Slovenia Member #172924 February 9, 2016 46 Posts Offline

Posted: February 12, 2016, 5:10 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 11, 2016

Well no, because the choices you make will determine whether you win or lose rather then a RNG code in a machine. Give your skills a chance. It's much easier to correctly select from six filter choices then 53 numbers. Especially when you can pick more then one for some filters and still narrow down to budget. Hey, if someone can win six coin flips in a row, anything is possible!

Every unique combination has the same odds, the overall odds never change, but odds of a reduced field do with each size change.

I think most people know the reason not to play 123456 is the sharing risk, not that it won't eventually be drawn.

BobP

Forgive me for not getting this at all. If in a lottery with say 1 : 100.000.000 odds you narrow down a field of number so that by now it contains 50 possible different combinations. The odds of a win in that field are now 50 : 100.000.000 regardless of the shape and position of that field on the slip. And when you narrow it down to just one combination the odds have further reduced and stopped at precisely 1 : 100.000.000 regardless of where you started narrowing down your field and in what way.

So the reason why you still shouldn't use consecutive numbers or any numbers that resemble a certain shape or something on a slip is because of sharing risks. Which is exactly why I would use a QuickPick. If you use a system of whatever kind, you risk the chances of someone having the same system and therefore increasing the risk of a share. Even if your system is to just skim over the slip and select "randomly" whenever you feel like it, your brain is still under the influence of human psychology that you share with millions of other players. Any selection that is not based on randomness but is under the influence of human psychology or a mathematical system, increases the odds of a share even if just so slightly.

When I played the lottery I even went so far to not trusting the randomness of QuickPicks themselves, assuming that the system might give too many of us the same numbers because of some computer bug. So I wrote my own program for QuickPicks just to be sure.

The only system that does make a difference in my opinion is staying away from numbers that are more likely to be picked by people that don't do QuickPicks. Dates, lucky numbers etc ... that increase the chance of a share. So I wanted to upgrade my QuickPick program to reduce the odds of picking some popular numbers and dates but never got around to doing it.

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3139 Posts Offline

Posted: February 12, 2016, 8:14 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by elios311 on February 12, 2016

Forgive me for not getting this at all. If in a lottery with say 1 : 100.000.000 odds you narrow down a field of number so that by now it contains 50 possible different combinations. The odds of a win in that field are now 50 : 100.000.000 regardless of the shape and position of that field on the slip. And when you narrow it down to just one combination the odds have further reduced and stopped at precisely 1 : 100.000.000 regardless of where you started narrowing down your field and in what way.

So the reason why you still shouldn't use consecutive numbers or any numbers that resemble a certain shape or something on a slip is because of sharing risks. Which is exactly why I would use a QuickPick. If you use a system of whatever kind, you risk the chances of someone having the same system and therefore increasing the risk of a share. Even if your system is to just skim over the slip and select "randomly" whenever you feel like it, your brain is still under the influence of human psychology that you share with millions of other players. Any selection that is not based on randomness but is under the influence of human psychology or a mathematical system, increases the odds of a share even if just so slightly.

When I played the lottery I even went so far to not trusting the randomness of QuickPicks themselves, assuming that the system might give too many of us the same numbers because of some computer bug. So I wrote my own program for QuickPicks just to be sure.

The only system that does make a difference in my opinion is staying away from numbers that are more likely to be picked by people that don't do QuickPicks. Dates, lucky numbers etc ... that increase the chance of a share. So I wanted to upgrade my QuickPick program to reduce the odds of picking some popular numbers and dates but never got around to doing it.

From the moment you purchase a second unique combination a myriad of sub odds come into existence.

Every filter has its odds of being correct based on the sizes of populations it represents. As you add filters so you add odds of filters in combination being correct. When you end with 50 lines or 5 lines it is with the same overall odds of 50 or 5 lines against game size, but you also know what's in there is based on your strategy and if your strategy proves correct you must win because you haven't filtered out the winning combination.

Let me give you another example of changing the odds. Pretend a 6/48 game. Prepare a 6x8 grid and enter the 48 numbers any way you like. Because the lottery only draws 6 numbers only 6 or fewer of the formed six number lines can come into play, therefore you are now playing in a 6/36 game instead of 6/48. As there is no way the six winning numbers can not be among the six lines the odds drop from 1 in 12.27 million to 1 in 2 million.

Madison, WI United States Member #172977 February 11, 2016 515 Posts Offline

Posted: February 12, 2016, 8:47 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 12, 2016

From the moment you purchase a second unique combination a myriad of sub odds come into existence.

Every filter has its odds of being correct based on the sizes of populations it represents. As you add filters so you add odds of filters in combination being correct. When you end with 50 lines or 5 lines it is with the same overall odds of 50 or 5 lines against game size, but you also know what's in there is based on your strategy and if your strategy proves correct you must win because you haven't filtered out the winning combination.

Let me give you another example of changing the odds. Pretend a 6/48 game. Prepare a 6x8 grid and enter the 48 numbers any way you like. Because the lottery only draws 6 numbers only 6 or fewer of the formed six number lines can come into play, therefore you are now playing in a 6/36 game instead of 6/48. As there is no way the six winning numbers can not be among the six lines the odds drop from 1 in 12.27 million to 1 in 2 million.

BobP

I'm still not seeing this. Whatever filter you use, if you narrow down to one set of numbers you still have a 1 in (enter original odds) chance. Could you better explain why the game goes from 6/48 to 6/36. Was there a filter used there that I'm missing? The way you describe it sounds like you believe every 6/48 game is actually 6/36.

United States Member #172564 January 28, 2016 34 Posts Offline

Posted: February 12, 2016, 9:02 am - IP Logged

I think the strategy is not to change the odds but increase the probability of matching a predicted pattern. The odds of what number pop up don't change but the probability of patterns I would think can be predicted based on the entropy of large numbers. Short run stats can have and will have permutations but the "chances" are that the draw will fit into a subset of predictable patterns with calculated odds for each pattern. For example looking at decades,even odd, consecutive etc. To tell me you are just as likely to get all even or 1,2,3,4,5 have the same odds is true BUT if you look at past draw data of lets say the Powerball, you will see that these have minuscule percent of actual occurrences vs something like 2 even 3 odd or 3 even 2odd etc. Isn't that the point of filters? to get into the ballpark of the correct numbers.

Madison, WI United States Member #172977 February 11, 2016 515 Posts Offline

Posted: February 12, 2016, 9:19 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by meenzy on February 12, 2016

I think the strategy is not to change the odds but increase the probability of matching a predicted pattern. The odds of what number pop up don't change but the probability of patterns I would think can be predicted based on the entropy of large numbers. Short run stats can have and will have permutations but the "chances" are that the draw will fit into a subset of predictable patterns with calculated odds for each pattern. For example looking at decades,even odd, consecutive etc. To tell me you are just as likely to get all even or 1,2,3,4,5 have the same odds is true BUT if you look at past draw data of lets say the Powerball, you will see that these have minuscule percent of actual occurrences vs something like 2 even 3 odd or 3 even 2odd etc. Isn't that the point of filters? to get into the ballpark of the correct numbers.

Seems like the idea but I'm not seeing how it actually accomplishes that. If your filter knocks out 3/4 of the possible combinations, then your pick within the remaining combinations will be quite a bit more likely in those times the actual draw comes out of those remaining combinations, but your pick within the remaining combinations will never come up in the 3/4 of draws that come out of the combinations you filtered out, leaving you with the same exact overall odds.

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3139 Posts Offline

Posted: February 12, 2016, 9:34 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Wisconsin3054 on February 12, 2016

Seems like the idea but I'm not seeing how it actually accomplishes that. If your filter knocks out 3/4 of the possible combinations, then your pick within the remaining combinations will be quite a bit more likely in those times the actual draw comes out of those remaining combinations, but your pick within the remaining combinations will never come up in the 3/4 of draws that come out of the combinations you filtered out, leaving you with the same exact overall odds.

That's why it's the strategy portion of the game, like chess it starts even, then strategy comes into play, when it works great, when not try again or try something different.

You do have it right, apply a strategy, when correct your odds are improved for that draw, when wrong not so much or not at all. Price paid for an improvement in some draws. What else you gonna do?

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3139 Posts Offline

Posted: February 12, 2016, 9:40 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Wisconsin3054 on February 12, 2016

I'm still not seeing this. Whatever filter you use, if you narrow down to one set of numbers you still have a 1 in (enter original odds) chance. Could you better explain why the game goes from 6/48 to 6/36. Was there a filter used there that I'm missing? The way you describe it sounds like you believe every 6/48 game is actually 6/36.

A 6/48 game becomes a 6/36 game if played the way I described. There are 48 numbers on the 6x8 grid, there are 6 numbers drawn, the winning numbers can fall among no more then 6 lines so going into the draw the game for you is 6/36. The other two lines are in there, you paid for them, it's just a quirk of the game this happens.

Madison, WI United States Member #172977 February 11, 2016 515 Posts Offline

Posted: February 12, 2016, 9:44 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 12, 2016

A 6/48 game becomes a 6/36 game if played the way I described. There are 48 numbers on the 6x8 grid, there are 6 numbers drawn, the winning numbers can fall among no more then 6 lines so going into the draw the game for you is 6/36. The other two lines are in there, you paid for them, it's just a quirk of the game this happens.

BobP

But doesn't it only become a 6/36 game for you if you are somehow able to determine in advance which 6 of the 8 lines the numbers will come from?

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3139 Posts Offline

Posted: February 13, 2016, 10:13 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Wisconsin3054 on February 12, 2016

But doesn't it only become a 6/36 game for you if you are somehow able to determine in advance which 6 of the 8 lines the numbers will come from?

That's an interesting question. Depends on whether you're looking at dollar odds or game play odds.

Because you have to buy 8 lines the dollar odds are 8 of 6/48.

Because only 6 lines or fewer can have winning numbers among them the game odds are 6/36.

Actually if you could determine which 6 lines would have winning numbers, wouldn't be worth playing for one number per line, the intent is to have the winning numbers fall among 3 of the lines or fewer.

IMHO there has to be a good reason lotteries do not offer number fields divisible by ticket size like the old NJ 6/48

I find it interesting because people would argue whether buying two tickets cuts the odds is half.

When there were a few states with two plays for a dollar the game odds were given as half that of a lottery with one dollar plays without a whole lot of explanation as to why.

Slovenia Member #172924 February 9, 2016 46 Posts Offline

Posted: February 13, 2016, 11:34 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 12, 2016

From the moment you purchase a second unique combination a myriad of sub odds come into existence.

Every filter has its odds of being correct based on the sizes of populations it represents. As you add filters so you add odds of filters in combination being correct. When you end with 50 lines or 5 lines it is with the same overall odds of 50 or 5 lines against game size, but you also know what's in there is based on your strategy and if your strategy proves correct you must win because you haven't filtered out the winning combination.

Let me give you another example of changing the odds. Pretend a 6/48 game. Prepare a 6x8 grid and enter the 48 numbers any way you like. Because the lottery only draws 6 numbers only 6 or fewer of the formed six number lines can come into play, therefore you are now playing in a 6/36 game instead of 6/48. As there is no way the six winning numbers can not be among the six lines the odds drop from 1 in 12.27 million to 1 in 2 million.

BobP

The bigger the population of numbers you are left after filtering the better the odds of the winning combination being in it. If you don't filter at all you are left with the whole population which means that it has 100% chance of containing the winning combination. If you filter out 50% of all combinations then the odds of the remaining population containing the winning combination are 50%. If you have a lottery with 100 million combinations then filtering all but one combination out gives you the odds of 1 : 100 million. If you filter out all but two then you are left with 2 : 100 million. So I don't see how this helps at all. All you are doing here is calculating the odds of a winning combination being in the filtered population. But since you only intend to buy one combination from that population your odds of winning change naught. If you bought the entire population then you odds would be (number of combinations you bought) : (number of all combinations). But you don't win the lottery by guessing in what population the winning combination will be, but only by buying that specific combination. Even if you bought just one combination to the left, then you win nothing.

I'm not getting this at all. The only way to get from a 6/48 game to a 6/36 game is to somehow know which 12 numbers will not get drawn (48 - 12 = 36). Which you can never know so you are stuck in a 6/48 game.

Slovenia Member #172924 February 9, 2016 46 Posts Offline

Posted: February 13, 2016, 11:49 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 13, 2016

That's an interesting question. Depends on whether you're looking at dollar odds or game play odds.

Because you have to buy 8 lines the dollar odds are 8 of 6/48.

Because only 6 lines or fewer can have winning numbers among them the game odds are 6/36.

Actually if you could determine which 6 lines would have winning numbers, wouldn't be worth playing for one number per line, the intent is to have the winning numbers fall among 3 of the lines or fewer.

IMHO there has to be a good reason lotteries do not offer number fields divisible by ticket size like the old NJ 6/48

I find it interesting because people would argue whether buying two tickets cuts the odds is half.

When there were a few states with two plays for a dollar the game odds were given as half that of a lottery with one dollar plays without a whole lot of explanation as to why.

BobP

"I find it interesting because people would argue whether buying two tickets cuts the odds is half.

When there were a few states with two plays for a dollar the game odds were given as half that of a lottery with one dollar plays without a whole lot of explanation as to why."

That's basic probability theory. You buy two combinations your odds are 2:(whatever it was)

If a lottery has a pool of numbers just: 1, 2, 3

and if two numbers get drawn then all possible combinations are:

1,2

1,3

2,3

Which means that the odds of winning this lottery are 1:3 since there are 3 possible combinations to buy. If you buy 2 of them your odds are 2:3 (66.6%) and if you buy all 3 combinations your odds are 3:3 (100%).

Even if you use a filter and say that the first combination (1,2) won't happen and you only play by buying one of the remaining two combinations, your odds of winning don't change.

Even if you filter by numbers and not by combinations you get no help. If you filter out number 1 or 2 or 3 you are left with the same number of remaining combinations in each of the three cases. In each of the three cases you are left with just 1 combination in this case after filtering. So the odds are 1:3. Just like they were before we even talked about filters.

Now you increase the number of balls in the pool and the number of ball that get drawn so all the numbers increase, but all steps remain the same. So filtering changes nothing.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 20041 Posts Offline

Posted: February 14, 2016, 11:23 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 13, 2016

That's an interesting question. Depends on whether you're looking at dollar odds or game play odds.

Because you have to buy 8 lines the dollar odds are 8 of 6/48.

Because only 6 lines or fewer can have winning numbers among them the game odds are 6/36.

Actually if you could determine which 6 lines would have winning numbers, wouldn't be worth playing for one number per line, the intent is to have the winning numbers fall among 3 of the lines or fewer.

IMHO there has to be a good reason lotteries do not offer number fields divisible by ticket size like the old NJ 6/48

I find it interesting because people would argue whether buying two tickets cuts the odds is half.

When there were a few states with two plays for a dollar the game odds were given as half that of a lottery with one dollar plays without a whole lot of explanation as to why.

BobP

Players who really want to know the real odds of winning a game can find out fairly easy, the rest assume the odds are one in a billion even if it's a pick3 game.

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

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3139 Posts Offline

Posted: February 15, 2016, 8:23 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by elios311 on February 13, 2016

"I find it interesting because people would argue whether buying two tickets cuts the odds is half.

When there were a few states with two plays for a dollar the game odds were given as half that of a lottery with one dollar plays without a whole lot of explanation as to why."

That's basic probability theory. You buy two combinations your odds are 2:(whatever it was)

If a lottery has a pool of numbers just: 1, 2, 3

and if two numbers get drawn then all possible combinations are:

1,2

1,3

2,3

Which means that the odds of winning this lottery are 1:3 since there are 3 possible combinations to buy. If you buy 2 of them your odds are 2:3 (66.6%) and if you buy all 3 combinations your odds are 3:3 (100%).

Even if you use a filter and say that the first combination (1,2) won't happen and you only play by buying one of the remaining two combinations, your odds of winning don't change.

Even if you filter by numbers and not by combinations you get no help. If you filter out number 1 or 2 or 3 you are left with the same number of remaining combinations in each of the three cases. In each of the three cases you are left with just 1 combination in this case after filtering. So the odds are 1:3. Just like they were before we even talked about filters.

Now you increase the number of balls in the pool and the number of ball that get drawn so all the numbers increase, but all steps remain the same. So filtering changes nothing.

How do you not understand the odds improvement is based on the strategy proving correct?

When you make any choice that results in the field being reduced and that choice turns out to be correct the odds of winning are improved.

If you filter down to one line and all those filter choices are correct, you then must win the jackpot. It simply does not matter if that lines stands at 1 in a billion, when the filter choices are correct and the resulting lines are put into play you win no matter what the odds say.

I'm getting tired of playing this glass half full, glass half empty game, see ya in another thread.