Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7544 Posts Offline

Posted: December 18, 2012, 11:55 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on December 18, 2012

But first of all I still don't know what mean you are referring to. You keep saying the mean, but not specifiying the mean what. Like "the mean sum," "the mean number of 5/5 wins", etc.

And while everything you said is possible, that doesn't make them probable, nor does it mean that you can average better than the odds dictate. You, of course, can win, but cannot consistently win in the long term. So that means the average will not be better than the odds state.

"nor does it mean that you can average better than the odds dictate."

I'll try to keep it simple. A group of 28 numbers creates 98,280 possible combos and there are 3,819,816 possible outcomes. That's 2.57% or odds of 39 to 1. You don't need 5 consecutive five number matches to beat the 39 to 1 odds; 2 out of 39 drawings is enough. During the test, Ronnie was the only one who consistently changed his 28 number groups and had the best results.

"You, of course, can win, but cannot consistently win in the long term."

Not by playing all 98,280 combos in every drawing even if is logistically possible. Using a more realistic 5000 combos a drawing, Ronnie had a five number match and correctly picked the bonus number. And because he only used 1 bonus number, every line paid off.

"So that means the average will not be better than the odds state."

You're still missing the point because even if whatever group of 28 numbers matched the probable 1 in 39 drawings one time, in that drawing the odds were reduced from 3,819,816 to 1 to 98,280 to 1. If reducing the odds by 97.43% isn't getting better odds, what is?

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

Posted: December 19, 2012, 9:47 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on December 18, 2012

"nor does it mean that you can average better than the odds dictate."

I'll try to keep it simple. A group of 28 numbers creates 98,280 possible combos and there are 3,819,816 possible outcomes. That's 2.57% or odds of 39 to 1. You don't need 5 consecutive five number matches to beat the 39 to 1 odds; 2 out of 39 drawings is enough. During the test, Ronnie was the only one who consistently changed his 28 number groups and had the best results.

"You, of course, can win, but cannot consistently win in the long term."

Not by playing all 98,280 combos in every drawing even if is logistically possible. Using a more realistic 5000 combos a drawing, Ronnie had a five number match and correctly picked the bonus number. And because he only used 1 bonus number, every line paid off.

"So that means the average will not be better than the odds state."

You're still missing the point because even if whatever group of 28 numbers matched the probable 1 in 39 drawings one time, in that drawing the odds were reduced from 3,819,816 to 1 to 98,280 to 1. If reducing the odds by 97.43% isn't getting better odds, what is?

You're still missing the point because even if whatever group of 28 numbers matched the probable 1 in 39 drawings one time, in that drawing the odds were reduced from 3,819,816 to 1 to 98,280 to 1. If reducing the odds by 97.43% isn't getting better odds, what is?

Stack always gets right to the clear simple truth of what we are doing on this thread..............

You don't need 5 consecutive five number matches to beat the 39 to 1 odds; 2 out of 39 drawings is enough.

Exactly right, the second time 5 of 5 is matched the odds have been improved upon for all 39 draws.......

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

Posted: December 19, 2012, 12:06 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on December 19, 2012

Excellent call on the 6 ball LottoBoner We could have keyed the 6-7 with the field and hit 5 of 5. lol.lol.

I,ve noticed when I get a real strong feeling in the patterns in my games pick 5, those numbers tend to hit in the Mega and in my pick six. Kind of weird,

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7544 Posts Offline

Posted: December 19, 2012, 12:18 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on December 19, 2012

This seems like such a waste but at the same time it's entertaining. When I first choose to take on the lottery

one of the first things that I found was the more math I used in my selections the worse I fared. Random is in my

opinion the opposite of math. While math has it's place it is not going to help predict random.

Probability defines the probable, nothing more nothing less. Playing Quick Picks is using one random event to try

and match another random event. If a player of self picks can pick up on any trend that seems to follow some sort

of logic then they gain advantage over a QP provided the trend continues. Is the trend just a chance event or is it

a product of some unknown which might be defined given someone was willing to investigate?

The argument here has gone more full circles than the merry go round at Coney island. I guess it is more a question

of what one believes than anything. Most know the odds and if not the game websites provide this information. Can\do

some people fare better than others? The thing is that even if one does the factors responsible are still questionable.

Was it a chance event or was the players analysis somehow influential?

I guess it's up to the individual to make up their own mind, I have yet to see the argument spring up out of thin air and

most if not all are started by the people who favor QP's. With all things being equal the simplest explanation is normally

the correct one. What we should ask is some simple questions, I think the whole thing boils down to that some don't

want others using a few tools and their head which might give them an advantage. This is nothing new as we see it all

the time. If a person is successful then there are plenty of unsuccessful that want to tear them down. If a person is

unsuccessful then they will be forced to change course at some point. Some want to force their views on others and while

they may have a few good views the rest suck. No thank you please, I don't need or want what you have.

RL

"Probability defines the probable, nothing more nothing less."

We could calculate the probability of the number of times each MM number should be drawn over the next 700 drawings and see it's around 59 to 65 times, but when looking at the last 700 drawings we'll see only 30% of the numbers matched that probability.

If players understood probability, the question of the day would not be "will the $50 million PB jackpot roll?". This is an good example of when calculating the probability does apply. With ticket sales less than 15 million, there is a 92% chance the jackpot will roll. Jackpots have been won with less sales so probability is nothing more than an educated guess.

"Playing Quick Picks is using one random event to try and match another random event."

It's because of the slick advertising the lotteries have used for years. When people see a $200 jackpot they assume it's like a raffle where all the tickets are sold and somebody must win. And they know the odds against winning are "only" 175 million to 1.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 20111 Posts Online

Posted: December 19, 2012, 12:27 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on December 17, 2012

"Not playing combinations that could be birthdays because you might have to share a jackpot if you win" was something I first read on Gail Howard's website and have seen repeated many times since. Apparently many of the lottery experts on this site are just repeating something they read rather than something they know.

Last night's MegaMillions winning numbers 12/18/12 - 01 06 07 18 29 +16 was a good example of that theory while sounding logic not being based on facts. This all birthday numbers combination produced nine second place winners but no jackpot winner. How many times has such combinations had no winners let alone multi-winners?

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

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

Posted: December 19, 2012, 12:49 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on December 19, 2012

Last night's MegaMillions winning numbers 12/18/12 - 01 06 07 18 29 +16 was a good example of that theory while sounding logic not being based on facts. This all birthday numbers combination produced nine second place winners but no jackpot winner. How many times has such combinations had no winners let alone multi-winners?

I see your point RJ. Using the 1 2 3 4 5 6 scenario as well, there are times when you could easily score 3 to 4 number correct. It is not something that should be necessarily frowned upon.

When the numbers 1 2 3 4 6 came up in New Yorks sweet million many people were $500 dollars richer, and I was not one of them

I did on that particualr draw play 1 2 5, and it didn't occur to me to do a consecutive formation.

Maybe it was because of the unconscious stigma of that combo? I dont know, but I have played strings of numbers such as 30 31 32 33, and have won money.

P.S.

I think a second place win might be considered a jackpot at a payout of $250,000

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

Posted: December 19, 2012, 12:57 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on December 18, 2012

But first of all I still don't know what mean you are referring to. You keep saying the mean, but not specifiying the mean what. Like "the mean sum," "the mean number of 5/5 wins", etc.

And while everything you said is possible, that doesn't make them probable, nor does it mean that you can average better than the odds dictate. You, of course, can win, but cannot consistently win in the long term. So that means the average will not be better than the odds state.

The mean is what you make it BoneyDroney.

It could be the mean of flag formation numbers,

It could mean the mean of L-factor formations,

It could be the mean of 1day skip numbers,

It could be the mean of 2 day skip numbers,

It could be the mean of Decades,

It could be the mean of Adjacent numbers,

It could be the mean of Leapfrog numbers,'

It could be the mean of annoying posts by boney.

If i said boney has a mean of 2 posts per day, and boney has not posted in two days, then the standard deviation would lead me to believe boney is about to post something annoying 4 more times.

Since boney does not have a dictionary, lets all help him out with a definition.

Main Entry:arithmetic mean Function:noun Date:1767

: a value that is computed by dividing the sum of a set of terms by the number of terms

a.k.a.

the average

And while everythingyou said is possible, that doesn't make them probable, nor does it mean that you can average better than the odds dictate. You, of course, can win, but cannot consistently win in the long term. So that means the average will not be better than the odds state.

Now since boney has 2 averge posts per day, and yesterday he posted 4 times, he was able to do better than the odds dictate, and hopefully to keep in line with standard deviation he will go back into his stupor where by according to the standard deviation, we wont have to hear him ramble on for at least four days, whereby he will awake from his stupor and come back with some more enlightening arguments, on average, two of them.

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

Posted: December 19, 2012, 1:10 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on December 18, 2012

If you don't know the "mean" you can't find standard deviation so it too is irrelevant. You're either looking for frequency distribution or probability density function and with either you must know the mean.

I know what A mean is, but I don't know what THE mean is of what you are referring to.

Like I don't know if you mean the mean # of tickets per game, the mean number of draws for a some undetermined set of 28 numbers to last, etc.

Obviously I know what a mean is, I don't know what mean you are talking about.