United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by SergeM on Apr 2, 2014
The question doesn't work well on me, I would answer yes or no, leaving the person asking with a maybe wrong answer, because he just was forcing one. I won't go further into language, logic or psychology.
For some the question always is, when do we eat?
SergeM
If you look at the content of the question then yes or no are the only options. The real question here is
"Do pseudo random selections mimic the population and distribution of the matrix?" If so, why? These
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by SergeM on Apr 2, 2014
The question doesn't work well on me, I would answer yes or no, leaving the person asking with a maybe wrong answer, because he just was forcing one. I won't go further into language, logic or psychology.
For some the question always is, when do we eat?
Sergem,
Questions, questions, questions. Lots of questions, very few answers. I responded to RL-RANDOMLOGIC's loaded question, just not to his satisfaction. In my reply I also asked him if he believed single digit numbers in the Pick-3 were less likely to be drawn than the vast majority containing 2 or 3 digits. Since he has already confirmed that he believes certain subsets of a Pick-5, based on digit frequencies, are more likely to produce Jackpot wins than others, my question, when directed at him, is not loaded. (Read the Loaded Question Wiki again) Note that he has not answered it.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC believes that the "real" question here is, "Do pseudo random selections mimic the population and distribution of the matrix?" In fact, this question is irrelevant. Of course these expected distributions are going to be produced by any good RNG. What he fails to see is that sets drawn from these subsets (E.G., 5 or 6 digits, high frequency sums, etc) are no more likely to match the draws than any other sets. Don Catlin explained this well in his piece, Lottery Nonsense. This is the crux of his innumeracy. His digit counts and sums are not the only measures of "population and distribution" that can be observed in Lotto combinations. However, since the Lottery only pays when your numerical selections match their draws to some degree or another, with no bonuses for sums, or digit frequencies, etc., considering them in your betting is a complete waste of time. RL-RANDOMLOGIC did suggest one intelligent betting strategy above when he advised against betting on combinations that are known to be bet on heavily in parimutuel games. Perhaps there is hope for him.
Earlier in this thread, RL-RANDOMLOGIC said, "I have my own tools and have ran thousands of simulations over the years but just for you I ran the one you linked above and it perty much agrees with my own observations." But since he previously told us that (Pick-5) sets containing 5-6 digits are more likely to win jackpots than the others, his statement must be false. Why? Because the Powerball/Magamillions simulator he refers to (See beginning of this thread) clearly debunks that proposition. Try it. If his own "thousands" of simulations also "perty much agree" with his false conclusions, either he is a very incompetent simulation programmer, handicapped in his interpretation of his results by his Innumeracy, OR, he is a barefaced (fill in the blank.) Let's hope it's not the latter.
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
"I won't bother you anymore as I got the answer I was looking for. One more thing before I go, it's not much fun to have someone always poking their nose in uninvited is it? And one more thing, remember your first PM to me, you know the one where you wanted me to help you write stock forecasting software, the answer is still NO."
I think I remember suggesting your talents would be better utilized writing programs for the stock market. There is no way I would have seriously asked you to help me write stock forecasting software. Anyone reading this thread with any critical thinking skills should easily see that you are cornered, and rather than bow out, you resort to underhanded tactics designed to weasel out of your untenable position. I don't feel sorry for you any more; I feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with you personally and/or daily. Your problems go far beyond Innumeracy.
Milky Way Spiral United States
Member #28,944
December 25, 2005
1,635 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by SkyLine69 on Mar 23, 2014
I went back and read this. I sometime wonder why G-d sends us on a journey and puts people in our path. I can't /wont elaborate too much but I do have a system that worked so well I got hacked so you CAN win a lot of money. The answers are right there in front of noses using basic math. Yes I said BASIC math. If you can add 1+1=2 you can master the lottery. The nay Sayers are here to discourage us to quit Laws of Attraction is where it's at. BTW , I now use a computer with no modem lol
RL keep on trucking until you get it. I've only been at almost a year and most weeks I only miss 1 to 2 balls no matter what fame I play. Now , some weeks I miss them all
SkyLine69, you said,
"The answers are right there in front of noses using basic math. Yes I said BASIC math. If you can add 1+1=2 you can master the lottery."
Plainly and well said!
Good luck to you...
Kola
Lottery Lore says "A pastdraw is thecenterpointof a circle - ablack hole. Two overlapping circles whose centerpointssit on the circumference of the other share a Common Radius. This Radius is awormhole - it allows both draws (info) to safely travel into and beyond the other draw's event horizon without negative distortion, thereby creating an entanglement (synchrony) between the two communicating draws. This entangled space is theVesicaPiscis - the white hole or Stargate throughwhich the next draw is born."
Milky Way Spiral United States
Member #28,944
December 25, 2005
1,635 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Apr 2, 2014
SergeM
If you look at the content of the question then yes or no are the only options. The real question here is
"Do pseudo random selections mimic the population and distribution of the matrix?" If so, why? These
are the things jimbo should be looking at.
RL
RL-RANDOMLOGIC, at various points along this thread you've said,
"It's not the odds for the game that are questioned here but how one chooses to play the game."
"My points are valid as you must know that evolution defies statistical logic in more ways than I care to point out."
"If it's not truly random then it also must not be impossible to improve ones outcome....If I believed that the drawings were truly random then I would not be working on systems,"
"I have no problems with probability theory, it's just your interpretation of it."
"It is true that any set of numbers can and will hit if the game is allowed to continue but having a 1 in 575757 chance is infinitely larger than zero chance."
I wholeheartedly share your sentiments above. And in regards to your last quote...While the odds are such that they look formidable to most, the odds say nothing about you not routinely being that very "1" in 575757, especially if you are using methods not based on randomness. For some people, odds are such that to look upon them implies great difficulty. I think they more accurately imply a "road less travelled".
Travel well!
Kola
Lottery Lore says "A pastdraw is thecenterpointof a circle - ablack hole. Two overlapping circles whose centerpointssit on the circumference of the other share a Common Radius. This Radius is awormhole - it allows both draws (info) to safely travel into and beyond the other draw's event horizon without negative distortion, thereby creating an entanglement (synchrony) between the two communicating draws. This entangled space is theVesicaPiscis - the white hole or Stargate throughwhich the next draw is born."
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Mar 29, 2014
jimbe
Why have you not answered one of my first questions concerning evolution. The question is
really not about evolution in general it's about the odds. Evolution is mathematically equivalent to
winning the lottery every day for thousands of years without a single miss. Your a pick and choose
sort of guy which is why I will never take you serious. Same thing when you mock my digit system,
you pick out the part which agrees with the expected odds but ignore the human element of being
able to pick a couple digits from a list of 7. As I have said many times if I can't predict or guess the
correct digits to add to the base digits then the system fails. However when I do select the correct
couple digits then I have trapped the 5of5 in sometimes less than 100 lines. Maybe I am just good
at guessing or maybe it's chance. The truth is that you can't tell the difference. Crap is crap, I call
it like it is. I just hope others see you for what you really are, looser.
RL
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
Evolution? Read The Blind Watchmaker.
"...but [you] ignore the human element of being able to pick a couple digits from a list of 7. As I have said many times if I can't predict or guess the correct digits to add to the base digits then the system fails. However when I do select the correct couple digits then I have trapped the 5of5 in sometimes less than 100 lines."
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying here that IF you can correctly pick 2 digits from a list of 7, you can win a 5of5 jackpot by buying as little as 100 combinations. Let's see what that would cost to play and what returns you could expect. I'll assume the Missouri Show Me Cash game and give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming 200 lines per draw would be required to win.
There are 21 combinations of 7 digits taken 2 at a time. Since lines are $0.50 each, buying 200 for each of the 2 digit guesses would be $2100. Since the game pays a minimun of $50,000, you should win at least $47,900 every time you play. Sounds like a good deal to me!
I have an idea for how you can get backers for the initial $2100, which you might not have on hand. Calculate the 4200 lines you would buy for the next drawing and post them right here. We'll check your results for you. Make these 4200 line "pretend" buys at least 10 times. If you do this, I'm sure you will be swamped with investors begging you to let them in on the action. Just imagine, $47,900 per day will be about $1,437,000 per month! It won't take long and you'll up there with the one percenters! :-)
GO FOR IT! (I'm surprized you've never tried this.)
--Jimmy4164
P.S. I assumed you meant 2 when you said "a couple." If you meant 3 instead, the daily cost will increase from $2100 to $3500. No big deal when the payoff is $50,000.
Well, it looks like the man from Missouri has tired of defending his process of splitting base 10 numbers into their component digits, so maybe we can get back to this poll. I'm curious what others' reasons are for their choices. It looks like Megamillions with Megaplier has edged out the others, but not by that much. I chose that one because the simulator tells me its return for each $ spent is highest, assuming you never hit a big prize. There really is no "correct" answer since the overall Expected Values of all 4 are probably very close to each other. The difference is in the distribution of the winnings.
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
Recently you said, "When I mentioned the little tool you linked to I was just simply stating that it perty much functioned as expected. The person puts in a set of numbers and then the simple little program generates pseudo random sets of numbers and checks them one against the other. If this is what you consider an advanced simulation, you need your head checked. If I don't include the front-end code for this little tool I would say it would take less than five minutes and entire program maybe an hour."
First of all, neither I nor anyone else described the simulator linked to in this thread as "Advanced." I called it the Best I had seen, referring primarily to it's interface. Anyone who understands the math behind these simple lottery games doesn't need you to tell them that an "Advanced" computer simulation is not necessary to demonstrate prize distributions over time. In fact, your description of what the "simple little program" does is correct. It displays the typical results of what happens twice a week when 70-80% of the Powerball and Megamillions players purchase their Quick Picks!
But you're going to give us an "Advanced" simulator. You're going to take the "simple little program" and add a filter to the production of the player's sets, one that throws out all random sets that fail your tests for "High Quality," the kinds of tests that Don Catlin calls "Nonsense."
So here we sit, with a screen shot of a FACADE of what you claimed could be programmed in an hour. You're right that these kinds of programs are not Rocket Science, IF they are written HONESTLY, using the simple math that underlies the Lottery. However, it's not so simple when someone like yourself tries to (hopefully) honestly apply his filters in a simulator and finds out that IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHAT SETS HE THROWS OUT, THE RESULTS ARE THE SAME!
Since anyone with half a brain should reject any computer code you produce which shows an advantage to using only sets that pass through your filters, the only valid way to put one or more of your ideas to a REAL test is to apply them to a game which has been in existence long enough that ALL possible Draws have been made at least once, and are publicly available. Here is a SIMPLE way to do that:
The Pennsylvania Pick-3 game (evening) has been running for about 35 years, or around 12,775 Draws. The 1,000 Straight possibilities in the 000-999 game should, on average, have appeared around 12-13 times. Now, YOU tell us that sets whose unique digit counts are more numerous than others will be winners more often that the average, ostensibly because the random lottery draws will also produce more of them.
OK, in the Pick-3 the breakdown is as follows:
# Unique Digits #Sets Containing this many digits
1 10
2 270
3 720
So, according to your theory, we should clearly bet only on numbers containing 3 digits.
To Anyone who would like to test this idea:
RL-RANDOMLOGIC won't try this because he already knows what to expect. Go to this web page:
Be sure to UNcheck the Box Hits option, this post applies to Straight bets only. Then type in numbers from the 3 groups above and see if there is any signigicant difference in how often they've hit over 35 years.
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Apr 9, 2014
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
Recently you said, "When I mentioned the little tool you linked to I was just simply stating that it perty much functioned as expected. The person puts in a set of numbers and then the simple little program generates pseudo random sets of numbers and checks them one against the other. If this is what you consider an advanced simulation, you need your head checked. If I don't include the front-end code for this little tool I would say it would take less than five minutes and entire program maybe an hour."
First of all, neither I nor anyone else described the simulator linked to in this thread as "Advanced." I called it the Best I had seen, referring primarily to it's interface. Anyone who understands the math behind these simple lottery games doesn't need you to tell them that an "Advanced" computer simulation is not necessary to demonstrate prize distributions over time. In fact, your description of what the "simple little program" does is correct. It displays the typical results of what happens twice a week when 70-80% of the Powerball and Megamillions players purchase their Quick Picks!
But you're going to give us an "Advanced" simulator. You're going to take the "simple little program" and add a filter to the production of the player's sets, one that throws out all random sets that fail your tests for "High Quality," the kinds of tests that Don Catlin calls "Nonsense."
So here we sit, with a screen shot of a FACADE of what you claimed could be programmed in an hour. You're right that these kinds of programs are not Rocket Science, IF they are written HONESTLY, using the simple math that underlies the Lottery. However, it's not so simple when someone like yourself tries to (hopefully) honestly apply his filters in a simulator and finds out that IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHAT SETS HE THROWS OUT, THE RESULTS ARE THE SAME!
Since anyone with half a brain should reject any computer code you produce which shows an advantage to using only sets that pass through your filters, the only valid way to put one or more of your ideas to a REAL test is to apply them to a game which has been in existence long enough that ALL possible Draws have been made at least once, and are publicly available. Here is a SIMPLE way to do that:
The Pennsylvania Pick-3 game (evening) has been running for about 35 years, or around 12,775 Draws. The 1,000 Straight possibilities in the 000-999 game should, on average, have appeared around 12-13 times. Now, YOU tell us that sets whose unique digit counts are more numerous than others will be winners more often that the average, ostensibly because the random lottery draws will also produce more of them.
OK, in the Pick-3 the breakdown is as follows:
# Unique Digits #Sets Containing this many digits
1 10
2 270
3 720
So, according to your theory, we should clearly bet only on numbers containing 3 digits.
To Anyone who would like to test this idea:
RL-RANDOMLOGIC won't try this because he already knows what to expect. Go to this web page:
Be sure to UNcheck the Box Hits option, this post applies to Straight bets only. Then type in numbers from the 3 groups above and see if there is any signigicant difference in how often they've hit over 35 years.
Have Fun!
--Jimmy4164
To Anyone Tempted to Believe RL-RANDOMLOGIC's Last 3 Posts
All he has proved with these postings is that he knows how to produce screen shots, the kind that software developers send to publishers when trying to get an advance to develop a program. His results are contrived and illogical. He wasn’t even careful enough to make sure they were plausible. More accurately, they are laughable.
Ask yourself WHY "My Horse," the set [1,2,11,12,21] performs so poorly in his simulator but his favorite, [2,8,15,24,32], does miraculously well, in the Jackpot category only. Although he claims to take great pains to ensure his multiple Random Number Generators are tip top performers, they [appear to] produce fantastic results for his Static choice in the 5/5 (Jackpot) rows, but strangely enough, they’re right in line with probability in all the lower tier prizes. Does it seem a little odd to you that [2,8,15,24,32] wins Jackpots way beyond expected in multiple runs while the small variations in the lower tier prizes clearly indicate [there was an attempt to make it appear] there were different RNG seeds? If you believe him, you should be out buying all the tickets you can afford with these numbers on them! These screen shots are like evidence that’s been tampered with at a murder scene, where the tip-off is the attempt to make it appear the victim was fully clothed is botched by putting their shoes on the wrong feet!
To be sure his alleged simulation output in his last 3 posts is what he claims it is, you would need to read the source code, compile it yourself on your computer, and run it to see for yourself. RL-RANDOMLOGIC will never allow this because he can't. He either programmed biases into the program logic, or more than likely,just produced pretty pictures with a display generator, as I suggested above.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC’s last 3 posts are nothing more than a smoke screen to draw your attention away from my last post, which I've quoted above. His theory that sets chosen from subsets based on criteria like unique digit frequencies, or sums, are more likely to win, is easily tested as I outlined above. Of course, he will now try to convince you that Pick-3 is an exception. The real reason he wants to avoid Pick-3 is because sufficient actual historical draw data is available and easily accessible which proves that he is full of you know what!
Do yourself a favor - follow the simple instructions in my above quoted post and visit the PALottery website...
When I see evidence that at least a few of you are profiting from what I've been writing here, I might be willing to address some of the hilarious details of the last 3 posts.
--Jimmy4164
P.S. If you're still tempted to believe in his theories after doing what I suggested above, go back and re-read this earlier post of mine that he has comnpletely ignored...