Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 4:55 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 253 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 21, 2013, 9:59 pm - IP Logged

The last 18 drawn numbers have produced a 5 number match in the past so it will happen again.


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 21, 2013, 10:05 pm - IP Logged

    Set of 18 for MM. Tue. Jan. 22, 2013.

    01 03 06 08 12 18 20 21 24 25 29 30 34 38 41 42 49 56

    bonus ball 10


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 21, 2013, 10:09 pm - IP Logged

      Set of 28 for MM. Tue. Jan. 22, 2013.

      01 02 03 04 06 08 10 11 12 13 18 20 21 23 24 25 29 30 32 34 38 40 41 42 44 49 55 56

      bonus ball 10


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 21, 2013, 10:23 pm - IP Logged

        Set of 12 for MM live play Tue. Jan. 22, 2013.

        03 08 18 20 21 24 29 30 34 41 49 56

        bonus ball 10


          United States
          Member #116268
          September 7, 2011
          20244 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 21, 2013, 10:27 pm - IP Logged

          Wheel:  Pick 5 Key 4 if 4 of 12

          Tickets:  47

          Description: Minimum 4-number match, if 4 numbers drawn fall within your set of 12 numbers.

          Input:  3, 24, 41, 34, 18, 49, 8, 56, 30, 29, 21, 20

          1. 03-24-30-34-41
          2. 03-18-24-41-56
          3. 03-21-24-41-49
          4. 03-08-24-29-41
          5. 03-20-24-29-41
          6. 03-18-24-29-34
          7. 03-18-20-24-34
          8. 03-24-34-49-56
          9. 03-08-21-24-34
          10. 03-20-21-24-34
          11. 03-08-18-24-49
          12. 03-18-21-24-30
          13. 03-20-24-49-56
          14. 03-24-29-30-49
          15. 03-08-24-30-56
          16. 03-08-20-24-30
          17. 03-21-24-29-56
          18. 03-18-21-34-41
          19. 03-08-34-41-49
          20. 03-20-34-41-49
          21. 03-29-34-41-56
          22. 03-18-29-41-49
          23. 03-18-20-41-49
          24. 03-08-18-30-41
          25. 03-30-41-49-56
          26. 03-08-21-41-56
          27. 03-08-20-21-41
          28. 03-20-30-41-56
          29. 03-21-29-30-41
          30. 03-18-30-34-49
          31. 03-08-18-34-56
          32. 03-18-20-34-56
          33. 03-21-29-34-49
          34. 03-08-20-34-56
          35. 03-08-29-30-34
          36. 03-21-30-34-56
          37. 03-20-29-30-34
          38. 03-18-21-49-56
          39. 03-08-18-21-29
          40. 03-08-18-20-29
          41. 03-18-29-30-56
          42. 03-18-20-21-30
          43. 03-08-29-49-56
          44. 03-08-21-30-49
          45. 03-08-20-29-49
          46. 03-20-21-30-49
          47. 03-20-21-29-56


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 21, 2013, 10:50 pm - IP Logged

            Bed

              Avatar
              Kentucky
              United States
              Member #32652
              February 14, 2006
              7314 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 21, 2013, 11:19 pm - IP Logged

              "Where was our flaw when you proved some of your mythical players benefited from the same standard deviation that exist in random drawings that we were looking for?"

               

              Your flaw, specifically Ronnies, was in using words like undeniable in referencing better odds.

               

              I don't feel I need to respond to that second part.  Obviously Jimmy can READ what happened when he was away from his computer at a later time.  I feel like calling you a dumby for even suggesting that.

               

              So Jimmy is a distraction because..... he doesn't agree with you?  First of all.... Ronnie has continuously made assertions that his claims are undeniable and factual......  in essence if he didn't say that he was guaranteed a big win, he implies that he is better at it.  He showed that (and no sane person ever disagreed with this part, dispite the words he puts in MY mouth) it is possible to win.  Well, whatever, it's possible for ANY player to win.  If it wasn't, why would anyone play?

               

              I guess it's distracting to you not be patted on the back and told that everything you do is productive, and will work.  That's not logical.  If you were in math class in 2nd grade learning multiplication tables, and you said 5 times 5 was 30, I guess the teacher distracted you by showing you that it was actually 25, bro.

               

              And Jimmy's 5/2 IS comparable to any other game.  The actual numbers aren't the same and nobody would play it, but if your theory about reducing IS correct, it should hold up regardless of the actual numbers drawn.  That's the nature of reality.  1+1=2, 1+2=3 and following that logic, 2+2=4.  That logic doesn't change as the numbers do.

               

              If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool.  It's simply easier to see if you are right or wrong with a smaller field of numbers.  ANY serious researcher, worker or layperson using math to solve a problem knows that.  For a more realistic example, I was once trying to work out the math for a roulette side bet I was inventing out of boredom, and b/c I was suprised it hadn't been thought of yet.  I wanted to see if my math was sound, and I KNEW FOR A FACT the odds of a certain event.  So I used my formula, and inputed the numbers and viola, the odds I knew to be true showed up.  Therefore, I could extrapolate the odds of different bets with different probabilities using the same logic (in this case, the same equation where the only the variables change.)

              "Your flaw, specifically Ronnies, was in using words like undeniable in referencing better odds."

              http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/201

              Jimmy said "Here is the most important part of this posting!  If Old Uncle Craig doesn't know anything about Means and Standard Deviations, or doesn't "Believe" they apply to flying lottery ping pong balls," and asked you "Since I've taken the time to write this program and present the results, I hope I can count on you to help explain it."

              Please explain since you know there will be standard deviation, why it's not possible to use it to get better results.

              "Obviously Jimmy can READ what happened when he was away from his computer at a later time."

              But Jimmy said "During the hours I'm gone from here, I see nothing but drivel in this thread." and had he said "I saw", I obviously would have responded differently. He brought up flaws in logic and then tells us what he sees when he is not at is computer.

              "So Jimmy is a distraction because..... he doesn't agree with you?"

              Now you're being the same type of distraction by inventing things that were never said. You invented an excuse by saying you know what Jimmy really meant, as if that changes what he really said or why I responded.

              "Ronnie has continuously made assertions that his claims are undeniable and factual."

              Because Ronnie's claims are always based on his conditions. Most of your arguments are based on arbitrarily changing Ronnie's conditions and arguing for the conditions you created.

              "The actual numbers aren't the same and nobody would play it, but if your theory about reducing IS correct, it should hold up regardless of the actual numbers drawn."

              I'm talking about the possibility of reducing 3,819,816 possible outcomes by 97.4% without eliminating the one chance of matching five numbers and it looks like you're suggesting I can reduce 10 possible outcomes (in a game "nobody would play") by 97.4% to make a comparison. Jimmy wants me to compare the five four numbers groups in his goofy game where three of those groups will always match the two winning numbers and every group will always match half of the winning numbers to the groups of 28 numbers with only 2.6% of the possible outcomes that get five consecutive five number matches.

              If you think you can show a comparison, go for it because I'm not interested.

              "If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool."

              It's either possible that a group of 25 numbers can get five five number matches in five consecutive drawings or it's impossible. Which is it?

              "The fact that only 25 numbers max can be drawn in 5 draws (just counting white balls) is true."

              I used that as an example when Ronnie asked about the possibilities of a group of 28 getting more than 1 five number match in 39 drawings. Because of an abnormal number of repeats, I found a group of 28 numbers with eight consecutive matches. I never addressed the difficultly of actually finding a way to isolate groups of 28 numbers that would get five matches in 39 drawings because I thought it was obvious. 

              Jimmy is assuming because I'm saying it's fact that groups of 28 do get five consecutive matches, I'm marketing a a system based on the possibilities and afraid I'll sell it to his new pen pal. LMAO!


                United States
                Member #93947
                July 10, 2010
                2180 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 22, 2013, 1:35 am - IP Logged

                "Your flaw, specifically Ronnies, was in using words like undeniable in referencing better odds."

                http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/201

                Jimmy said "Here is the most important part of this posting!  If Old Uncle Craig doesn't know anything about Means and Standard Deviations, or doesn't "Believe" they apply to flying lottery ping pong balls," and asked you "Since I've taken the time to write this program and present the results, I hope I can count on you to help explain it."

                Please explain since you know there will be standard deviation, why it's not possible to use it to get better results.

                "Obviously Jimmy can READ what happened when he was away from his computer at a later time."

                But Jimmy said "During the hours I'm gone from here, I see nothing but drivel in this thread." and had he said "I saw", I obviously would have responded differently. He brought up flaws in logic and then tells us what he sees when he is not at is computer.

                "So Jimmy is a distraction because..... he doesn't agree with you?"

                Now you're being the same type of distraction by inventing things that were never said. You invented an excuse by saying you know what Jimmy really meant, as if that changes what he really said or why I responded.

                "Ronnie has continuously made assertions that his claims are undeniable and factual."

                Because Ronnie's claims are always based on his conditions. Most of your arguments are based on arbitrarily changing Ronnie's conditions and arguing for the conditions you created.

                "The actual numbers aren't the same and nobody would play it, but if your theory about reducing IS correct, it should hold up regardless of the actual numbers drawn."

                I'm talking about the possibility of reducing 3,819,816 possible outcomes by 97.4% without eliminating the one chance of matching five numbers and it looks like you're suggesting I can reduce 10 possible outcomes (in a game "nobody would play") by 97.4% to make a comparison. Jimmy wants me to compare the five four numbers groups in his goofy game where three of those groups will always match the two winning numbers and every group will always match half of the winning numbers to the groups of 28 numbers with only 2.6% of the possible outcomes that get five consecutive five number matches.

                If you think you can show a comparison, go for it because I'm not interested.

                "If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool."

                It's either possible that a group of 25 numbers can get five five number matches in five consecutive drawings or it's impossible. Which is it?

                "The fact that only 25 numbers max can be drawn in 5 draws (just counting white balls) is true."

                I used that as an example when Ronnie asked about the possibilities of a group of 28 getting more than 1 five number match in 39 drawings. Because of an abnormal number of repeats, I found a group of 28 numbers with eight consecutive matches. I never addressed the difficultly of actually finding a way to isolate groups of 28 numbers that would get five matches in 39 drawings because I thought it was obvious. 

                Jimmy is assuming because I'm saying it's fact that groups of 28 do get five consecutive matches, I'm marketing a a system based on the possibilities and afraid I'll sell it to his new pen pal. LMAO!

                Stack47,

                I'm sorry I confused you with my poor choice of words describing the drivel in this thread in the hours between my posts. It's now been about 24 hours, plenty of time for you and Ronnie to advance your research to get BETTER ODDS than the rest of us in Lotto. Did you make any progress?  Based on your quoted post here, I would guess the answer is no.

                In your post you have revealed, in excruciating detail, the depth of your innumeracy and your inability to understand legitimate mathematical analogies. This does not mean you are a bad or unworthy person, but it does call into question your judgement. Most people who would be confused and unable to see the logical connection between a (5,2) Lotto and a (56,5) Lotto, would simply remain silent.

                For a few days I thought maybe you really knew the probabilities here and had some ulterior motive to suppress the result. But no, in your post above, it's pretty clear, you don't know what end is up. I don't enjoy deriding someone for not understanding something, but when they are as mean spirited as you have been in this thread, I don't feel guilty.

                Here's a simple explanation of the value of choosing subsets of Lotto pools from which to select  numbers compared to merely making random selections from the entire field. I hope this will be an awakening for you.

                http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/255566/2891661 

                --Jimmy4164

                  Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                  New Jersey
                  United States
                  Member #99032
                  October 18, 2010
                  1439 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 22, 2013, 1:39 am - IP Logged

                  I'm going to reply to a couple of the things you said here... and then hopefully I'll just be done.  I can't believe the stuff you said in this post.

                   

                   

                  "Please explain since you know there will be standard deviation, why it's not possible to use it to get better results."

                   

                  Because you do not USE standard deviation, it simply occurs.  By nature, you don't have control of it.

                   

                  "Because Ronnie's claims are always based on his conditions.  Most of your arguments are based on arbitrarily changing Ronnie's conditions and arguing for the conditions you created."

                   

                  Except he doesn't actually choose the coniditions which occur during the drawing, which is the random element in the game.  He chooses his own numbers, and the lottery randomly selects numbers using a pool that the lottery selects.  These are the same conditions I use, since they are the actual, factual conditions that we play these games in.

                   

                   

                  ""If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool."

                  It's either possible that a group of 25 numbers can get five five number matches in five consecutive drawings or it's impossible. Which is it?"

                   

                  What you said here in response to my quote was just non sense.  I mean it.  Like you responded to a point I never made.  My point was that if your idea of eliminating numbers to gain better odds was possible, it would hold up in a simplified version of the lottery too, similar to what Jimmy posted.


                    United States
                    Member #116268
                    September 7, 2011
                    20244 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:29 am - IP Logged

                    I'm going to reply to a couple of the things you said here... and then hopefully I'll just be done.  I can't believe the stuff you said in this post.

                     

                     

                    "Please explain since you know there will be standard deviation, why it's not possible to use it to get better results."

                     

                    Because you do not USE standard deviation, it simply occurs.  By nature, you don't have control of it.

                     

                    "Because Ronnie's claims are always based on his conditions.  Most of your arguments are based on arbitrarily changing Ronnie's conditions and arguing for the conditions you created."

                     

                    Except he doesn't actually choose the coniditions which occur during the drawing, which is the random element in the game.  He chooses his own numbers, and the lottery randomly selects numbers using a pool that the lottery selects.  These are the same conditions I use, since they are the actual, factual conditions that we play these games in.

                     

                     

                    ""If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool."

                    It's either possible that a group of 25 numbers can get five five number matches in five consecutive drawings or it's impossible. Which is it?"

                     

                    What you said here in response to my quote was just non sense.  I mean it.  Like you responded to a point I never made.  My point was that if your idea of eliminating numbers to gain better odds was possible, it would hold up in a simplified version of the lottery too, similar to what Jimmy posted.

                    Once again boney, you are ignoring the obvious. People have been "beating the odds" and doing things they are told "cant be done" for as long as they have been on the earth. 

                    Human beings have intangible powers that cant be calculated, and indisputably can get BETTER ODDS.

                      Avatar
                      Columbia, SC
                      United States
                      Member #135285
                      November 21, 2012
                      584 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:29 am - IP Logged

                      Regardless boney, it has been demonstrated that 5+1 can be achieved by intelligent design.

                      With the lottery I play (computerized)..Math IS involved and I hope I can prove it SOON!

                      and Ronnie, I'm not talking about the Jim Carey 23 thing...there's more to it...just too complicated to explain....

                      and I don't want to jinx myself....

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


                        United States
                        Member #116268
                        September 7, 2011
                        20244 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:32 am - IP Logged

                        With the lottery I play (computerized)..Math IS involved and I hope I can prove it SOON!

                        and Ronnie, I'm not talking about the Jim Carey 23 thing...there's more to it...just too complicated to explain....

                        and I don't want to jinx myself....

                        Do they use a Pseudo RNG program to select winning numbers?


                          United States
                          Member #116268
                          September 7, 2011
                          20244 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:36 am - IP Logged

                          With the lottery I play (computerized)..Math IS involved and I hope I can prove it SOON!

                          and Ronnie, I'm not talking about the Jim Carey 23 thing...there's more to it...just too complicated to explain....

                          and I don't want to jinx myself....

                          I'm on your side CC, I believe intelligents is mightier than the machines.


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:41 am - IP Logged

                            We dont call boney "bone headed" for nothing........

                            He ignores the fact that people can create, imagine, and yes even predict. Winning the lottery by intelligent design is not that hard to do and 2 people here have already proved it. Read it and weep boney. lol. lol.


                              United States
                              Member #116268
                              September 7, 2011
                              20244 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:45 am - IP Logged

                                 
                                Page 253 of 353