Welcome Guest
You last visited April 26, 2017, 3:53 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# 649 formula

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

 Page 7 of 8
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20017 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 12:30 pm - IP Logged

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.

*Note:

For those interested in such things yesterday's OCL drawing 06/12/13 - 04 14 27 31 37 38 was its 1001.  Each combination of six has 15 combinations of fours of which OCL have used 14,521 of the 211,876 possible.  Yesterday's drawing added 15 new ones to that growing list.

* 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 13, 2013, 2:27 pm - IP Logged

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.

RJOh wrote:  ``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``.

Yes, if you could know a priori that 31 would be picked.  But looking forward, you cannot know that.  So your true odds are the probability of matching a combination with 31 (1/1,712,304) times the probability that one of those combinations is drawn (1,712,304/13,983,816).  That is 1:13,983,816, the same probability as matching all 6 randomly.  So your odds are not improved by choosing a combination with 31.

RJOh wrote:  ``Odds would have been even better had I avoided any combination of four that had already hit.``

Again yes, if you could know a priori that the next drawing would not include any previously drawn quads (combinations of 4).  But looking forward, you cannot know that.  In fact, RJOh wrote later:  ``Each combination of six has 15 combinations of fours of which OCL have used 14,521 of the 211,876 possible`` in 1000 previous drawings.  So there have been 479 repeated quads drawn.  Certainly a small percentage; so I agree that it seems prudent to steer clear of previously-drawn quads.  Nevertheless, your true odds are the probability of matching a combination with no previously-drawn quads (limited to combinations with 31 to include the previous requirement) times the probability that one of those combinations is drawn.  The result should be 13,545/13,983,816, about 1:1032, the same probability as matching any 4 (and not more) randomly.  Again, your odds would not be improved.

(PS:  Well, the 1:1032 odds do not include the limitation of combinations with 31.  I had added "limited to combinations 31 to include the previous requirement" as an after-thought.)

Frankly, I find it difficult to calculate that conditional probability mathematically.  I would verify it by writing a program to actually count the two component probabilities.  "The exercise is left to the student".

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
6063 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 2:50 pm - IP Logged

The number 31 was the only value that could change the direction the string was going. It's called gambling, you and all the rest of the non-believers keep believing the past does not affect the future.

In Fla Play 4, P3. The digit 1 is the only value that can stop the string where all the digits 0-9 have been coming from. So if you played all the straight combos with a 1 in P1 and the 1 hits, you have just won \$5000. Again, it's called gambling.

 1 17 2 1 4521 7 16 26 25 40 7 7 2677 6 16 25 24 39 5 1 6951 5 22 24 23 38

United States
Member #130795
July 25, 2012
80 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 3:13 pm - IP Logged

RJOh wrote:  ``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``.

Yes, if you could know a priori that 31 would be picked.  But looking forward, you cannot know that.  So your true odds are the probability of matching a combination with 31 (1/1,712,304) times the probability that one of those combinations is drawn (1,712,304/13,983,816).  That is 1:13,983,816, the same probability as matching all 6 randomly.  So your odds are not improved by choosing a combination with 31.

RJOh wrote:  ``Odds would have been even better had I avoided any combination of four that had already hit.``

Again yes, if you could know a priori that the next drawing would not include any previously drawn quads (combinations of 4).  But looking forward, you cannot know that.  In fact, RJOh wrote later:  ``Each combination of six has 15 combinations of fours of which OCL have used 14,521 of the 211,876 possible`` in 1000 previous drawings.  So there have been 479 repeated quads drawn.  Certainly a small percentage; so I agree that it seems prudent to steer clear of previously-drawn quads.  Nevertheless, your true odds are the probability of matching a combination with no previously-drawn quads (limited to combinations with 31 to include the previous requirement) times the probability that one of those combinations is drawn.  The result should be 13,545/13,983,816, about 1:1032, the same probability as matching any 4 (and not more) randomly.  Again, your odds would not be improved.

(PS:  Well, the 1:1032 odds do not include the limitation of combinations with 31.  I had added "limited to combinations 31 to include the previous requirement" as an after-thought.)

Frankly, I find it difficult to calculate that conditional probability mathematically.  I would verify it by writing a program to actually count the two component probabilities.  "The exercise is left to the student".

PS:  I wrote:  ``the 1:1032 odds do not include the limitation of combinations with 31.``

Well, I believe the odds of randomly matching any 4 (and not more) of a combination that includes 31 is 9660/13,983,816, about 1:1448.

But on second thought, I don't think that's the "better odds" that RJOh is looking for.  He is still talking about matching all 6, I think.  The odds will always be 1:13,983,816.  We just need to count the compound conditions (includes 31 and excludes any previously-drawn quads); call that X.  Then our conditional probability is the probability of matching X (1/X) times the probability that one of X is drawn (X/31,983,816).

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7455 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 3:16 pm - IP Logged

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.

"It's obvious there is nothing I can teach you about mathematics, especially about probability as it applies to the lottery."

If this was an English class you would try to teach an obscure Chinese dialect. A member asks a simple question that has a simple answer and you try to turn into a learning experience and it still took you three tries before coming close to the answer they were looking for. What you fail to realize is your answer of about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 and 54 drawings, while correct is useless information when they were looking for a number of drawings like 32 where all 49 are drawn.

"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.

If you were a teacher, you were a poor teacher because in this example you failed to understand the student's question. There is no useful average of the amount of drawings necessary for all 49 numbers to be drawn. The question was the amount of drawings when 100% of the 49 numbers were drawn and in the Ohio Classic Lotto game the answer is 65 or the largest number of skips. Because Gwoof mentioned a game drawing history, their answer is found in that game's drawing history and not in any simulation.

"The equivalent of that in these Forums would be for you to ignore my posts."

I did ignore your posts for a while, but only because the majority of the other posters on the topic did. I didn't want to risk being ignored by them being the one dummy responding to your posts. To be honest I did peek at your posts occasionally to get my laugh of the day. I really don't care if you want to pretend to be a teacher, a mathematics professor emeritus, a rocket scientist, or Napoleon.

"You've been roaming these Forums for 7+ years now, sharing your wisdom with everyone."

Why are you so interested in the number of years I've posted on LP or the quality and quantity of my posts?

United States
Member #130795
July 25, 2012
80 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 3:32 pm - IP Logged

The number 31 was the only value that could change the direction the string was going. It's called gambling, you and all the rest of the non-believers keep believing the past does not affect the future.

In Fla Play 4, P3. The digit 1 is the only value that can stop the string where all the digits 0-9 have been coming from. So if you played all the straight combos with a 1 in P1 and the 1 hits, you have just won \$5000. Again, it's called gambling.

 1 17 2 1 4521 7 16 26 25 40 7 7 2677 6 16 25 24 39 5 1 6951 5 22 24 23 38

CARBOB wrote:  ``The number 31 was the only value that could change the direction the string was going. It's called gambling, you and all the rest of the non-believers keep believing the past does not affect the future.``

``Whereas games of chance provided the impetus for the mathematical study of probability, fundamental issues are still obscured by the superstitions of gamblers`` -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability#History.

CARBOB wrote:  ``In Fla Play 4, P3. The digit 1 is the only value that can stop the string where all the digits 0-9 have been coming from. So if you played all the straight combos with a 1 in P1 and the 1 hits, you have just won \$5000. Again, it's called gambling.``

That is absolutely correct.  The operative word is "if".

This is not a we-vs-they issue.  I have nothing against using the past to guide future choices.  We have to make arbitrary choices somehow.  It's either that or play all possible combinations -- usually financially and logistically prohibitive.

But RJOh was talking about calculating odds.  And he seems reasonably knowledgable about it, unlike some others.  So I thought he might appreciate seeing how the true odds are calculated.  It has nothing to do with how we choose our plays.

Put another way, it is silly to say:  ``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`` because 31 was "hot" in some way.

Since the drawing was 4-14-27-31-37-38, the odds would have been equally "improved" if RJOh had picked 4 or any of the others.  It's the same 1:1,712,304 chance of matching the other 5.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7455 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 4:08 pm - IP Logged

The number 31 was the only value that could change the direction the string was going. It's called gambling, you and all the rest of the non-believers keep believing the past does not affect the future.

In Fla Play 4, P3. The digit 1 is the only value that can stop the string where all the digits 0-9 have been coming from. So if you played all the straight combos with a 1 in P1 and the 1 hits, you have just won \$5000. Again, it's called gambling.

 1 17 2 1 4521 7 16 26 25 40 7 7 2677 6 16 25 24 39 5 1 6951 5 22 24 23 38

"It's called gambling, you and all the rest of the non-believers keep believing the past does not affect the future."

If Larry Hughes had "known" prior to the WVA pick-4 drawing that 1234 would be drawn, he would have certainly bet more than \$61 on that number. Though the majority of us already know betting \$61 on the same number in every drawing that was only drawn once in 10,000 drawings is a terrible bet, lately it seems there will always be someone lecturing us on why.

You and RJ were discussing keying on only one number and I saw a co-worker key on three numbers in a 5/37 game and used them with only 10 of the other 34 numbers. The three numbers were drawn the very next night and when he didn't show up for work, we all knew it was because he was going to lottery headquarters the next morning to get his picture taken holding a gigantic \$100,000 check.

I guess I just don't understand the necessity of telling us some players "just were lucky" when the reason for making a conditional bet is hoping to be lucky. Does it really matter why someone picks "heads" or "tails" on an even money coin flip, why you and RJ were discussing why you believe the number 31 had a better than probable chance of being drawn, and how the odds of winning against winning were better WHEN that number was drawn?

You're being lectured as if you didn't know there was zero chance of winning the jackpot if the number 31 wasn't drawn.

"So if you played all the straight combos with a 1 in P1 and the 1 hits, you have just won \$5000. Again, it's called gambling."

It's obvious you're talking about the conditions that exist today in the present, but don't be surprised if you're shown the results of a 10 million drawing simulation trying to negate your short term conditions. And prepare to be lectured on why the same numbers of QPs has an equal chance.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20017 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 4:19 pm - IP Logged

RJOh wrote:  ``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``.

Yes, if you could know a priori that 31 would be picked.  But looking forward, you cannot know that.  So your true odds are the probability of matching a combination with 31 (1/1,712,304) times the probability that one of those combinations is drawn (1,712,304/13,983,816).  That is 1:13,983,816, the same probability as matching all 6 randomly.  So your odds are not improved by choosing a combination with 31.

RJOh wrote:  ``Odds would have been even better had I avoided any combination of four that had already hit.``

Again yes, if you could know a priori that the next drawing would not include any previously drawn quads (combinations of 4).  But looking forward, you cannot know that.  In fact, RJOh wrote later:  ``Each combination of six has 15 combinations of fours of which OCL have used 14,521 of the 211,876 possible`` in 1000 previous drawings.  So there have been 479 repeated quads drawn.  Certainly a small percentage; so I agree that it seems prudent to steer clear of previously-drawn quads.  Nevertheless, your true odds are the probability of matching a combination with no previously-drawn quads (limited to combinations with 31 to include the previous requirement) times the probability that one of those combinations is drawn.  The result should be 13,545/13,983,816, about 1:1032, the same probability as matching any 4 (and not more) randomly.  Again, your odds would not be improved.

(PS:  Well, the 1:1032 odds do not include the limitation of combinations with 31.  I had added "limited to combinations 31 to include the previous requirement" as an after-thought.)

Frankly, I find it difficult to calculate that conditional probability mathematically.  I would verify it by writing a program to actually count the two component probabilities.  "The exercise is left to the student".

That post was a response to a post that CARBOB made to me, nothing more.

Your need to post about what I could know and not know is starting to make me think the same way about your posts as you do about Stack's posts.

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
6063 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 5:00 pm - IP Logged

What I don't understand is, why they keep posting the same message, over and over. Do they not understand this a lottery forum where we discuss gambling methods for the different games. Every bet we make is a conditional bet, we win or we lose. There was a poster from Tn, I think Tntea, not sure if that is correct. She came up with this tip about the zero, in Cash 3. This is the way it worked. If the draw contain a 0 , like 806, you would play the 886 866 008 880 600 doubles. One Friday night, in 05, the draw was those 3 digits. Saturday night, I played one number 20 times,Combo 886, it hit. I use to have the images of the tkts, but lost them when my computer crashed. I was happy as a pig in doo-doo. Do you think, I did not know, I was gambling? I still think about this, after I cashed my tkts and deposited the most of the money in the bank. I went to play my next draw numbers. The next draw was the same 3 digits and I didn't play them. Regret not playing at least, one time, a measley 3 dollars. The numbers I played did not hit, gambling. Just for the record, tonight in the Play 4, 2912. The digit 1 in P3.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 9:24 pm - IP Logged

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.

Hindsight - Amazing, isn't it?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 9:39 pm - IP Logged

"It's obvious there is nothing I can teach you about mathematics, especially about probability as it applies to the lottery."

If this was an English class you would try to teach an obscure Chinese dialect. A member asks a simple question that has a simple answer and you try to turn into a learning experience and it still took you three tries before coming close to the answer they were looking for. What you fail to realize is your answer of about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 and 54 drawings, while correct is useless information when they were looking for a number of drawings like 32 where all 49 are drawn.

"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.

If you were a teacher, you were a poor teacher because in this example you failed to understand the student's question. There is no useful average of the amount of drawings necessary for all 49 numbers to be drawn. The question was the amount of drawings when 100% of the 49 numbers were drawn and in the Ohio Classic Lotto game the answer is 65 or the largest number of skips. Because Gwoof mentioned a game drawing history, their answer is found in that game's drawing history and not in any simulation.

"The equivalent of that in these Forums would be for you to ignore my posts."

I did ignore your posts for a while, but only because the majority of the other posters on the topic did. I didn't want to risk being ignored by them being the one dummy responding to your posts. To be honest I did peek at your posts occasionally to get my laugh of the day. I really don't care if you want to pretend to be a teacher, a mathematics professor emeritus, a rocket scientist, or Napoleon.

"You've been roaming these Forums for 7+ years now, sharing your wisdom with everyone."

Why are you so interested in the number of years I've posted on LP or the quality and quantity of my posts?

Stack47,

Well, you've done it again!  As I said earlier:

"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."

The way you dismiised Richard Arnold Epstein when I first referenced him, it would appear you don't respect his knowledge and experience.  I definitely don't know as much as he does about this.  You really should take a peek at his book.

BTW, most psychologists will tell you that people who are secure with their intelligence and self worth very seldom find it necessary to accuse others of feigning superiority, the way you do.

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7455 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 13, 2013, 11:49 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

Well, you've done it again!  As I said earlier:

"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."

The way you dismiised Richard Arnold Epstein when I first referenced him, it would appear you don't respect his knowledge and experience.  I definitely don't know as much as he does about this.  You really should take a peek at his book.

BTW, most psychologists will tell you that people who are secure with their intelligence and self worth very seldom find it necessary to accuse others of feigning superiority, the way you do.

--Jimmy4164

"The way you dismiised Richard Arnold Epstein when I first referenced him, it would appear you don't respect his knowledge and experience."

I can't find him on the members list so you'll have to show me his posts. If he is not responding to comments, remarks, suggestions, or any general discussion, he is irrelevant on LP. Do you personally know Epstein?

"BTW, most psychologists will tell you that people who are secure with their intelligence and self worth very seldom find it necessary to accuse others of feigning superiority, the way you do."

Nope, the evidence is clear; you're suffering from delusions of grandeur. You pretended you personally know Catlin, Bluejay, the Wiz, and apparenty now Epstein. Have you ever had an original thought?

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
6063 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 14, 2013, 3:57 am - IP Logged

The number 31 was the only value that could change the direction the string was going. It's called gambling, you and all the rest of the non-believers keep believing the past does not affect the future.

In Fla Play 4, P3. The digit 1 is the only value that can stop the string where all the digits 0-9 have been coming from. So if you played all the straight combos with a 1 in P1 and the 1 hits, you have just won \$5000. Again, it's called gambling.

 1 17 2 1 4521 7 16 26 25 40 7 7 2677 6 16 25 24 39 5 1 6951 5 22 24 23 38

The number was 7115, are you still disbelieving, non lottery players? Have no idea why anyone who does not play the lottery would be on this forum. I think, I recommend all non lottery players not be allowed!! Maybe, include all the Obama supporters.

Horwood NL
Member #70613
February 6, 2009
308 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 14, 2013, 6:04 pm - IP Logged

For anyones information a friend made for me the calculations for the average appearance of the numbers from 1 to 49 over the history of the Atlantic 649 up to Wednesdays draw. With the bonus the min. was 14 and the max. was 52 giving an  avg. 27.8 . Without the bonus min. 17 and the max. was 63 giving an avg. of 32.9 .  Presently number 49 is out 41 games. That is in I think 1112 games. It looks close to the averages given by you guys. I'm not quite understanding the quads and trips you are refering to though. I use this information to limit the amount of history I look at.

The way I look at the lottery if your going to play, is that some return for the dollar is better than no return and if I play the numbers I choose I have no one to blame but myself for my loss. I believe I have a slightly better chance of getting the top prize playing the numbers I pick. I hardly ever won with quick picks. I may never break even but it's fun trying.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20017 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 15, 2013, 2:51 pm - IP Logged

For anyones information a friend made for me the calculations for the average appearance of the numbers from 1 to 49 over the history of the Atlantic 649 up to Wednesdays draw. With the bonus the min. was 14 and the max. was 52 giving an  avg. 27.8 . Without the bonus min. 17 and the max. was 63 giving an avg. of 32.9 .  Presently number 49 is out 41 games. That is in I think 1112 games. It looks close to the averages given by you guys. I'm not quite understanding the quads and trips you are refering to though. I use this information to limit the amount of history I look at.

The way I look at the lottery if your going to play, is that some return for the dollar is better than no return and if I play the numbers I choose I have no one to blame but myself for my loss. I believe I have a slightly better chance of getting the top prize playing the numbers I pick. I hardly ever won with quick picks. I may never break even but it's fun trying.