I've seen it many, many times now. From what peoples showed on here to my own work. How many times can you go back and take the last two games of a draw and get the next numbers by simply adding/subtracting the two previous draws alone. I've seen a plenty. So i say, if you wanna help a kid learn some math, give them the numbers. Give them a PC or pad and pen. Tell them how it's never been done and the large sums of money they can attain if they can do it. And see how much they learn from the lottery. I bet you it's more than they'll learn from trying to figure out how many credits they need to get that new gun in some video game.

Well, I'm going back to my world of can now.  And in a world of can's and cant's or positive and negatives, since opposites attract, if we'll simply just turn around, the energy will shoot us the other direction instead of pulling us on into it.

Greenfox,

It's admirable that you would encourage a child who shows promise in mathematics to investigate unsolved problems. However, there are many unsolved problems that have much more potential for learning than attempting to increase one's odds playing a Lotto game. This is NOT an unsolved problem! It was solved hundreds of years ago in Europe. Such efforts are in the same category as trying to build a perpetual motion machine. My suggestion would be to point a gifted young person to sources like the following...

As for financial rewards, there are 7 unsolved problems for which solutions are worth \$1,000,000.00 each! You can learn about them here:

Thanks for your well intentioned thoughts.

--Jimmy4164

Burnsville
United States
Member #107244
March 4, 2011
853 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 15, 2013, 4:43 am - IP Logged

Greenfox,

It's admirable that you would encourage a child who shows promise in mathematics to investigate unsolved problems. However, there are many unsolved problems that have much more potential for learning than attempting to increase one's odds playing a Lotto game. This is NOT an unsolved problem! It was solved hundreds of years ago in Europe. Such efforts are in the same category as trying to build a perpetual motion machine. My suggestion would be to point a gifted young person to sources like the following...

As for financial rewards, there are 7 unsolved problems for which solutions are worth \$1,000,000.00 each! You can learn about them here:

Thanks for your well intentioned thoughts.

--Jimmy4164

I was going to reply to this. Had some stuff to say, but forgot it. Tired i guess.

I like the links. There pretty cool. When you said the lottery had been figured out already though, it kinda threw me a little.

You got the guys number that did it? If i get stuck I might need to give them a call and see how they did it.

You can't steal second and keep your foot on FIRST!!!

When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength”.

-Arnold (Ahnald) Schwarzenegger-

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 15, 2013, 10:43 am - IP Logged

I was going to reply to this. Had some stuff to say, but forgot it. Tired i guess.

I like the links. There pretty cool. When you said the lottery had been figured out already though, it kinda threw me a little.

You got the guys number that did it? If i get stuck I might need to give them a call and see how they did it.

His number is unlisted same as mine is going to be when I figure it out.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 15, 2013, 10:48 am - IP Logged

The point is that if somebody cannot even do the simple math to explain the odds of winning a 4/8 game, then their claim that they have better odds than others is certainly without merit.

If jackpot winners could explain the simple math of how they won, they would win more than once.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 15, 2013, 10:53 am - IP Logged

The point is that if somebody cannot even do the simple math to explain the odds of winning a 4/8 game, then their claim that they have better odds than others is certainly without merit.

Sounds like boney is really taking this personally. He is afraid someone will get BETTER ODDS than him. lol.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 15, 2013, 11:57 am - IP Logged

If jackpot winners could explain the simple math of how they won, they would win more than once.

From reports I've read, about 70% of these Jackpot winners used a simple system.  When they got to the head of line to purchase their tickets, they merely said, "2 Powerball QuickPicks please."

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 15, 2013, 12:29 pm - IP Logged

From reports I've read, about 70% of these Jackpot winners used a simple system.  When they got to the head of line to purchase their tickets, they merely said, "2 Powerball QuickPicks please."

Every lottery website say ~70% of their winners used a similar system but so do their losers too.

~70% of their losers buy quick picks, now what does that suggest?   Think about it.

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

 Page 239 of 353