Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 21, 2017, 3:27 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Not Happy With My QPs For Today's Treasure Hunt Jackpot

Topic closed. 18 replies. Last post 2 years ago by savagegoose.

Page 2 of 2
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar

United States
Member #161539
December 3, 2014
328 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 20, 2015, 8:35 pm - IP Logged

Here's what I was talking about in an earlier post when I said that CA and NY could have the same RGNs terminals or better ones than what PA has.

This is the big MM drawing from March 30, 2012 ... jackpot was 656 million and here are the five number winners in the various states ...

Mega Millions Jackpot Winner!  There were 3 jackpot winners in the Friday, March 30, 2012 Mega Millions drawing: 1 from Illinois, 1 from Kansas, and 1 from Maryland.  The winners will equally share the $656 million jackpot prize.

More details to follow after the winners come forward to claim their prizes.

Also, 161 lucky players matched the first 5 numbers for a $250,000 prize: 3 from Arizona, 1 from Arkansas, 29 from California, 2 from Colorado, 1 from Connecticut, 1 from Delaware, 6 from Georgia, 2 from Idaho, 12 from Illinois, 1 from Indiana, 1 from Kansas, 4 from Kentucky, 2 from Louisiana, 4 from Maryland, 5 from Massachusetts, 6 from Michigan, 4 from Minnesota, 1 from Missouri, 5 from New Jersey, 1 from New Mexico, 17 from New York, 4 from North Carolina, 10 from Ohio, 1 from Oklahoma, 5 from Pennsylvania, 1 from Rhode Island, 1 from South Carolina, 1 from South Dakota, 2 from Tennessee, 14 from Texas, 5 from Virginia, 5 from Washington, 1 from West Virginia, and 3 from Wisconsin.

You can see that CA had 29 winners and NY had 17 winners but PA only had 5 ... PA has a good gambling population and I would have expected more than 5 winners from PA.

Just my theory and what I have noticed with various drawings over the years ... which may mean nothing.

...

    Avatar
    Wyomissing, PA
    United States
    Member #161050
    November 15, 2014
    301 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 20, 2015, 8:55 pm - IP Logged

    More I think back to the few times I've bought lots of QPs, I've seen similar patterns. Here are 20 QPs using LP's quickpick tool:

    1. 06-15-22-26-27
    2. 13-14-22-23-27
    3. 04-07-10-13-18
    4. 01-02-07-13-14
    5. 01-03-09-17-23
    6. 05-09-12-26-27
    7. 01-09-10-13-30
    8. 07-20-25-28-30
    9. 04-14-16-17-24
    10. 04-07-14-15-19
    11. 06-07-11-12-13
    12. 04-09-11-21-30
    13. 06-10-22-23-27
    14. 01-13-14-17-18
    15. 10-11-17-26-30
    16. 01-15-25-26-27
    17. 04-08-18-24-30
    18. 07-08-09-17-22
    19. 09-15-18-26-27
    20. 05-08-10-13-29

    Some batches of low starting numbers, but seems more diverse compared to the PA Lottery 20 QPs you posted.

    Many players play low numbers / patterns; often choose numbers based on ages of relatives. So it's not surprising there would be many multiple winners in a big jackpot drawing. The question though is how many were due to less than random rnd. That's the unknown.

    However, multiple winners is generally not what a lottery would want, especially at the 2nd tier prize level and lower, which can adversely affect profit margin, if there are more than statistically expected. There's a small, potential financial risk of less than random QPs to the lottery, though, seemingly, there's far more upside benefit (more roll-overs) to skewing QPs, assuming that's occurring.

    It would be fantastic, if someone with the time and legal know-how to submit freedom of information act requests to the lotteries and/or do some investigative research on the quickpick rnd topic. While quickpicks may seem like no big deal to some, since players can simply work-around that by choosing their own numbers, it raises questions as to what else is going on behind the scenes that may be adversely affecting players, such as faulty computerized drawing randomizers.

      Avatar

      United States
      Member #161539
      December 3, 2014
      328 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 20, 2015, 10:19 pm - IP Logged

      More I think back to the few times I've bought lots of QPs, I've seen similar patterns. Here are 20 QPs using LP's quickpick tool:

      1. 06-15-22-26-27
      2. 13-14-22-23-27
      3. 04-07-10-13-18
      4. 01-02-07-13-14
      5. 01-03-09-17-23
      6. 05-09-12-26-27
      7. 01-09-10-13-30
      8. 07-20-25-28-30
      9. 04-14-16-17-24
      10. 04-07-14-15-19
      11. 06-07-11-12-13
      12. 04-09-11-21-30
      13. 06-10-22-23-27
      14. 01-13-14-17-18
      15. 10-11-17-26-30
      16. 01-15-25-26-27
      17. 04-08-18-24-30
      18. 07-08-09-17-22
      19. 09-15-18-26-27
      20. 05-08-10-13-29

      Some batches of low starting numbers, but seems more diverse compared to the PA Lottery 20 QPs you posted.

      Many players play low numbers / patterns; often choose numbers based on ages of relatives. So it's not surprising there would be many multiple winners in a big jackpot drawing. The question though is how many were due to less than random rnd. That's the unknown.

      However, multiple winners is generally not what a lottery would want, especially at the 2nd tier prize level and lower, which can adversely affect profit margin, if there are more than statistically expected. There's a small, potential financial risk of less than random QPs to the lottery, though, seemingly, there's far more upside benefit (more roll-overs) to skewing QPs, assuming that's occurring.

      It would be fantastic, if someone with the time and legal know-how to submit freedom of information act requests to the lotteries and/or do some investigative research on the quickpick rnd topic. While quickpicks may seem like no big deal to some, since players can simply work-around that by choosing their own numbers, it raises questions as to what else is going on behind the scenes that may be adversely affecting players, such as faulty computerized drawing randomizers.

      The numbers you posted seem to have the same trend ... 12 out of 20 start with a number 5 or lower ... over 50% for a lower starting point of 5 or less. There are only  two starting numbers of 10 and over out of 20 total numbers.

      Does it really mean anything, I'm not sure except that when higher numbers are drawn it could almost mean a jackpot will probably carry over ... are the RGNs faulty or programmed in some way ... is there on the computer chip in a RNG many 01s, 02s, 03s and so forth over 10s, 12s, 14s for example ... I assume that a RNG has a computer chip. If that were the case then the lower numbers would print in greater numbers if the chip has tons of 01s, 02s, 03s and so forth.

      Still a good case for a person to do their own numbers to get a better mix of higher starting numbers or first numbers. A person can not depend on RNGs to print out a fair mix of numbers.

      Are the RNGs tilted to producing mostly lower numbers as their true nature or are they programmed to print more lower numbers for most people with the hope a jackpot can carry over a few extra times?

      I don't know ... but if a person wants more higher starting numbers then it looks like they will have to do their own numbers.

      ...

        savagegoose's avatar - ProfilePho
        adelaide sa
        Australia
        Member #37136
        April 11, 2006
        3316 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 21, 2015, 5:25 am - IP Logged

        i can see why you like the game. especially with he jackpots. good luck with it wish i had such a game

        2014 = -1016; 2015= -1409; 2016  = -1171; 2017 = ?  TOT =  -3596

        keno historic = -2291 ; 2015= -603; 2016= -424; 2017 = ? TOT = - 3318