Welcome Guest
You last visited December 7, 2016, 4:45 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# 649 formula

Topic closed. 109 replies. Last post 3 years ago by RJOh.

 Page 6 of 8

United States
Member #130795
July 25, 2012
80 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 11, 2013, 11:24 pm - IP Logged

I guess that proves some mathematicians use their knowledge to win money and our resident pretend mathematicans just spread the BS.

Again, I usually ignore your postings as wasted hot air.  But that comment is interesting because of how it reflects on you.

Referring to http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2012/08/14/winning-the-lottery, the article says exactly what I have been saying all along, namely:  the only way to improve your odds is to purchase more tickets (lines).  And the tickets should have the maximum number of unique sub-combinations.  I'm sure that is all the group in the article did.

The article states:  ``The group eventually determined that if they purchased at least \$600,000 worth of tickets during a “roll down,” they could garner an average profit of more than 15 percent.  [....] In August 2010, Random Strategies won nearly the entire Cash WinFall prize in a single drawing, purchasing 700,000 \$2 tickets and cashing in 860 of the 963 winning slips.``

The article does not say the group used any voodoo for selecting their plays [1].  The only special thing they did was to time their play with a "roll down" of unclaimed jackpots exceeding \$2M into lower-tiered prizes.

As the article also noted, that kind of "roll down" is ``unlike traditional lottery games``.  So it's not a very useful strategy in general.

Sometimes, just for fun, I mentally experiment with ideas for purchasing large numbers of tickets, virtually guaranteeing a high-tier win.  So I find the article interesting insofar as it notes all the problems I "encountered" in the mental experiment, to wit:  ``The biggest headache of (Harvey’s) system was finding places to actually place his large volume bets (running hundreds of thousands of tickets can tie up an employee for hours), filling out each betting slip by hand (computer generated slips are illegal), and correcting for other variables like weather (if it was too humid, the machines could jam)``.

-----
[1] The report associated with the article states:  ``Mr. Harvey developed a computer program that would generate sets of numbers that would provide an optimal distribution across the range of possible drawing results.``  No explanation of what Harvey considered "optimal".  My definition, again, is:  maximum number of unique sub-combinations.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 12:57 am - IP Logged

When you said, "...the article says exactly what I have been saying all along, namely:  the only way to improve your odds is to purchase more tickets (lines).", you said it all! And your description of the "roll down" clinches it.

This horse was beaten to death in April but these people are so desperate to prove we are wrong that they've picked up their clubs yet again.  They apparently want people to believe that the syndicates that expoited the Roll Down were using previous draw history to do it.    They are really getting pathetic. Do you think it's possible they truly believe what they write?

You've explained this well but if anyone wants to see how silly it was for them to even bring up the Loophole in the Massachusetts Cash Winfal game at this juncture, check this out.

"Lottery officials found out about the loophole in 2010 or possibly earlier, but didn't do anything about it because the gamblers generated \$16 million in revenue for the Massachusetts lottery, according to the report." (Huffington Post 8/2/2012)

Personally, I'd like to hear an occassional reply from some of the silent members here who are learning something from what we're posting.

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 2:40 am - IP Logged

Again, I usually ignore your postings as wasted hot air.  But that comment is interesting because of how it reflects on you.

Referring to http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2012/08/14/winning-the-lottery, the article says exactly what I have been saying all along, namely:  the only way to improve your odds is to purchase more tickets (lines).  And the tickets should have the maximum number of unique sub-combinations.  I'm sure that is all the group in the article did.

The article states:  ``The group eventually determined that if they purchased at least \$600,000 worth of tickets during a “roll down,” they could garner an average profit of more than 15 percent.  [....] In August 2010, Random Strategies won nearly the entire Cash WinFall prize in a single drawing, purchasing 700,000 \$2 tickets and cashing in 860 of the 963 winning slips.``

The article does not say the group used any voodoo for selecting their plays [1].  The only special thing they did was to time their play with a "roll down" of unclaimed jackpots exceeding \$2M into lower-tiered prizes.

As the article also noted, that kind of "roll down" is ``unlike traditional lottery games``.  So it's not a very useful strategy in general.

Sometimes, just for fun, I mentally experiment with ideas for purchasing large numbers of tickets, virtually guaranteeing a high-tier win.  So I find the article interesting insofar as it notes all the problems I "encountered" in the mental experiment, to wit:  ``The biggest headache of (Harvey’s) system was finding places to actually place his large volume bets (running hundreds of thousands of tickets can tie up an employee for hours), filling out each betting slip by hand (computer generated slips are illegal), and correcting for other variables like weather (if it was too humid, the machines could jam)``.

-----
[1] The report associated with the article states:  ``Mr. Harvey developed a computer program that would generate sets of numbers that would provide an optimal distribution across the range of possible drawing results.``  No explanation of what Harvey considered "optimal".  My definition, again, is:  maximum number of unique sub-combinations.

"Again, I usually ignore your postings as wasted hot air."

Speaking of "hot air", other than telling us about day dreaming of purchasing lots of tickets, you basically posted what's in the article.

"No explanation of what Harvey considered "optimal".  My definition, again, is:  maximum number of unique sub-combinations."

Actually there is a simple explanation, but you won't see it by day dreaming, fantasizing, or running 4,000 simulations.

"With just 4000 simulated sets of draws, we can determine the average within about +/-1% (217 to 223) with 99% confidence."

There are only 156 drawing a year and your simulation showed on average it should take way over a year before all 49 numbers are drawn.

"PS:  It would be useful to compare that with the history of some 6/49 lottery, ideally with at least 667 drawings.  I have not done that (yet)."

And RJ provided us with the results of 997 drawings in the 6/49 Ohio Classic Lotto. After all that BS about running simulations, it shows the average number of skips is 149 more drawings than the most skips (65) in an actual drawing. Yeah, I understand you revised it down to 90 drawings but that average was still 35 more than the most skips in a real game.

"PPS:  Note that 220 is an average.  In the simulation, it took as few as 99 and as many as 552 draws to see all 49 numbers"

I find it fascinating that you decided to tag-team with the brilliant mathematician Jimmy4164. As usual he's good for a couple of LMAO! and apparently your are too. "as few as 99" drawings in game where 12.2% of the numbers are drawn every drawing.

"It looks like the Ohio Classic is in the "Ballpark" with my random number generator."

Jimmy's results: minimum skips: 14, maximum skips: 116

Ohio Classic Lotto results: minimum skips: 19, maximum skips: 65

"Which menas that about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 and 54.4."

But if the mean is 35.2 and the standard deviation is 9.6, shouldn't that be between 25.6 and 44.8?

Gwoof asked a simple question; a simple average and Jimmy gives him an average that can vary 38 drawings. That's 19 weeks in the Canadian game.

Mathhead: What exactly was the fault with my answer "because the number of skips can vary greatly, there is no average that is useful for consistent analysis"?

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
5896 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 8:57 am - IP Logged

RJ,

If you believe the string will continue( last column), don't play 31, if you think the string will break, play 31.

 DRAWS X X X X X 31 29 6 22 29 44 45 48 33 6 13 25 26 36 47 32 21 23 29 30 39 45 31 3 9 15 23 29 47 30 1 2 10 12 16 29 29 1 11 26 42 45 48 28 10 18 23 42 45 48 28 7 10 12 25 37 46 27 8 30 33 38 40 46 26 2 5 12 16 24 45 36

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 12:56 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

You quoted me saying, "Which menas that about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 and 54.4."

And then you said, "But if the mean is 35.2 and the standard deviation is 9.6, shouldn't that be between 25.6 and 44.8?"

9.6 is ONE(1) Standard Deviation.  95% of the variates will tend to fall within TWO(2) Standard Deviations.

It pays to click and read the references that people post before critiquing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule

--Jimmy4164

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 1:56 pm - IP Logged

RJ,

If you believe the string will continue( last column), don't play 31, if you think the string will break, play 31.

 DRAWS X X X X X 31 29 6 22 29 44 45 48 33 6 13 25 26 36 47 32 21 23 29 30 39 45 31 3 9 15 23 29 47 30 1 2 10 12 16 29 29 1 11 26 42 45 48 28 10 18 23 42 45 48 28 7 10 12 25 37 46 27 8 30 33 38 40 46 26 2 5 12 16 24 45 36

What string and game are you talking about?  What I posted was just the number of drawings it took for all 49 numbers to be drawn in Ohio's Classic Lotto history, nothing about picking numbers to play.

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

Nova Scotia
Member #9934
December 27, 2004
884 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 2:08 pm - IP Logged

I live in Canada, and want to win the lotto 649; and I am ready now;

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 2:34 pm - IP Logged

I live in Canada, and want to win the lotto 649; and I am ready now;

Sounds like you and Gwoof are looking for the same information, keep an eye on his threads just in case.

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
5896 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 3:00 pm - IP Logged

What string and game are you talking about?  What I posted was just the number of drawings it took for all 49 numbers to be drawn in Ohio's Classic Lotto history, nothing about picking numbers to play.

Ohio 6/49  Classic

The last column are the numbber of draws for all 49 numbers to show. The last draw, all 49 numbers was covered in 33 draws. If you think it will not go to 34, play the 31, where all the numbers are covered in the last 29 draws, if my calca are correct.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 8:10 pm - IP Logged

Ohio 6/49  Classic

The last column are the numbber of draws for all 49 numbers to show. The last draw, all 49 numbers was covered in 33 draws. If you think it will not go to 34, play the 31, where all the numbers are covered in the last 29 draws, if my calca are correct.

I think I see what you mean now with 31 being the last or 49th number to come up in the last 33 drawings.

Ronnie316 was trying something similar with the multi-states games and I don't think he found any numbers were more likely to be drawn based on their positions  on a list of numbers that were last drawn. Beside even if 31 came up, I would still have to pick five other numbers which still leaves me with 12 millions possible combinations.

I follow the pick5 and all jackpot games played in Ohio, but I don't play them every drawing.  Tonight I'm picking 10 lines for PB.  I played 20 lines for OCL Monday and the best I could do was a 3of6 for \$2 and three 2of6 so I'm taking a break and maybe play it again this Saturday.

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

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 8:18 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

You quoted me saying, "Which menas that about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 and 54.4."

And then you said, "But if the mean is 35.2 and the standard deviation is 9.6, shouldn't that be between 25.6 and 44.8?"

9.6 is ONE(1) Standard Deviation.  95% of the variates will tend to fall within TWO(2) Standard Deviations.

It pays to click and read the references that people post before critiquing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule

--Jimmy4164

Gwoof is looking for an average number of drawings where they could expect to see all 49 numbers drawn and asked if there is a formula.

"95% of the variates will tend to fall within TWO(2) Standard Deviations."

You might think you understand mathematics better than most of us, but most of us were taught an average is usually determined by using 100% of the events. In the third post on this thread, Gwoof said they knew at least 80% of the numbers were drawn in an average 20 drawings and made it clear they wanted to know the average number of drawings when 100% of the numbers are drawn.

Looking at RJ's chart we know for a fact 100% of the numbers are drawn between 19 and 65 drawings in Ohio Classic Lotto. Because of the large variance of the drawings necessary for all of the 49 numbers drawn, the only usefulness of an average in that game is for a starting point where too look. It's obvious Gwoof wants to analyze an average number of drawings, but by using an average number of drawings, in about 45% of them, less than 49 numbers will be drawn.

"It pays to click and read the references that people post before critiquing."

If your objective is to answer the OP, it pays to read the very first post and any follow up questions. It's obvious your objective was to show off your very questionable mathematical skills and your ability to run a simulation. Based on your simulations, you were positive the average number drawings was 90 after it was determined the question was about a real lottery game history and RJ provided a chart showing the highest number of drawings one number skipped was 65 from a real lottery game history. Your opinions about the value of using drawing histories and simulations are useless when the question is about a real drawing history.

"Personally, I'd like to hear an occassional reply from some of the silent members here who are learning something from what we're posting."

With almost 144,000 LP members and more joining every day, your odds are getting better, but according to 20,000 trial Monte Carlo simulated runs, don't look for it to happen in your lifetime.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 12, 2013, 8:25 pm - IP Logged

Ohio 6/49  Classic

The last column are the numbber of draws for all 49 numbers to show. The last draw, all 49 numbers was covered in 33 draws. If you think it will not go to 34, play the 31, where all the numbers are covered in the last 29 draws, if my calca are correct.

I see 31 did come up in tonight's OCL drawing so all 49 numbers have hit in the last 29 drawings for Saturday's drawing.

* 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 12, 2013, 11:16 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

You quoted me saying, "Which menas that about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 and 54.4."

And then you said, "But if the mean is 35.2 and the standard deviation is 9.6, shouldn't that be between 25.6 and 44.8?"

9.6 is ONE(1) Standard Deviation.  95% of the variates will tend to fall within TWO(2) Standard Deviations.

It pays to click and read the references that people post before critiquing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule

--Jimmy4164

Stack47,

It's obvious there is nothing I can teach you about mathematics, especially about probability as it applies to the lottery.  If you had been a student in one of my classes years ago, and you had been as vocal there as you are here, I would have reminded you of the drop/add period dates, and suggested you take another course.  The equivalent of that in these Forums would be for you to ignore my posts.  It's really quite impossible for you to learn anything from me.  Besides, since you have this all figured out, I hate to see you missing so many winning opportunities by wasting your time explaining to me in detail how well you understand my posts, repeatedly mentioning errors I have since fixed, and how I could have better presented material in other ways.  You've been roaming these Forums for 7+ years now, sharing your wisdom with everyone.  It's really time you start thinking about yourself, and invest all your energies into making...

Year Number 8 - 2013 - The YEAR OF STACK47 !!

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  I think you're ready to tackle Epstein's book on gambling. the one cited below.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
5896 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 3:58 am - IP Logged

I see 31 did come up in tonight's OCL drawing so all 49 numbers have hit in the last 29 drawings for Saturday's drawing.

Maybe past draws can be used after all????

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 8:54 am - IP Logged

Maybe past draws can be used after all????

Had I played and picked 31 as my key number, my odds of picking the other five winning numbers would have been 1:1,712,304 instead of the 12M I was guessing.  Odds would have been even better had I avoided any combination of four that had already hit.  Something to think about when I play this Saturday.

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

 Page 6 of 8