Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 10:44 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 303 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 13, 2013, 7:45 pm - IP Logged

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.

The most profound statements I've heard is when x1kosmic said. "I picked those numbers for a reason"

People have the power to win, just like the group of 29 who played the same numbers for 5 years. 

If someone wants to prove its wrong, let them create a simulator that can put picks to the test.


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 13, 2013, 7:56 pm - IP Logged

    Set of 39 for PB. Wed. Feb. 13. 2013.

    02 03 05 06 08 10 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 41 42 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

    bonus ball 08


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 13, 2013, 7:59 pm - IP Logged

      Wheel: Pick 5 Abbreviated 2 if 5 of 39

      Tickets:  25

      Description:  Minimum 2-number match, if 5 numbers drawn fall within your set of 39 numbers.

      Input:  2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55

      1. 02-03-21-33-42
      2. 02-03-30-41-51
      3. 02-06-08-13-46
      4. 02-08-17-18-49
      5. 02-12-18-22-31
      6. 02-13-14-22-36
      7. 02-15-21-27-41
      8. 03-05-06-17-27
      9. 03-05-12-15-49
      10. 05-08-14-50-52
      11. 05-18-49-54-55
      12. 06-15-21-30-51
      13. 06-15-33-41-42
      14. 08-12-17-54-55
      15. 10-13-35-37-38
      16. 10-14-31-36-46
      17. 10-22-46-50-52
      18. 13-31-36-50-52
      19. 20-25-37-44-53
      20. 20-28-38-44-48
      21. 20-34-35-44-45
      22. 25-28-35-48-53
      23. 25-34-38-45-53
      24. 27-30-33-42-51
      25. 28-34-37-45-48


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 13, 2013, 8:16 pm - IP Logged

        Have a good night everyone.


          United States
          Member #116268
          September 7, 2011
          20244 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 13, 2013, 8:17 pm - IP Logged

          Its time for someone on LP to win a jackpot.


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 13, 2013, 8:17 pm - IP Logged

            Sleep


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 13, 2013, 11:01 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.

              Ronnie316,

              If you're going to comment on my critique of Stack47's post, the least you could do is PRETEND that you read more than one of the points contained in it.  What I had hoped is you would have accepted the challenge of making the associations between the key numbers in the C(5,2) Lotto game and the real world C(56,5).  You chose to ignore it completely.

              You and Stack47 keep saying that you already know everything that I post here, but you have provided very little evidence that this is true.  You also keep saying that I have disrupted your team effort to find a way to "discard" 28 numbers from a field of 56 that leaves you with a higher probability of matching 5 of them with the Lottery Draw.  I would think that If this really was your goal you would welcome any input you could get.

              Why wouldn't you be interested in whether or not your goal is impossible to achieve?  If you find convincing evidence it's impossible to increase your chances of winning a Jackpot with this method, you could move on to investigate other ideas.

              I think you KNOW that if you select your 28 numbers randomly, your probability of correctly choosing the 5 winners is the SAME as it is when you select 5 from the full set of 56, precisely as you see it is in the C(5,2) game.  So what you do is drag out your trusty Gambler's Fallacy and "discard" the balls that have been appearing recently, HOPING that the ones remaining are DUE.  But you get discouraged when you find that the HOT HAND FALLACY often prevails when the HOT balls STAY HOT!

              So, what you really should be doing here is trying to PROVE that the Gambler's Fallacy and the Hot Hand Fallacy are not really fallacies in Lotto.  You can do this by simulating your method against a databse of all the winning draws of a game like the (56,5) White Balls of the Powerball.  Try different "Look-Back" periods, stepping your way through the data until you find one that results in a winning ROI over the entire run.  This is the way Market Timing Systems are devised for the Stock Market.  If you can't find a Look-Back period that's a winner, you will be forced to Reject your Hypothesis and move on to greener pastures.  If you find one, you can look for financial backers and start planning for retirement! 

              So I don't post something else that you already know, I'll ask first.  Do you know the probability of finding 2, 3, 4, and 5 matches AMONG the 28 you choose before the draw?

              --Jimmy4164

                Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                New Jersey
                United States
                Member #99032
                October 18, 2010
                1439 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 14, 2013, 5:51 am - IP Logged

                "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."

                 

                - Wow you really did not understand a thing I posted.  You can't "use" standard deviation, and you certainly don't use it to gain an edge.


                  United States
                  Member #124493
                  March 14, 2012
                  7023 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 14, 2013, 5:53 am - IP Logged


                    United States
                    Member #116268
                    September 7, 2011
                    20244 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 14, 2013, 10:15 am - IP Logged

                    Ronnie316,

                    If you're going to comment on my critique of Stack47's post, the least you could do is PRETEND that you read more than one of the points contained in it.  What I had hoped is you would have accepted the challenge of making the associations between the key numbers in the C(5,2) Lotto game and the real world C(56,5).  You chose to ignore it completely.

                    You and Stack47 keep saying that you already know everything that I post here, but you have provided very little evidence that this is true.  You also keep saying that I have disrupted your team effort to find a way to "discard" 28 numbers from a field of 56 that leaves you with a higher probability of matching 5 of them with the Lottery Draw.  I would think that If this really was your goal you would welcome any input you could get.

                    Why wouldn't you be interested in whether or not your goal is impossible to achieve?  If you find convincing evidence it's impossible to increase your chances of winning a Jackpot with this method, you could move on to investigate other ideas.

                    I think you KNOW that if you select your 28 numbers randomly, your probability of correctly choosing the 5 winners is the SAME as it is when you select 5 from the full set of 56, precisely as you see it is in the C(5,2) game.  So what you do is drag out your trusty Gambler's Fallacy and "discard" the balls that have been appearing recently, HOPING that the ones remaining are DUE.  But you get discouraged when you find that the HOT HAND FALLACY often prevails when the HOT balls STAY HOT!

                    So, what you really should be doing here is trying to PROVE that the Gambler's Fallacy and the Hot Hand Fallacy are not really fallacies in Lotto.  You can do this by simulating your method against a databse of all the winning draws of a game like the (56,5) White Balls of the Powerball.  Try different "Look-Back" periods, stepping your way through the data until you find one that results in a winning ROI over the entire run.  This is the way Market Timing Systems are devised for the Stock Market.  If you can't find a Look-Back period that's a winner, you will be forced to Reject your Hypothesis and move on to greener pastures.  If you find one, you can look for financial backers and start planning for retirement! 

                    So I don't post something else that you already know, I'll ask first.  Do you know the probability of finding 2, 3, 4, and 5 matches AMONG the 28 you choose before the draw?

                    --Jimmy4164

                    Hey Jimmy, Ive try to be nice to you in spite of the fact that your nothing but a troll on LP. Just because you post something does NOT mean that I'm required to read it..........

                    You are nothing but a huge ass to demand that I pretend to  do this or that...... NO I did NOT finish the first sentence of what you posted (on this and most others) because I or no one else cares what you are posting or what you have to say................. 

                    Was this post long enough for you?


                      United States
                      Member #116268
                      September 7, 2011
                      20244 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 14, 2013, 10:19 am - IP Logged

                      "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."

                       

                      - Wow you really did not understand a thing I posted.  You can't "use" standard deviation, and you certainly don't use it to gain an edge.

                      Hey boney, we understand what you have been posting. You have turned into nothing but a troll.


                        United States
                        Member #116268
                        September 7, 2011
                        20244 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 14, 2013, 10:21 am - IP Logged

                        Set of 39 for PB. Wed. Feb. 13. 2013.

                        02 03 05 06 08 10 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 41 42 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

                        bonus ball 08

                        3 of 5 on this draw.

                        Wednesday, February 13, 2013        12 · 23 · 25 · 27 · 43    29        $50 Million


                          United States
                          Member #116268
                          September 7, 2011
                          20244 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 14, 2013, 10:40 am - IP Logged

                          I have heard numerous complaints about the content/message that Jimmy and Boney bring to this thread.

                          Is there ANYONE who thinks their repeated message is still a relevant part of this discussion?


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 14, 2013, 10:40 am - IP Logged

                            What?


                              United States
                              Member #116268
                              September 7, 2011
                              20244 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 14, 2013, 10:46 am - IP Logged

                                 
                                Page 303 of 353