Welcome Guest
You last visited January 16, 2017, 11:54 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# 649 formula

Topic closed. 109 replies. Last post 4 years ago by RJOh.

 Page 2 of 8
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7341 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 4, 2013, 10:32 pm - IP Logged

I know about 80% of the numbers hit in about 20 draws. What about getting an average number of times 1 to 49 are completed over the history of the draw , is that possible.

Then it would be the average of the lengths of drawing skips of the 49th number. Since the length of skips varied from 19 to 56 as RJ pointed out over 260 drawings, it might be very difficult coming up with a usable average.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19893 Posts
Online
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 2:19 am - IP Logged

Then it would be the average of the lengths of drawing skips of the 49th number. Since the length of skips varied from 19 to 56 as RJ pointed out over 260 drawings, it might be very difficult coming up with a usable average.

The overall average would have little or no meaning in 50 % or more of the situations.  For example if the overall  average was 30 drawings and you were playing when all 49 numbers had just hit in the previous 20 drawings, why would you look back 30 drawings?  You might want the average when all the numbers had come up in the previous 20 drawings or wait until 30 drawings might work.

I'll be picking 5-10 lines for PowerBall tonight and all 59 numbers have come up in the last 46 drawings but I'll be only checking back 40 drawings not because it's the average but because I'll be playing the numbers that followed the 5 winning numbers in the last drawing for the 460 drawings since PB changed to a 5/59 matrix and they all hit in the previous 40 drawings.  This idea has produced better results with Classic Lotto than with either the MM or PB games but I came up with 5 lines for the last PB drawing that I didn't play that would have matched 2+1 for \$10 so I thought what the heck, try it for real tonight.

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

Horwood NL
Member #70613
February 6, 2009
299 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 7:53 am - IP Logged

So for a usable average I would use something between 35 and 39 . How much does this change if you add in the bonus ball. I'm guessing it would drop to somewhere between 29 and 33. What is the formula I would use so I can check my own history. (Again I'm not very good at math but I get by.)

Good luck on to-nights draw RJ.

Thanks for all the great input!

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7341 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 10:47 am - IP Logged

The overall average would have little or no meaning in 50 % or more of the situations.  For example if the overall  average was 30 drawings and you were playing when all 49 numbers had just hit in the previous 20 drawings, why would you look back 30 drawings?  You might want the average when all the numbers had come up in the previous 20 drawings or wait until 30 drawings might work.

I'll be picking 5-10 lines for PowerBall tonight and all 59 numbers have come up in the last 46 drawings but I'll be only checking back 40 drawings not because it's the average but because I'll be playing the numbers that followed the 5 winning numbers in the last drawing for the 460 drawings since PB changed to a 5/59 matrix and they all hit in the previous 40 drawings.  This idea has produced better results with Classic Lotto than with either the MM or PB games but I came up with 5 lines for the last PB drawing that I didn't play that would have matched 2+1 for \$10 so I thought what the heck, try it for real tonight.

"For example if the overall  average was 30 drawings and you were playing when all 49 numbers had just hit in the previous 20 drawings, why would you look back 30 drawings?"

If someone was looking for a specific trend that required each number to be drawn, they would always have to go back to the number of drawings where all the numbers were drawn. On average they should expect to see each number drawn every 30 drawings, but because it's an average, there will be times when not all the numbers are drawn over the last 30 drawings.

To answer your question, 30 drawings would just be the starting point.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19893 Posts
Online
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 12:18 pm - IP Logged

So for a usable average I would use something between 35 and 39 . How much does this change if you add in the bonus ball. I'm guessing it would drop to somewhere between 29 and 33. What is the formula I would use so I can check my own history. (Again I'm not very good at math but I get by.)

Good luck on to-nights draw RJ.

Thanks for all the great input!

If the bonus number was picked from its own pool I would consider it separately as if it was another drawing.

Years ago Ohio had a game Super Lotto Plus which was a 6/49 +1 game and the bonus number was the seventh number picked from the pool of 49 which wouldn't change anything.  The jackpot winner only had to match the first six numbers drawn, the bonus numbers were used for lower tier prizes.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 12:50 pm - IP Logged

So for a usable average I would use something between 35 and 39 . How much does this change if you add in the bonus ball. I'm guessing it would drop to somewhere between 29 and 33. What is the formula I would use so I can check my own history. (Again I'm not very good at math but I get by.)

Good luck on to-nights draw RJ.

Thanks for all the great input!

Gwoof,

If you check back with Mathhead's revised simulation results you will discover that using 35-39 as your expected average is quite likely going to put you into bankruptcy at some point.  90 is closer to the expected average.

"On average, it takes about 539 draws to see all 49 numbers; 90 drawings of 6 numbers each."

Be sure to reread the entire post.

--Jimmy4164

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19893 Posts
Online
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 2:42 pm - IP Logged

Gwoof,

If you check back with Mathhead's revised simulation results you will discover that using 35-39 as your expected average is quite likely going to put you into bankruptcy at some point.  90 is closer to the expected average.

"On average, it takes about 539 draws to see all 49 numbers; 90 drawings of 6 numbers each."

Be sure to reread the entire post.

--Jimmy4164

An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any  other 6/49 game.

With only 49 numbers and using 6 of them in each drawing, if no number repeated all the numbers would come up at least once in 9 drawings.  For it to take an average of 90 drawings for all 49 to appear, some numbers would have to be constantly repeating and if that happened the drawings wouldn't appear random or that some numbers had been removed from the pool.  There may be times when a number doesn't appear for 90 drawings but it's not normal.

Besides, why use a simulation of a game when the data for what really happens is available.

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

United States
Member #130795
July 25, 2012
80 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 3:28 pm - IP Logged

An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any  other 6/49 game.

With only 49 numbers and using 6 of them in each drawing, if no number repeated all the numbers would come up at least once in 9 drawings.  For it to take an average of 90 drawings for all 49 to appear, some numbers would have to be constantly repeating and if that happened the drawings wouldn't appear random or that some numbers had been removed from the pool.  There may be times when a number doesn't appear for 90 drawings but it's not normal.

Besides, why use a simulation of a game when the data for what really happens is available.

RJOh wrote:  ``An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any  other 6/49 game. ``

Your doubt is understandable.  I am taking a look at that right now.  I will post my conclusions soon, I hope, if I'm not interrupted.

I am not able to find a program-readable DB of past OH 6/49 drawings.  If you can point me to one (that's free), I'd appreciate it.  By "program-readable", I mean an ASCII file in some form, even HTML.  And the file can be winZip'd.

I did find such a DB of Canada's national 6/49 game dating back to 1982.  That should suffice.  But I would prefer to discuss the same numbers that you are seeing.

RJOh wrote:  ``Besides, why use a simulation of a game when the data for what really happens is available.``

There is a time and place for both.  A simulation can confirm (or throw suspicion on) observations based on actual data.  And vice versa:  actual data can confirm (or throw suspicion on) conclusions based on a simulation.

Actual data might suffice if we believe it is a sufficient statistical sampling.  But there's the rub:  "proving" that assumption.  Your original numbers were based on just 260 drawings.  A large disparity did not surprise me:  it might be a local sampling anomaly.  However, if you are seeing similar results for 977 drawings, that's another story altogether.

Be that as it may, some forum users like to rely on "local sampling anomalies" for their strategies.  Obviously, only actual data can be used for that purpose.  I look for long-term statistics.  It is unclear what Gwoof wants.

Horwood NL
Member #70613
February 6, 2009
299 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 4:07 pm - IP Logged

RJOh wrote:  ``An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any  other 6/49 game. ``

Your doubt is understandable.  I am taking a look at that right now.  I will post my conclusions soon, I hope, if I'm not interrupted.

I am not able to find a program-readable DB of past OH 6/49 drawings.  If you can point me to one (that's free), I'd appreciate it.  By "program-readable", I mean an ASCII file in some form, even HTML.  And the file can be winZip'd.

I did find such a DB of Canada's national 6/49 game dating back to 1982.  That should suffice.  But I would prefer to discuss the same numbers that you are seeing.

RJOh wrote:  ``Besides, why use a simulation of a game when the data for what really happens is available.``

There is a time and place for both.  A simulation can confirm (or throw suspicion on) observations based on actual data.  And vice versa:  actual data can confirm (or throw suspicion on) conclusions based on a simulation.

Actual data might suffice if we believe it is a sufficient statistical sampling.  But there's the rub:  "proving" that assumption.  Your original numbers were based on just 260 drawings.  A large disparity did not surprise me:  it might be a local sampling anomaly.  However, if you are seeing similar results for 977 drawings, that's another story altogether.

Be that as it may, some forum users like to rely on "local sampling anomalies" for their strategies.  Obviously, only actual data can be used for that purpose.  I look for long-term statistics.  It is unclear what Gwoof wants.

I'm using Atlantic 649. I was just wondering if the average of the repeatable of each set of the numbers from 1 to 49 in my game along with other methods of selecting would help me. I think it would be a good tool to use some how in the process of what numbers to play. I also think the bonus number would make a differance since it is drawn from the same set at the same time. I'm only an occational player so there is no chance of breaking the bank.

Thanks for the input

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19893 Posts
Online
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 4:24 pm - IP Logged

RJOh wrote:  ``An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any  other 6/49 game. ``

Your doubt is understandable.  I am taking a look at that right now.  I will post my conclusions soon, I hope, if I'm not interrupted.

I am not able to find a program-readable DB of past OH 6/49 drawings.  If you can point me to one (that's free), I'd appreciate it.  By "program-readable", I mean an ASCII file in some form, even HTML.  And the file can be winZip'd.

I did find such a DB of Canada's national 6/49 game dating back to 1982.  That should suffice.  But I would prefer to discuss the same numbers that you are seeing.

RJOh wrote:  ``Besides, why use a simulation of a game when the data for what really happens is available.``

There is a time and place for both.  A simulation can confirm (or throw suspicion on) observations based on actual data.  And vice versa:  actual data can confirm (or throw suspicion on) conclusions based on a simulation.

Actual data might suffice if we believe it is a sufficient statistical sampling.  But there's the rub:  "proving" that assumption.  Your original numbers were based on just 260 drawings.  A large disparity did not surprise me:  it might be a local sampling anomaly.  However, if you are seeing similar results for 977 drawings, that's another story altogether.

Be that as it may, some forum users like to rely on "local sampling anomalies" for their strategies.  Obviously, only actual data can be used for that purpose.  I look for long-term statistics.  It is unclear what Gwoof wants.

The data I used in on Ohio's lottery website and probably available to premium LP members at LP.  On Ohio's website only the last 180 drawings can be easily gotten, the rest are in a PDF format that contains the results for all Ohio's games which means you will have to extract the data you want.  The DB of Cananda's 6/49 should be good enough for what you want.

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

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7341 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 4:43 pm - IP Logged

An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any  other 6/49 game.

With only 49 numbers and using 6 of them in each drawing, if no number repeated all the numbers would come up at least once in 9 drawings.  For it to take an average of 90 drawings for all 49 to appear, some numbers would have to be constantly repeating and if that happened the drawings wouldn't appear random or that some numbers had been removed from the pool.  There may be times when a number doesn't appear for 90 drawings but it's not normal.

Besides, why use a simulation of a game when the data for what really happens is available.

"An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any  other 6/49 game."

I was wondering about that too because if it's true, 90% of the drawings are a 6/48 game. A couple extreme amount of skips could shift the average much higher, but according to your chart, normal is between 26 and 42 drawings. For that to average 90, there will be several 100 drawing plus skips in the future.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 6:09 pm - IP Logged

RJOh wrote:  ``An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any  other 6/49 game. ``

Your doubt is understandable.  I am taking a look at that right now.  I will post my conclusions soon, I hope, if I'm not interrupted.

I am not able to find a program-readable DB of past OH 6/49 drawings.  If you can point me to one (that's free), I'd appreciate it.  By "program-readable", I mean an ASCII file in some form, even HTML.  And the file can be winZip'd.

I did find such a DB of Canada's national 6/49 game dating back to 1982.  That should suffice.  But I would prefer to discuss the same numbers that you are seeing.

RJOh wrote:  ``Besides, why use a simulation of a game when the data for what really happens is available.``

There is a time and place for both.  A simulation can confirm (or throw suspicion on) observations based on actual data.  And vice versa:  actual data can confirm (or throw suspicion on) conclusions based on a simulation.

Actual data might suffice if we believe it is a sufficient statistical sampling.  But there's the rub:  "proving" that assumption.  Your original numbers were based on just 260 drawings.  A large disparity did not surprise me:  it might be a local sampling anomaly.  However, if you are seeing similar results for 977 drawings, that's another story altogether.

Be that as it may, some forum users like to rely on "local sampling anomalies" for their strategies.  Obviously, only actual data can be used for that purpose.  I look for long-term statistics.  It is unclear what Gwoof wants.

"Your doubt is understandable.  I am taking a look at that right now.  I will post my conclusions soon, I hope, if I'm not interrupted."

I think your first pass at the simulation was the correct one!  When I noticed the questions here, I wrote a "quick and dirty" program to see what I get.  With 10,000 Trials, I got a mean number of draws of 35.05 with a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 106.

In my program a "Trial" is to set 49 ball monitors to zero and randomly generate sets of 6, changing respective monitors to 1 for each of the 6, counting draws, UNTIL all balls have been drawn.

I will now double check my program and calculate the standard deviation.  Hope this helps

--Jimmy4164

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19893 Posts
Online
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 6:47 pm - IP Logged

The data I used in on Ohio's lottery website and probably available to premium LP members at LP.  On Ohio's website only the last 180 drawings can be easily gotten, the rest are in a PDF format that contains the results for all Ohio's games which means you will have to extract the data you want.  The DB of Cananda's 6/49 should be good enough for what you want.

For anyone who's interested, 958 completed cycles of 49 numbers appearing  could be counted in the 997 drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto that varies from 19 to 65 drawings.  Below are those results

0: 0     10: 0     20: 4      30: 53    40: 26    50: 12
1: 0     11: 0     21: 9      31: 54    41: 21    51: 10
2: 0     12: 0     22: 18    32: 54    42: 19    52: 9
3: 0     13: 0     23: 20    33: 47    43: 16    53: 9
4: 0     14: 0     24: 28    34: 38    44: 15    54: 7
5: 0     15: 0     25: 34    35: 37    45: 13    55: 6
6: 0     16: 0     26: 37    36: 39    46: 13    56: 5
7: 0     17: 0     27: 41    37: 35    47: 13    57: 4
8: 0     18: 0     28: 44    38: 33    48: 13    58: 4
9: 0     19: 3     29: 49    39: 34    49: 12    59: 4

60: 4     70: 0     80: 0     90: 0
61: 3     71: 0     81: 0     91: 0
62: 3     72: 0     82: 0     92: 0
63: 2     73: 0     83: 0     93: 0
64: 2     74: 0     84: 0     94: 0
65: 2     75: 0     85: 0     95: 0
66: 0     76: 0     86: 0     96: 0
67: 0     77: 0     87: 0     97: 0
68: 0     78: 0     88: 0     98: 0
69: 0     79: 0     89: 0     99: 0

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

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7341 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 6:54 pm - IP Logged

I'm using Atlantic 649. I was just wondering if the average of the repeatable of each set of the numbers from 1 to 49 in my game along with other methods of selecting would help me. I think it would be a good tool to use some how in the process of what numbers to play. I also think the bonus number would make a differance since it is drawn from the same set at the same time. I'm only an occational player so there is no chance of breaking the bank.

Thanks for the input

There are 7 numbers drawn so including the bonus number, you probably could set it at 28 drawings and shouldn't expect to see more than two or three numbers that didn't hit. Looking at the current past 30 drawing, number 49 hasn't hit, but it hit 3 times in the 10 drawings before that.

What type of analysis are you doing that requires all the numbers to be drawn?

United States
Member #130795
July 25, 2012
80 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2013, 7:06 pm - IP Logged

For anyone who's interested, 958 completed cycles of 49 numbers appearing  could be counted in the 997 drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto that varies from 19 to 65 drawings.  Below are those results

0: 0     10: 0     20: 4      30: 53    40: 26    50: 12
1: 0     11: 0     21: 9      31: 54    41: 21    51: 10
2: 0     12: 0     22: 18    32: 54    42: 19    52: 9
3: 0     13: 0     23: 20    33: 47    43: 16    53: 9
4: 0     14: 0     24: 28    34: 38    44: 15    54: 7
5: 0     15: 0     25: 34    35: 37    45: 13    55: 6
6: 0     16: 0     26: 37    36: 39    46: 13    56: 5
7: 0     17: 0     27: 41    37: 35    47: 13    57: 4
8: 0     18: 0     28: 44    38: 33    48: 13    58: 4
9: 0     19: 3     29: 49    39: 34    49: 12    59: 4

60: 4     70: 0     80: 0     90: 0
61: 3     71: 0     81: 0     91: 0
62: 3     72: 0     82: 0     92: 0
63: 2     73: 0     83: 0     93: 0
64: 2     74: 0     84: 0     94: 0
65: 2     75: 0     85: 0     95: 0
66: 0     76: 0     86: 0     96: 0
67: 0     77: 0     87: 0     97: 0
68: 0     78: 0     88: 0     98: 0
69: 0     79: 0     89: 0     99: 0

RJOh wrote:  ``For anyone who's interested, 958 completed cycles of 49 numbers appearing  could be counted in the 997 drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto that varies from 19 to 65 drawings.``

And that is consistent with my analysis of the 31-year(!) data for the Canada 6/49 lotto:  19 to 64 drawings for all 49 numbers to appear in the first 6 numbers (not considering the bonus number), with a mean of 36 +/-2 rounded (with 95% confidence).

FYI, Gwoof, when the bonus number is included (i.e. a draw of 7 numbers from the same pool of 49), there is only a small difference, to wit:  18 to 63 drawings with a mean of 32 +/-2 rounded (95% confidence).

Jimmy4164 wrote:  ``I think your first pass at the simulation was the correct one!  When I noticed the questions here, I wrote a "quick and dirty" program to see what I get.  With 10,000 Trials, I got a mean number of draws of 35.05``.

Actually, that demonstrates that neither of my "passes" is correct.  I'll have to look for a programming error later.  But the mean of your simulation is consistent with my analysis of the Canada 6/49 past numbers.  QED.

Sorry for the misdirection.

 Page 2 of 8