Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 7:43 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 302 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 13, 2013, 11:13 am - IP Logged

Interesting there was only one repeat in the last 9 MM draws.... Has MM turned to PB drawing tactics?


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 13, 2013, 11:15 am - IP Logged
    Mega MillionsTue Feb 12, 201309-22-32-38-55**44x3

     20106548586327886593 615 33818279682303019520

    Yes Nod 3 out of 5

    I like your style helpmewin  Yes Nod


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 13, 2013, 11:58 am - IP Logged

      Not sure Jimmy, but could it be "luck"? And could you please give a substantive explanation of what the physical causative factors are behind "luck"? (I think it would be interesting to read your comments)

      Ronnie316,

      "Not sure..."  You're going to have to do better than that if you want to convince people that "...some number combinations have better odds."  (They don't.)

      I've addressed the issue you raised here many times in the past.  In the interest of not reinventing the wheel, here is a link to some scholarly research dealing with it, followed by a rehash of my remarks to dr san about it.  I hope you won't waste any more of everyone's time trying to confuse these issues.

      http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/secure/v7n3/boland.cfm 

       

      This is a very interesting article.  (Trying To Be Random in Selecting Numbers for Lotto - Boland) It could be subtitled, "Where Psychology Meets Mathematics!"

       

      I wasn't able to access Speckman's article, "Lottery Loophole Explained."  Do you know what the loophole was, and how long after 1986 it took them to close it?

       

      Here are a couple quotes from Boland's article that others here might enjoy:

       

      "For Lotto 6/42, P(MG = 1) = 0.56 is the probability of a selection containing two consecutive numbers. Students usually find it very surprising and nonintuitive that it is more likely than not that a random selection will contain two consecutive numbers. Before giving students the probability of two consecutive numbers appearing in Lotto, it is a worthwhile exercise to test their intuition by asking them for estimates of it!"  (Read the article if this intrigues you!)

       

      "5. Conclusions

       

      "21 The whole concept of randomness is a delicate one, and one about which considerable research has been done, particularly in the field of psychology. Reichenbach (1949) claimed that humans are unable to produce a random sequence of responses, even when explicitly asked to do so, and considerable research since then (including our work) generally supports this. Many teachers/lecturers have told us of classroom activities they use to get students thinking about randomness, and Green (1997)gives an interesting account of an experiment on recognizing randomness.

       

      "22 How well can individuals perform when they attempt to be random generators for a game like Lotto? Some interesting insights into human intuition about randomness may be obtained by asking a class of students to participate in an exercise that tries to answer this question. We asked each of the students in a large class to act once as a random generator for the winning numbers in our Irish National Lottery - Lotto 6/42 game. The results were then analysed and compared with actual recent winning selections in our Lotto game, as well as with another set simulated by computer. Using boxplots, histograms, QQ-plots, and some basic measures of spread in a sample, one is able to generate interesting classroom discussions about biases that individuals seem to possess. We observed (perhaps not surprisingly) that there seems to be a propensity for individuals to select numbers in increasing order. We also observed that individuals tend to select numbers which on the average are smaller (by at least two) than would be expected from a truly random generator. Of course, in other countries or states where a different form of Lotto is played, the results will probably differ. When it comes to the spread in a selection, we observed that individuals tend to make selections that are reasonably spread out as measured by sample variance, but not in other ways (for example, as measured by the so-called minimum gap in a selection). In particular, we observed a clear reluctance of individuals (compared to a truly random generator) to make selections containing consecutive numbers." 

       

      --Jimmy4164

        riscknight's avatar - riscknight
        Athens
        Greece
        Member #133234
        September 24, 2012
        188 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 13, 2013, 12:34 pm - IP Logged

        @> jimmy4164

        Did you by any chance read Taleb's Book "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable"?

        Just curious...

        6/49 dis(assembly)

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32652
          February 14, 2006
          7302 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 13, 2013, 1:18 pm - IP Logged

          Not sure Jimmy, but could it be "luck"? And could you please give a substantive explanation of what the physical causative factors are behind "luck"? (I think it would be interesting to read your comments)

          The reason there are probabilities and odds is because something can happen and it's called luck or bad luck when somebody beats the odds and probabilities. Simply put, they had the "1" outcome out of many other possible outcomes.

          There is a probability in this discussion that someone will make a remark or ask a question that is unrelated to the topic. There is also a probability that the person is suffering from delusions of grandeur and wants to dazzle us with their knowledge because they read an article on the Internet. As luck would have it, they decided to respond on your topic. We could try to pacify them with a response or suggest if they are really are interested in discussing their unrelated topic to start their own thread.

          Here's an example:

          "It really would be interesting to read a substantive explanation of just what people here believe the physical causative factors are behind a 'streak' in, say, roulette.

          Personally I believe it would be a boring discussion and a waste of time on this thread because we're discussing picking or eliminating 28 numbers from a field of 56 and still retain the five winning numbers. With all the Internet articles you posted, surely one of them explains the mathematical factors behind steaks occurring in random events.

          That being said, start your own thread and maybe you'll get "lucky" and get a response and your thread won't end up on page two.


            United States
            Member #93947
            July 10, 2010
            2180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 13, 2013, 1:51 pm - IP Logged

            @> jimmy4164

            Did you by any chance read Taleb's Book "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable"?

            Just curious...

            Riscknight,

            No, I haven't read The Black Swan.  However, I did read his earlier Fooled By Randomness, wherein he deals with "Black Swan" events.  I've read that he significantly expanded his treatment of the Highly Imporbable in this later book, and I hope to get time to read it some day.  Based on some of your recent posts I can see why you might be interested in Taleb's work.  I just hope you don't get mired down with some of the other posters here who believe they might be able to make one of these Black Swan events happen to themselves by judiciously choosing their own lottery numbers to play. Smile

            Although Stack47 seems to think my last post here was off topic, I think you might agree that it is possibly the most appropriate report of a scientific study that could be brought to bear on a question like, "Do some number combinations have better odds?"  Randomness is a fascinating concept that has been studied extensively by researchers in the fields of Mathematics, Psychology, and Philosophy.  It's very doubtful that anything new on the subject is going to emerge from the ramblings of the 2 principal posters in this thread.

            Here's the link to the report on Randomness:

            http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/secure/v7n3/boland.cfm 

            Here's a link to a discussion of Fooled By Randomness:

            https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174 

            --Jimmy4164

              Avatar
              Kentucky
              United States
              Member #32652
              February 14, 2006
              7302 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 13, 2013, 2:28 pm - IP Logged

              Interesting there was only one repeat in the last 9 MM draws.... Has MM turned to PB drawing tactics?

              Very interesting indeed because in 8 of the last 9 drawings any QP line that used any one of those numbers had no chance of matching five numbers.

              "Has MM turned to PB drawing tactics?"

              It's just the ordinary causative factors in random drawings when a trend or a streak occurs. There is a 61.5% probability that none of the previous numbers will be drawn making streaks likely and reducing the odds of matching five numbers to 2,349,060 to 1. They keep telling us some number combinations can't have better odds even though a group of 51 numbers using none of the previous drawn numbers should get better odds than a group of 51 number using one or more of those numbers in 61.5% of the drawings.

                riscknight's avatar - riscknight
                Athens
                Greece
                Member #133234
                September 24, 2012
                188 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 13, 2013, 2:37 pm - IP Logged

                I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade.

                I see "educated" people with different perceptions and I only wish that this "debate" was a teamwork instead.

                6/49 dis(assembly)

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7302 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 13, 2013, 4:11 pm - IP Logged

                  Riscknight,

                  No, I haven't read The Black Swan.  However, I did read his earlier Fooled By Randomness, wherein he deals with "Black Swan" events.  I've read that he significantly expanded his treatment of the Highly Imporbable in this later book, and I hope to get time to read it some day.  Based on some of your recent posts I can see why you might be interested in Taleb's work.  I just hope you don't get mired down with some of the other posters here who believe they might be able to make one of these Black Swan events happen to themselves by judiciously choosing their own lottery numbers to play. Smile

                  Although Stack47 seems to think my last post here was off topic, I think you might agree that it is possibly the most appropriate report of a scientific study that could be brought to bear on a question like, "Do some number combinations have better odds?"  Randomness is a fascinating concept that has been studied extensively by researchers in the fields of Mathematics, Psychology, and Philosophy.  It's very doubtful that anything new on the subject is going to emerge from the ramblings of the 2 principal posters in this thread.

                  Here's the link to the report on Randomness:

                  http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/secure/v7n3/boland.cfm 

                  Here's a link to a discussion of Fooled By Randomness:

                  https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174 

                  --Jimmy4164

                  "I think you might agree that it is possibly the most appropriate report of a scientific study that could be brought to bear on a question like, "Do some number combinations have better odds?""

                  Or we could have a class of first graders place 28 shining new pennies into five groups of five and one group of three. And then will give Bobby the five groups of five pennies, give Sally five other pennies and ask the class who has the most pennies.

                  "I hope you won't waste any more of everyone's time trying to confuse these issues.

                  The odds of any group of 28 numbers having a five number match is 39 to 1 and it's a mathematical fact thousands of groups of 28 will match five numbers in five consecutive drawings. If you're still confused why 5 of something is more than 1 of something, ask a first grader. And since we already acknowledged it is very difficult to predict which group of 28 numbers will have five consecutive matches, don't waste our time by asking "which one". 

                  "Randomness is a fascinating concept that has been studied extensively by researchers in the fields of Mathematics, Psychology, and Philosophy."

                  If it makes you feel better, I give you a big "HOW ABOUT THAT!".

                  "It's very doubtful that anything new on the subject is going to emerge from the ramblings of the 2 principal posters in this thread."

                  Boney discussed STD DEV and the concept of using it to get a slight edge so that leaves you as the only principal posters adding nothing but criticism to Ronnie's discussion.

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7302 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 13, 2013, 4:20 pm - IP Logged

                    I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade.

                    I see "educated" people with different perceptions and I only wish that this "debate" was a teamwork instead.

                    It's common in sports for a member of another team to try and disrupt sound teamwork, but in sports the object is to prevent the other team from playing at their best. Only Jimmy knows why he feels it necessary to disrupt our teamwork.


                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 13, 2013, 4:46 pm - IP Logged

                      "I think you might agree that it is possibly the most appropriate report of a scientific study that could be brought to bear on a question like, "Do some number combinations have better odds?""

                      Or we could have a class of first graders place 28 shining new pennies into five groups of five and one group of three. And then will give Bobby the five groups of five pennies, give Sally five other pennies and ask the class who has the most pennies.

                      "I hope you won't waste any more of everyone's time trying to confuse these issues.

                      The odds of any group of 28 numbers having a five number match is 39 to 1 and it's a mathematical fact thousands of groups of 28 will match five numbers in five consecutive drawings. If you're still confused why 5 of something is more than 1 of something, ask a first grader. And since we already acknowledged it is very difficult to predict which group of 28 numbers will have five consecutive matches, don't waste our time by asking "which one". 

                      "Randomness is a fascinating concept that has been studied extensively by researchers in the fields of Mathematics, Psychology, and Philosophy."

                      If it makes you feel better, I give you a big "HOW ABOUT THAT!".

                      "It's very doubtful that anything new on the subject is going to emerge from the ramblings of the 2 principal posters in this thread."

                      Boney discussed STD DEV and the concept of using it to get a slight edge so that leaves you as the only principal posters adding nothing but criticism to Ronnie's discussion.

                      I am not making this post for the benefit of Stack47; his Innummeracy is so profound that I don't think it is curable.  Hopefully, there are readers here with open minds who can see how he is being tricked (by his own mind.)

                      When he says, "The odds of any group of 28 numbers having a five number match is 39 to 1 and it's a mathematical fact thousands of groups of 28 will match five numbers in five consecutive drawings," he's making the understatement of the thread!

                      "thousands of groups of 28"   Smile

                      He should try calculating C(56,28), the number of combinations of 56 things taken 28 at a time.  I will warn you; this is a VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY LARGE number!

                      And then he says, "And since we already acknowledged it is very difficult to predict which group of 28 numbers will have five consecutive matches, don't waste our time by asking 'which one'."

                      "Very difficult"?  "waste our time"?  "which one"?   Smile

                       

                      This is exactly why I created the C(5,2) Lotto game, to avoid the huge integers and infinitesimal probability values that you're forced to deal with in the actual game.  But you see, Ronnie316 and Stack47 are so convinced emotionally that they are right and can select a 28 Ball subset that has a higher likelihood of containing the 5 drawn numbers that they fail to see the relationship between the (5,2) and (56,5) games, and consequently, refuse to deal with it.

                      I hope you will.

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

                      --Jimmy4164


                        United States
                        Member #116268
                        September 7, 2011
                        20244 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 13, 2013, 5:57 pm - IP Logged

                        He should try calculating C(56,28), the number of combinations of 56 things taken 28 at a time.  I will warn you; this is a VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY LARGE number!

                        Your not telling us anything we dont know Jimmy, we deelt with C(56,28) a VERY long time ago.


                          United States
                          Member #116268
                          September 7, 2011
                          20244 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 13, 2013, 6:01 pm - IP Logged

                           Ronnie316         5+1     Ronnie hits jackpot on 18th draw.

                           RJOh                 4+1
                           
                           lottoarchitect   4+0
                           
                            mcginnin56       2+1

                          Yes it happened. Amazing how the odds get cut down to size once the correct bonus number is selected.


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 13, 2013, 7:14 pm - IP Logged

                            I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade.

                            I see "educated" people with different perceptions and I only wish that this "debate" was a teamwork instead.

                            I Agree! Teamwork is a great idea and there is plenty of space for people to work together here.


                              United States
                              Member #116268
                              September 7, 2011
                              20244 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 13, 2013, 7:22 pm - IP Logged

                              It's common in sports for a member of another team to try and disrupt sound teamwork, but in sports the object is to prevent the other team from playing at their best. Only Jimmy knows why he feels it necessary to disrupt our teamwork.

                              No big deal really Stack. Little Jimmy just wants to get noticed, as I have said before. In his most recent post he has begun speaking to an imaginary group of people that he thinks are listen to him. 

                              So sad really to see him saying the same things over and over expecting to get a point across about information that everyone here is already fully aware of.

                                 
                                Page 302 of 353