Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 2, 2016, 12:53 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

How Many Drawings in a Row?

Topic closed. 14 replies. Last post 3 years ago by LottoBoner.

Page 1 of 1
51
PrintE-mailLink
Lottonomics's avatar - box

United States
Member #133657
October 5, 2012
82 Posts
Offline
Posted: October 19, 2013, 1:44 am - IP Logged

A question for those of you that like to come up with your own systems. How many drawings in a row would something have to occur before you would start to think it might not be a fluke/coincidence?

    LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
    Happyland
    United States
    Member #146344
    September 1, 2013
    1129 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: October 19, 2013, 2:00 am - IP Logged

    A question for those of you that like to come up with your own systems. How many drawings in a row would something have to occur before you would start to think it might not be a fluke/coincidence?

    That would depend on how many balls are in the pool and how many are drawn. I use statistical tests to determine significance, and you would be surprised how many times a number can repeat/out before it is considered non-random. It's usually a large number.

    Example:

    1000 draws for 1 of 10 (when I say 1 of 10, I mean i.e. the first position in Pick 3)

    If a ball appears >=140 times or <= 60 times it is pretty close to significant. Any number of times in between and it's normal!

    Note that this doesn't scale. So for 100 draws it wouldn't be 14 or 6, it would be 23 times for a ball but 0 shows would be normal.

    As far as "in a row" it doesn't really matter because over time it averages out. But if you have to know, for a 1 of 10 draw if the ball appears 5 out of 10 draws it's probably not a coincidence. For a 5/37 one ball would have to appear 9 out of 10 draws.

    Most mechanical drawings are never non-random but computer generated (RNG etc) drawings are frequently non-random.

    If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the potential payoff does.
    If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?

    2016: -48.28% (13 tickets) ||
    P&L % = Total Win($)/Total Wager($) - 1

      Lottonomics's avatar - box

      United States
      Member #133657
      October 5, 2012
      82 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: October 19, 2013, 3:58 am - IP Logged

      That would depend on how many balls are in the pool and how many are drawn. I use statistical tests to determine significance, and you would be surprised how many times a number can repeat/out before it is considered non-random. It's usually a large number.

      Example:

      1000 draws for 1 of 10 (when I say 1 of 10, I mean i.e. the first position in Pick 3)

      If a ball appears >=140 times or <= 60 times it is pretty close to significant. Any number of times in between and it's normal!

      Note that this doesn't scale. So for 100 draws it wouldn't be 14 or 6, it would be 23 times for a ball but 0 shows would be normal.

      As far as "in a row" it doesn't really matter because over time it averages out. But if you have to know, for a 1 of 10 draw if the ball appears 5 out of 10 draws it's probably not a coincidence. For a 5/37 one ball would have to appear 9 out of 10 draws.

      Most mechanical drawings are never non-random but computer generated (RNG etc) drawings are frequently non-random.

      Hmm, I guess I should have been a little more specific. By "something" I didn't mean a specific ball/number, more like an "event" for prediction (I don't know what else to call it).

      Example: A group of numbers for elimination. To ensure consistency, the method of number selection stays the same throughout the testing phase (but the actual numbers produced by the method vary from draw to draw). The prediction event of importance would be "elimination." If none of the numbers hit, it is a success, if any of the numbers hit, it is a failure.

      Or a method to predict whether a certain position will be even or odd. The method can either prove successful or not.

      So basically, how many drawings in a row of success before a method might be considered more than a fluke/coincidence? Or if not drawings in a row, a percentage of success? You know, something tangible to shoot for when putting any potential method through its paces.

        grwurston's avatar - Cute animals_Spider.jpg
        Winning makes me smile.
        bel air maryland
        United States
        Member #90251
        April 24, 2010
        4849 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: October 19, 2013, 4:25 pm - IP Logged

        A question for those of you that like to come up with your own systems. How many drawings in a row would something have to occur before you would start to think it might not be a fluke/coincidence?

        Good question. I think that would depend a lot on the individual's expectations for their particular system or method and

        how much success they have had in the past. If an individual hardly ever hits anything, and they come up with something

        that hits say, 35% of the time, they may consider that to be very good, whereas someone that has something that hits 50%

        may not thinks it's so good.

        Personally, I am always looking for something that hits consistently over time. I am not interested in something that works

        great for 2 months, then goes cold for 2 months. I want something to hit a bare minimum of 60% in backtests before I will 

        try to use it as a strategy, and then I will try to tweak it up to 75- 80% or better. Now it doesn't come easy, it takes a lot of

        and trial and error, but it can be done. And once you do it, you will have a big advantage in the game. Good Luck!!!

        "You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra, Hall of Fame baseball player.

        The numbers will tell you what numbers to play. Pay attention to the numbers.

        Don't just think outside the box, crush it.

          Lottonomics's avatar - box

          United States
          Member #133657
          October 5, 2012
          82 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: October 19, 2013, 7:24 pm - IP Logged

          Good question. I think that would depend a lot on the individual's expectations for their particular system or method and

          how much success they have had in the past. If an individual hardly ever hits anything, and they come up with something

          that hits say, 35% of the time, they may consider that to be very good, whereas someone that has something that hits 50%

          may not thinks it's so good.

          Personally, I am always looking for something that hits consistently over time. I am not interested in something that works

          great for 2 months, then goes cold for 2 months. I want something to hit a bare minimum of 60% in backtests before I will 

          try to use it as a strategy, and then I will try to tweak it up to 75- 80% or better. Now it doesn't come easy, it takes a lot of

          and trial and error, but it can be done. And once you do it, you will have a big advantage in the game. Good Luck!!!

          Thanks a bunch! This is the type of answer I was hoping for. When you say over time and a certain % in backtests, what time frame and how many backtests? Over the course of the entire game history, 100 draws? Less? Somewhere in between?

          Also, when you do find something that seems to work consistently in backtests, have you ever come across a situation where it immediately stops working the moment you start using it?

          Basically, here's the story. I had been frantically trying to finish some components for something I had been working on for mega millions to use before the matrix changed. My guidelines for the components were that they all had to be successful for 25 drawings in a row, plus an additional previous 10 drawings arbitrarily chosen. Now these weren't just backtests, but also "fronttests" if that's a word, haha. Basically tracking the strategy going forward, but not playing it.

          Anyway, all of my components passed my guidelines and seemed like a solid strategy. I got to use the strategy for the last 4 mega millions drawings before the matrix change, and the strategy failed those 4 drawings in a row where it had previously been successful for 25+. I don't usually buy into the "the lottery knows what numbers everyone plays and doesn't choose those numbers!" theory, but sometimes things just make you scratch your head, haha.

          I won't be playing the new mega millions because of the ridiculousness of 75 white balls, but I hope to adapt this strategy for other games. I'm just trying to get a feel for what other people that do systems use for their testing guidelines, and if my testing guidelines seem adequate, or if I should expand it to more draws? Or just scrap the whole "in a row" part and stick to an overall success rate. Your 75-80% or better seems very reasonable. Thanks again!

            grwurston's avatar - Cute animals_Spider.jpg
            Winning makes me smile.
            bel air maryland
            United States
            Member #90251
            April 24, 2010
            4849 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: October 19, 2013, 7:50 pm - IP Logged

            Thanks a bunch! This is the type of answer I was hoping for. When you say over time and a certain % in backtests, what time frame and how many backtests? Over the course of the entire game history, 100 draws? Less? Somewhere in between?

            Also, when you do find something that seems to work consistently in backtests, have you ever come across a situation where it immediately stops working the moment you start using it?

            Basically, here's the story. I had been frantically trying to finish some components for something I had been working on for mega millions to use before the matrix changed. My guidelines for the components were that they all had to be successful for 25 drawings in a row, plus an additional previous 10 drawings arbitrarily chosen. Now these weren't just backtests, but also "fronttests" if that's a word, haha. Basically tracking the strategy going forward, but not playing it.

            Anyway, all of my components passed my guidelines and seemed like a solid strategy. I got to use the strategy for the last 4 mega millions drawings before the matrix change, and the strategy failed those 4 drawings in a row where it had previously been successful for 25+. I don't usually buy into the "the lottery knows what numbers everyone plays and doesn't choose those numbers!" theory, but sometimes things just make you scratch your head, haha.

            I won't be playing the new mega millions because of the ridiculousness of 75 white balls, but I hope to adapt this strategy for other games. I'm just trying to get a feel for what other people that do systems use for their testing guidelines, and if my testing guidelines seem adequate, or if I should expand it to more draws? Or just scrap the whole "in a row" part and stick to an overall success rate. Your 75-80% or better seems very reasonable. Thanks again!

            I only play the p3 p4 so when I do a backtest, I'll start with a month to see if it shows a lttle promise. Then I will go to 3 or 4

            months just to get a longer term view and to make sure the first month wasn't just a short term hot or cold streak. Whether I

            go to 6 months or a year depends on how ambituous I feel about it. lol But I think 3-6 should give you a pretty good idea

            over a longer time frame. This will also give you a good idea of it's performance, ie how often it hits. To see if it's worth

            pursuing.

            Yes, I have tracked some systems that looked good for a half year, started playing and watched it take a nose dive. But that

            is what I hope to avoid, because there's no telling how long till it heats up again. Looking back, I would say that a lot of times

            they looked real good, but it was hard to predict when they would hit. It might hit for 10 days then cool off for a week, hit 3

            or 4, then miss 3 or 4. Too sporadic, which is why I try to find the 75-80% hit rate. It's more consistent. And even then I

            think sometimes that can be made more predictable thru tracking/charting.

            "You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra, Hall of Fame baseball player.

            The numbers will tell you what numbers to play. Pay attention to the numbers.

            Don't just think outside the box, crush it.

              Lottonomics's avatar - box

              United States
              Member #133657
              October 5, 2012
              82 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: October 19, 2013, 9:42 pm - IP Logged

              I only play the p3 p4 so when I do a backtest, I'll start with a month to see if it shows a lttle promise. Then I will go to 3 or 4

              months just to get a longer term view and to make sure the first month wasn't just a short term hot or cold streak. Whether I

              go to 6 months or a year depends on how ambituous I feel about it. lol But I think 3-6 should give you a pretty good idea

              over a longer time frame. This will also give you a good idea of it's performance, ie how often it hits. To see if it's worth

              pursuing.

              Yes, I have tracked some systems that looked good for a half year, started playing and watched it take a nose dive. But that

              is what I hope to avoid, because there's no telling how long till it heats up again. Looking back, I would say that a lot of times

              they looked real good, but it was hard to predict when they would hit. It might hit for 10 days then cool off for a week, hit 3

              or 4, then miss 3 or 4. Too sporadic, which is why I try to find the 75-80% hit rate. It's more consistent. And even then I

              think sometimes that can be made more predictable thru tracking/charting.

              Thanks! Good helpful info. I think I know what you mean by "can be made more predictable thru tracking/charting." Some of my components I like to keep track of specifically for the days when they don't hit. Because of the nature of how the component behaves, I know it's a pretty much guaranteed success for the next draw.

              You've been very helpful. Now to pick a new game, and back to the drawing board for me Type

                LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
                Happyland
                United States
                Member #146344
                September 1, 2013
                1129 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: October 19, 2013, 11:55 pm - IP Logged

                Hmm, I guess I should have been a little more specific. By "something" I didn't mean a specific ball/number, more like an "event" for prediction (I don't know what else to call it).

                Example: A group of numbers for elimination. To ensure consistency, the method of number selection stays the same throughout the testing phase (but the actual numbers produced by the method vary from draw to draw). The prediction event of importance would be "elimination." If none of the numbers hit, it is a success, if any of the numbers hit, it is a failure.

                Or a method to predict whether a certain position will be even or odd. The method can either prove successful or not.

                So basically, how many drawings in a row of success before a method might be considered more than a fluke/coincidence? Or if not drawings in a row, a percentage of success? You know, something tangible to shoot for when putting any potential method through its paces.

                Looks like you've got your answer, but I'll just add my comments.

                The way to test would be to determine the deviation of empirical occurences versus theoretical occurences. I've been doing this with my state's jackpot games. For instance, if a certain group of numbers (i.e. even) occurs X% of the time theoretically (based on total available combinations), then empirically (in real life) the % of occurrences should be very close. If the deviation is substantial, say a group occurs twice the percent that it "should" then something might be up.

                I am not sure how valid "backtesting" lottery numbers is because technically you are biased towards the numbers which bring the highest number or value of wins. Due to the random nature of the games there is nothing to say those numbers may or may not hit again.

                If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the potential payoff does.
                If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?

                2016: -48.28% (13 tickets) ||
                P&L % = Total Win($)/Total Wager($) - 1

                  Avatar

                  United States
                  Member #41846
                  June 23, 2006
                  458 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: October 20, 2013, 5:12 am - IP Logged

                  Lottonomics

                  over the years I have come up with a couple of systems that had super hit rates in back testing but fell on thier face when played.  in both cases when I started digging into why, I found that in my backtesting, I was unintentionally including the next draw in the data being tested.

                  easy test for this is to look at suggested #'s for the next draw, then after entering the next draw, look at suggested #'s for that draw again, they should be the same. good hunting

                    str8ca$hhomie's avatar - Cash

                    United States
                    Member #146028
                    August 22, 2013
                    842 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: October 20, 2013, 6:00 pm - IP Logged

                    A question for those of you that like to come up with your own systems. How many drawings in a row would something have to occur before you would start to think it might not be a fluke/coincidence?

                    For what it's worth and this is just my conclusion is that NO system's player will be able to get an accurate reading on the behavorial patterns of the new MEGA MILLIONS lottery numbers until each and every single number 1-75 has had a hit at least once.

                    You could be talking one (1) year; two (2) years; or perhaps maybe even more for this event to happen.

                    Sometimes it's extremely difficult if not practically impossible to get people to disregard the smoke and mirrors.  Instead, they seem to enjoy the ride down the proverbial Garden Path....... helpless to extricate themselves from being totally deceived by known forces in their midst who would argue that they have come here for the sole purpose of helping people.......str8ca$hhomie

                      Lottonomics's avatar - box

                      United States
                      Member #133657
                      October 5, 2012
                      82 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: October 20, 2013, 8:14 pm - IP Logged

                      For what it's worth and this is just my conclusion is that NO system's player will be able to get an accurate reading on the behavorial patterns of the new MEGA MILLIONS lottery numbers until each and every single number 1-75 has had a hit at least once.

                      You could be talking one (1) year; two (2) years; or perhaps maybe even more for this event to happen.

                      Dangit, I had typed up a lengthy more detailed explanation of some things, and I accidentally hit the back button and it got lost. Sorry guys Disapprove Maybe it was a sign that I should keep my mouth shut :P Thanks for everyone's comments and suggestions though!

                      P.S I'm not playing the new mega millions.

                        Lottonomics's avatar - box

                        United States
                        Member #133657
                        October 5, 2012
                        82 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: November 14, 2013, 6:43 pm - IP Logged

                        Well, it's time to try out the new idea. It's for California Super Lotto Plus, but can be adapted to any game really. It has passed my testing guidelines. A successful 25 consecutive draws in back testing, an additional 10 arbitrarily chosen back tested draws, and 10 consecutive forward tested draws. So 45 succesful trials in total.

                        You would think with all of those successful trials it will eventually be successful at least once more, right? At least that is my hope. I only need one. We will see. If it never works again I guess it gives credence to to all those conspiracy theories about the lottery choosing the unplayed combinations :P

                        I'll be playing the method every draw from now on starting for Saturday's draw. If I get continued success in real play I'll let you guys know the exact steps and how to adapt it for your game.

                          Avatar

                          United States
                          Member #116344
                          September 8, 2011
                          3919 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: November 14, 2013, 7:43 pm - IP Logged

                          A question for those of you that like to come up with your own systems. How many drawings in a row would something have to occur before you would start to think it might not be a fluke/coincidence?

                          1. The event is RANDOM

                          2.'How many drawings in a row would SOMETHING', explain  SOMETHING

                          3. Since the event is random, consistency is a bit of a stretch for any system.

                          4.Focus more on Prize  RATIO (I consider 30% hit ratio positive, odds is not probability).

                          5.Large picks may mean high hit ratio, but is not cost effective.

                            Lottonomics's avatar - box

                            United States
                            Member #133657
                            October 5, 2012
                            82 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: November 14, 2013, 10:24 pm - IP Logged

                            1. The event is RANDOM

                            2.'How many drawings in a row would SOMETHING', explain  SOMETHING

                            3. Since the event is random, consistency is a bit of a stretch for any system.

                            4.Focus more on Prize  RATIO (I consider 30% hit ratio positive, odds is not probability).

                            5.Large picks may mean high hit ratio, but is not cost effective.

                            1. I know the event is random. All of the methods I test depend on the event being random first and foremost.

                            2. The "something" could be any desired outcome you are persuing. For example, you started a thread with a formula to generate number groups where you said "this outcome gives constant 3/5 for lotto games." In your case, the desired outcome of your formula would be 3/5 for lotto games. It's a tangible outcome that you can back test, and keep track of the success going forward.

                            3. With that said, the main premise of the question was, how many drawings in a row would "something" (any desired outcome explained in part 2) have to occur to make you think "hmm, I might be on to something here." That's all.

                            I'm a stickler for consistency. I'm not happy with a desired outcome happening 60% of the time or whatever during a testing phase. I'll work on it until it works 100% of the time. If it works 100% of the time in testing I'll feel more confident of it working, or eventually working again during real play.

                            There was/is a poster who I read in his signature once "if something happens once it can happen again" or something along those lines, but the idea stuck with me.

                            But anyway, my testing phase is over, and now it's time for real play.


                              United States
                              Member #124493
                              March 14, 2012
                              7023 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: November 14, 2013, 10:29 pm - IP Logged

                              A question for those of you that like to come up with your own systems. How many drawings in a row would something have to occur before you would start to think it might not be a fluke/coincidence?

                              It depends on the variable you are tracking AND the game you are playing.