Not Happy With My QPs For Today's Treasure Hunt JackpotPrev TopicNext Topic

• Crazy Wombat

  

  United States
  Member #161,532
  December 3, 2014
  328 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 20, 2015, 8:35 pm

  ▲▼

  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.

  ...
• Ron5995

  

  Wyomissing, PA
  United States
  Member #161,043
  November 15, 2014
  481 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 20, 2015, 8:55 pm

  ▲▼

  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.
• Crazy Wombat

  

  United States
  Member #161,532
  December 3, 2014
  328 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 20, 2015, 10:19 pm

  ▲▼
  In response to Ron5995

  Quote: Originally posted by Ron5995 on Apr 20, 2015

  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

  

  adelaide sa
  Australia
  Member #37,135
  April 11, 2006
  3,341 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 21, 2015, 5:25 am

  ▲▼

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

  " Still swinging, still missing "
  2014 = -1016; 2015= -1409; 2016  = -1171; 2017 = -1257 ; 2018 = - 1380 =  TOT =  - 6233

  keno historic = -2291 ; 2015= -603; 2016= -424; 2017 =-427; 2018= -223   TOT = -3968

  :