Welcome Guest
You last visited May 28, 2017, 10:17 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Fallacies, and two REAL ways of improving your chances

Topic closed. 215 replies. Last post 4 years ago by Kumo.

 Page 12 of 15

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 4, 2013, 7:43 pm - IP Logged

I can't quantify "alot" to your satisfaction with current program without additional modifications.  But I don't really see the point in doing that because additional FUD will just be asserted.  A person either wants to learn and gain knowledge or they don't.  Its up to each individual.

As far as QuickPick terminal I can't compare without seeing how they generate their random numbers.  The random number generator is the most important piece of the puzzle and without access to its guts I would just be conjecturing.

If any programmers are interested the following is routine that generated Combos A.  I had a worker thread that generated all the combos in the background while the foreground UI thread updated the display in real-time.

{
memset(m_balls, 0, sizeof(m_balls));
memset(m_combosA, 0, sizeof(m_combosA));

for (int i=0; i < m_comboCnt; i++)
{
int generatedBalls = 0;

while (generatedBalls < m_ballsPerDraw)
{
int randNum = MyRand() % m_ballsPerGame + 1;

if (m_balls[randNum] != 0)
{
continue;
}

generatedBalls++;
m_balls[randNum] = 1;

if (randNum < 32)
{
}
else
{
}
}
}
}

The part I highlited in red is what prevents duplicates when generating the 8 combos.

For 6/48 game m_balls is a boolean array from 0..48.  Its used to keep track if that number has already been used when generating the combos

m_comboCnt = 8

m_ballsPerDraw = 6

m_ballsPerGame = 48

m_combosA is any array of size 8 that contains 2 DWORDS.  1 DWORD contains 32 bits, so I needed two DWORD to hold 48 numbers.  Each bit set in the DWORDS represents a number.  Its faster to use bits to represent a draw to speed up the comparisons done later  to determine how many numbers match per draw.  Its faster because boolean logic gets mapped to native instructions provided on Intel/AMD processors.

Since test Group A is what is really being measured these are the actual results of GroupA versus the odds:

match 2 of 6 = 1 in 7.31,            actual 1 in 7.30 for test Group A
match 3 of 6 = 1 in 53.45           actual 1 in 53.44 for test Group A
match 4 of 6 = 1 in 950.18         actual 1 in 950.32 for test Group A
match 5 of 6 = 1 in 48,696.48    actual 1 in 48,197.33 for test Group A
match 6 of 6 = 1 in 12,271,512  actual 1 in 12,087,204 for test Group A

Jimmy

As far as QuickPick terminal I can't compare without seeing how they generate their random numbers.

Todd has told us the QPs are "pseudo" random combinations generated at the local terminals.

The Quick Picks Generator is unlike ordinary random number generators you may find on the Internet.

• The random numbers are generated on the Lottery Post web server, using an advanced cryptographic library that provides a much higher degree of randomization than a typical programming language's pseudo-random number generator.
Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
1001 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 4, 2013, 7:54 pm - IP Logged

As far as QuickPick terminal I can't compare without seeing how they generate their random numbers.

Todd has told us the QPs are "pseudo" random combinations generated at the local terminals.

The Quick Picks Generator is unlike ordinary random number generators you may find on the Internet.

• The random numbers are generated on the Lottery Post web server, using an advanced cryptographic library that provides a much higher degree of randomization than a typical programming language's pseudo-random number generator.

It would still be nice to know what the actual algorithm used is.

"The random numbers are generated on the Lottery Post Web server, using an advanced cryptographic library".  It would be nice to know the name of that advanced cryptographic library that he uses if this site was actually a gambling site.  Since his random generator is not used to make money it's not really necessary.

I used a modified "Mersenne Twister" as my pseudorandom number generator in the program.  If interested you can search for "Mersenne Twister" on wikipedia for more information.

Cryptography is all about openly publishing the algorithms so the math community as a whole can try and break the system.  It would have behooved the original publishers of 802.11b to go thru a review process so that WEP encryption would have never seen the light of day.

Jimmy

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 4, 2013, 8:41 pm - IP Logged

I wouldn't waste my money on his systems either.  I got on his mailing list because at one time CoinToss mentioned him so I wanted to see what systems he was trying to sell.  As I see it its costing him money to send me his newsletters and catalog when I have no intention of buying any of his systems.  Of course you can just go his web site and get the same information but that's not costing him anything except potentially traffic.

A conspiracy theorist could say he was actually working for the state because this particular system he was advocating would cost the Pick3 player \$54 per day which would be adding money to the states coffers.  For \$300 I would expect him to pick the digits for me, instead of me having to pick them.

FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.  A common tactic from Microsoft back in the day thru marketing to try and convince people to wait for their next version of their software.  In this case he's implying the price of system is going up and eventually the states will change the game to close this betting scheme and you better get it now while the getting is good.

My whole point in bringing up Steve Player systems is don't you think if you want to be a lottery advantage player it would be to your benefit to know what the odds are in accurately predicting 2 different digits in a pick 3 game?  Its not 1 in 5 does anyone besides me want to provide the answer?

Jimmy

My whole point in bringing up Steve Player systems is don't you think if you want to be a lottery advantage player it would be to your benefit to know what the odds are in accurately predicting 2 different digits in a pick 3 game?  Its not 1 in 5 does anyone besides me want to provide the answer?

To predict one number in any position is 1 in 10.

To predict two numbers in any position is 1 in a 100.

Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
1001 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 4, 2013, 8:44 pm - IP Logged

My whole point in bringing up Steve Player systems is don't you think if you want to be a lottery advantage player it would be to your benefit to know what the odds are in accurately predicting 2 different digits in a pick 3 game?  Its not 1 in 5 does anyone besides me want to provide the answer?

To predict one number in any position is 1 in 10.

To predict two numbers in any position is 1 in a 100.

This particular system is to predict two different numbers for the next draw.

Jimmy

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 4, 2013, 8:53 pm - IP Logged

This particular system is to predict two different numbers for the next draw.

Jimmy

And the numbers I presented reflects that.

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 4, 2013, 8:59 pm - IP Logged

This particular system is to predict two different numbers for the next draw.

Jimmy

Maybe I'm reading you wrong. When you say "two different" numbers, do you mean individual numbers or combos, 3 digits grouped?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 4, 2013, 9:05 pm - IP Logged

Brad Duke claimed his lottery program helped him win a PB jackpot.  Why would anyone interested in winning a lottery jackpot write a program simulating playing and trying to win a lottery is a waste of time?  Anybody can lose a lottery without a simulation program showing them how.

I hope more players like Brad Duke come forward, we've had enough losers come forward with their claims.  We need a simulation program that simulate winning, not losing.  The blind can't lead the blind and neither can a bunch of losers advise winners on how to win.

RJOh,

Brad Duke can make all the claims he wants, but his claims don't prove a thing. In fact, solid theoretical and simulated evidence, over centuries, has proved that his claims are worthless, regardless of whether he believes them or not.

Since you asked questions here, I hope you will take the time to read and understand the answers. I've read enough of your posts to suspect that you know and understand exactly what I talk about in my posts here, but that, like BobP, you probably have some vested interest in ensuring that as few as possible gain this knowledge.

"Why would anyone interested in winning a lottery jackpot write a program simulating playing and trying to win a lottery is a waste of time?"

I can't speak for Jimjwright, but the reason I did the same thing is pretty simple: to help as many people as possible to understand the mathematics of the lottery with the hope that my contribution helps reduce some of the "costs" spelled out in the book described here:

"Why do even well-educated people understand so little about mathematics? And what are the costs of our innumeracy? John Allen Paulos, in his celebrated bestseller first published in 1988, argues that our inability to deal rationally with very large numbers and the probabilities associated with them results in misinformed governmental policies, confused personal decisions, and an increased susceptibility to pseudoscience of all kinds. Innumeracy lets us know what we're missing, and how we can do something about it.

"Sprinkling his discussion of numbers and probabilities with quirky stories and anecdotes, Paulos ranges freely over many aspects of modern life, from contested elections to sports stats, from stock scams and newspaper psychics to diet and medical claims, sex discrimination, insurance, lotteries, and drug testing. Readers of Innumeracy will be rewarded with scores of astonishing facts, a fistful of powerful ideas, and, most important, a clearer, more quantitative way of looking at their world."

--Jimmy4164

Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
1001 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 4, 2013, 10:49 pm - IP Logged

Maybe I'm reading you wrong. When you say "two different" numbers, do you mean individual numbers or combos, 3 digits grouped?

Steve Player is saying select 2 different numbers such as 1, 2 then he has a chart that tells you the 54 combos to play.

So lets do it the hard way, the following are pairs that can be made from 10 numbers with no duplicates:

(1,2) (1,3) (1,4) (1,5) (1,6) (1,7) (1,8) (1,9) (1,0)
(2,3) (2,4) (2,5) (2,6) (2,7) (2,8) (2,9) (2,0)
(3,4) (3,5) (3,6) (3,7) (3,8) (3,9) (3,0)
(4,5) (4,6) (4.7) (4.8) (4.9) (4.0)
(5,6) (5,7) (5,8) (5,9) (5,0)
(6,7) (6,8) (6,9) (6,0)
(7,8) (7,9) (7,0)
(8,9) (8,0)
(9,0)

There are 45 unique pairs so I would think my odds of randomly selecting the right pair for the next draw would be 1 in 45.

You can also express this as Combin(10,2) which would be 10! /( 8! * 2!) = 10 * 9 / 2 = 90 /2 = 45.

You can search wikipedia for "Lottery Mathematics" for the Combinations formula.  Mathisfun is another site.

So 1 in 45 is the actual odds but Steve seems to think its trivial for me to do it 1 in 5 times.  So for his system to work I have to come up with my own system for picking pairs that improves my odds by 9 times!  Thanks but no thanks he can keep his system.

Jimmy

NY
United States
Member #23835
October 16, 2005
3555 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 5, 2013, 1:06 am - IP Logged

So you're saying that this is all your theory - that you've never tested any of it?

How are they REAL ways if they've never been tested?

Thanks a bushel and a peck!

Some people would probably tell you that if you jumped off of something 1000 feet high you would die. Of course they don't really know, since you haven't ever done it, so you'd be foolish to believe them.

NY
United States
Member #23835
October 16, 2005
3555 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 5, 2013, 2:04 am - IP Logged

6 winning numbers can fall on no more than 6 lines. Therefore the game is reduced to a 6/36.

Odds of a 6/36 game are 1 in 1,947,792.

In Texas our lotto game is 6/54. Odds for that game 1 in 25,827,165.

Playing each number randomly (because we don't know which numbers will be drawn) one time over 9 lines means all the numbers drawn will land on no more than 6 lines, hopefully less.

Nothing magical. Just a strategy to reduce the odds from 25,827,165 to 1,947,792.

If I buy 9 QP's instead, I am 99.9% sure that I will not have all 54 numbers on those 9 QP's.

Not saying one way is bad and one way is good. Just explaining a STRATEGY.

"6 winning numbers can fall on no more than 6 lines. Therefore the game is reduced to a 6/36."

Forget the math for a moment and try some simple logic. Any pick 6 game will produce results in which all 6 winning numbers can appear on no more than 6 lines if all of the possible numbers are played once. It doesn't matter whether it's 6 of 36 or 6 of 600. Would you suggest that playing all of the possible numbers makes the game effectively 6/36 whether there are 36, 48, 54 or 600 possible numbers?

"Just a strategy to reduce the odds from 25,827,165 to 1,947,792"

If the odds really are reduced to 1,947,792  by that strategy then you could guarantee having the winning combination by playing 1,947,792 sets of 9 tickets. Doing that would result in playing 17,530,128. Can you explain how that would let you win if one of the remaining 8,297,037 combinations was drawn?

Texas
United States
Member #55889
October 23, 2007
6199 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 5, 2013, 8:55 am - IP Logged

"6 winning numbers can fall on no more than 6 lines. Therefore the game is reduced to a 6/36."

Forget the math for a moment and try some simple logic. Any pick 6 game will produce results in which all 6 winning numbers can appear on no more than 6 lines if all of the possible numbers are played once. It doesn't matter whether it's 6 of 36 or 6 of 600. Would you suggest that playing all of the possible numbers makes the game effectively 6/36 whether there are 36, 48, 54 or 600 possible numbers?

"Just a strategy to reduce the odds from 25,827,165 to 1,947,792"

If the odds really are reduced to 1,947,792  by that strategy then you could guarantee having the winning combination by playing 1,947,792 sets of 9 tickets. Doing that would result in playing 17,530,128. Can you explain how that would let you win if one of the remaining 8,297,037 combinations was drawn?

I understand what you are saying, and it's valid. Obviously, I or no one else would play 600 numbers in a minimum number of lines.

And, again, I never said there would be a guarantee of having the winning combination. It's just a way to reduce the odds. I believe it's a better way to play than just buying a bunch of QP's. Now if I'm only playing one line (which I do when playing MM or PB), then a QP is just as good as anything else. But for a strategy, to me, it's about looking for ways to gain a little edge. The only way to guarantee having the winning combination is to play every combination in the game.

CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR \$2)

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 5, 2013, 9:06 am - IP Logged

I understand what you are saying, and it's valid. Obviously, I or no one else would play 600 numbers in a minimum number of lines.

And, again, I never said there would be a guarantee of having the winning combination. It's just a way to reduce the odds. I believe it's a better way to play than just buying a bunch of QP's. Now if I'm only playing one line (which I do when playing MM or PB), then a QP is just as good as anything else. But for a strategy, to me, it's about looking for ways to gain a little edge. The only way to guarantee having the winning combination is to play every combination in the game.

KY loves to state the obvious.

Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
United States
Member #73904
April 28, 2009
14903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 5, 2013, 9:13 am - IP Logged

Some people would probably tell you that if you jumped off of something 1000 feet high you would die. Of course they don't really know, since you haven't ever done it, so you'd be foolish to believe them.

And then there are some people who don't know the difference between the obvious and the theoretical.

But just like to run their mouths anyway.

Kinda like you.

Yap, yap, yap...

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 5, 2013, 9:19 am - IP Logged

Some people would probably tell you that if you jumped off of something 1000 feet high you would die. Of course they don't really know, since you haven't ever done it, so you'd be foolish to believe them.

Blah, Blah, Blah, KY,

btw, when the conditions for a safe jump are met, people jump safely all the time...... Dah........

Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
United States
Member #73904
April 28, 2009
14903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 5, 2013, 9:25 am - IP Logged

KY loves to state the obvious.

KY Jelly Floyd is CAPTAIN Obvious.

He likes to tell lies about members when they're gone for awhile and he thinks they ain't coming back too.

Ain't that right, KY Jelly?

 Page 12 of 15