Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 9, 2016, 9:55 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 254 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:50 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 think its a good thing to encourage people to follow their dreams. You have my support CC.


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 22, 2013, 10:38 am - IP Logged

    The probability of selecting a winning pair using subsets is:

    (3/5) X (1/6) = (3/30) = (1/10) = 10% Q.E.D.

    If anyone would like to do the calculations for a (56,5) game, please be my guest!

    --Jimmy4164

    I would like to put $10. on Q.E.D. please............


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 22, 2013, 10:41 am - IP Logged


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 22, 2013, 12:12 pm - IP Logged

        I'm filling out my play slips in anticipation of a BIG 5+1 win.


          United States
          Member #116268
          September 7, 2011
          20244 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 22, 2013, 12:43 pm - IP Logged

          Using boneys statistical logic it would likely be impossible for my to hit 5 of 5 multiple times in the first place, but if we carry his logic forward I would need to NOT hit 5 of 5 for 160 draws (at some point) to get back to the statistical mean...... Isn't that right boney?? Because I hit 5 times instead of ONCE during the 39 draw trial.


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 22, 2013, 1:41 pm - IP Logged

            I guess the next logical question for boney would be...............

            Do you plan on holding your breath for 160 draws, waiting for me to NOT hit 5of 5......What?


              United States
              Member #116268
              September 7, 2011
              20244 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 22, 2013, 2:06 pm - IP Logged

                Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                New Jersey
                United States
                Member #99032
                October 18, 2010
                1439 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:07 pm - IP Logged

                Using boneys statistical logic it would likely be impossible for my to hit 5 of 5 multiple times in the first place, but if we carry his logic forward I would need to NOT hit 5 of 5 for 160 draws (at some point) to get back to the statistical mean...... Isn't that right boney?? Because I hit 5 times instead of ONCE during the 39 draw trial.

                "Using boneys statistical logic it would likely be impossible for my to hit 5 of 5 multiple times in the first place,"

                 

                Nope.

                 

                You are putting words in my mouth again.  You don't follow logic, you create imaginary worlds to play in.

                  Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                  New Jersey
                  United States
                  Member #99032
                  October 18, 2010
                  1439 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:09 pm - IP Logged

                  I guess the next logical question for boney would be...............

                  Do you plan on holding your breath for 160 draws, waiting for me to NOT hit 5of 5......What?

                  LMAO.

                   

                  No, quite honestly, IDC how your imaginary play works out.  It's all random, and the funny thing about it is you don't even have that much money down so the actual results are basically meaningless.  You're the one who keeps mentioning past results, as if they have a bearing on the future, or indicate skill or inuition.  I'm not a results oriented gambler.  Being results oriented in a game of chance is illogical.  I'm a theory oriented player, and over the long term my results will probably match their expectation.  Of that I'm sure.  The math shows it, and I'm certainly not the first person to use that math to win (not on the lottery, mind you.)

                   

                  Good Luck, though.  If you DO ever end up winning IRL, I hope you don't chase down more wins, b/c eventually you'll lose it all.  You can get ahead through good fortune, and you can lose it all through irresponsibility.

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7319 Posts
                    Online
                    Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:32 pm - 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.

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

                    How is knowing there will be standard deviation and trying to use to get better results translate into controlling it?

                    I don't know if your membership allows you to view it, but LP has statistical charts that shows number frequencies over periods of time. It's easy to see many numbers are drawn more than the norm and many are drawn less. The expected deviation can be calculated and probably close to what the results show.

                    "Except he doesn't actually choose the coniditions which occur during the drawing, which is the random element in the game."

                    Neither does a roulette player when they bet on Black. It's called gambling and people are betting their conditions will be met. The outcome decides it.

                    "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."

                    Proportionately it's not even close because 40% of the numbers are winners and every number is in 50% of the possible outcomes. Which of the 56 MM numbers are in 50% of the possible combinations and which five numbers are in 40% of all the drawings?

                    Eliminating 5 numbers (8.9%) doesn't lower the odds, but it does greatly decrease the number of possible combos (61%) against that contain any of those 5 numbers.

                      Avatar
                      Kentucky
                      United States
                      Member #32652
                      February 14, 2006
                      7319 Posts
                      Online
                      Posted: January 22, 2013, 9:57 pm - IP Logged

                      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

                      Another filibuster that nobody will read?

                      "I'm sorry I confused you with my poor choice of words describing the drivel in this thread in the hours between my posts."

                      I wasn't confused by the nothing you saw "During the hours I'm gone from here" because most of us see nothing when we're here viewing you posts.

                        Avatar
                        Columbia, SC
                        United States
                        Member #135285
                        November 21, 2012
                        584 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 23, 2013, 7:32 am - IP Logged

                        I think its a good thing to encourage people to follow their dreams. You have my support CC.

                        Thanks Ronnie!!Smile

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

                          Avatar
                          Columbia, SC
                          United States
                          Member #135285
                          November 21, 2012
                          584 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 23, 2013, 7:33 am - IP Logged

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

                          Wink

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


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 23, 2013, 10:14 am - IP Logged

                            "Using boneys statistical logic it would likely be impossible for my to hit 5 of 5 multiple times in the first place,"

                             

                            Nope.

                             

                            You are putting words in my mouth again.  You don't follow logic, you create imaginary worlds to play in.

                            You don't follow logic, you create imaginary worlds to play in.

                            Thank you for that complement boney.


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

                              LMAO.

                               

                              No, quite honestly, IDC how your imaginary play works out.  It's all random, and the funny thing about it is you don't even have that much money down so the actual results are basically meaningless.  You're the one who keeps mentioning past results, as if they have a bearing on the future, or indicate skill or inuition.  I'm not a results oriented gambler.  Being results oriented in a game of chance is illogical.  I'm a theory oriented player, and over the long term my results will probably match their expectation.  Of that I'm sure.  The math shows it, and I'm certainly not the first person to use that math to win (not on the lottery, mind you.)

                               

                              Good Luck, though.  If you DO ever end up winning IRL, I hope you don't chase down more wins, b/c eventually you'll lose it all.  You can get ahead through good fortune, and you can lose it all through irresponsibility.

                              Thanks for all the detailed myopic information boney........

                              Funny how you ignored this little fact that I pointed out..........

                              By consistently picking winners I will NEVER revert to the statistical mean.

                                 
                                Page 254 of 353