Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 1:15 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Does Random Seek?

Topic closed. 8 replies. Last post 8 months ago by Edibs3.

Page 1 of 1
51
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Lincoln, California
United States
Member #167130
June 27, 2015
256 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 24, 2016, 12:58 pm - IP Logged

I was looking back at the data on a Ca, Ontario, and Florida Daily 3 Combined Draws.  I used WinSum's P3StateDraws File for the data; so, I'll pause to thank Him for the great tool he has provided.  Looking at CA Odd-Even I see that the Odd-Even count favors Even in all 3 positions.  I started at the beginning and ran a cumulative count and Ratio of O-E for each position from the beginning.  The odds are equal for each side so you have a ratio of 1:1 or 1.00 for O/E.  Rounding the Ratio to 2 decimal points the pattern look like it stays pretty close to 1.00; however you don't see many numbers greater than 1.00.  Rounding the Ratio to 4 Decimal points is a different ball game.  There have been 13.625 Pick 3 Draws.   You have to go back  3855, 6747 and 9448 Games to find the last time the Ratio Was 1.0000 in each number position in CA Pick 3.  Since then the Ratio has been less than 1.0000 because Even has occurred more times in each position. The total Count is +34, +72, and +86 for Even since the game in Positions 1,2 and 3. 

The differences are a small percentages I know; but, shouldn't we expect the ratio to make more frequent trips from side to side?

Perhaps we just don't have enough samples.  We are very low on the evolutionary chain of these lotteries.  For Pick the 3 number of games vs the number of possible combinations is 4 to 7 for most states and as high as 13-15 for a few.  Pick 4 has only passed 1 for a few States and is still as low as .45 for others.

Will random seek to get back to the other side of the line?  The space is the same size.  Could this small bias be exploited? i

Does Random Seek Balance?

    Avatar
    Madison, WI
    United States
    Member #172977
    February 11, 2016
    515 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 24, 2016, 1:53 pm - IP Logged

    I was looking back at the data on a Ca, Ontario, and Florida Daily 3 Combined Draws.  I used WinSum's P3StateDraws File for the data; so, I'll pause to thank Him for the great tool he has provided.  Looking at CA Odd-Even I see that the Odd-Even count favors Even in all 3 positions.  I started at the beginning and ran a cumulative count and Ratio of O-E for each position from the beginning.  The odds are equal for each side so you have a ratio of 1:1 or 1.00 for O/E.  Rounding the Ratio to 2 decimal points the pattern look like it stays pretty close to 1.00; however you don't see many numbers greater than 1.00.  Rounding the Ratio to 4 Decimal points is a different ball game.  There have been 13.625 Pick 3 Draws.   You have to go back  3855, 6747 and 9448 Games to find the last time the Ratio Was 1.0000 in each number position in CA Pick 3.  Since then the Ratio has been less than 1.0000 because Even has occurred more times in each position. The total Count is +34, +72, and +86 for Even since the game in Positions 1,2 and 3. 

    The differences are a small percentages I know; but, shouldn't we expect the ratio to make more frequent trips from side to side?

    Perhaps we just don't have enough samples.  We are very low on the evolutionary chain of these lotteries.  For Pick the 3 number of games vs the number of possible combinations is 4 to 7 for most states and as high as 13-15 for a few.  Pick 4 has only passed 1 for a few States and is still as low as .45 for others.

    Will random seek to get back to the other side of the line?  The space is the same size.  Could this small bias be exploited? i

    Does Random Seek Balance?

    Just my opinion here so take it for whatever its worth.

    Random will not seek to correct past trends. The even average you are seeking is what you can expect over the future, but random does not care if the past draws didn't come out as expected.

    There is a name for the idea that past results which or over or under what the odds would suggest will be corrected by future results. The Gambler's Fallacy. Google it if you want to read about it.

    this thinking is behind most of the systems on LP for pick 3/pick 4. There is some number or sum or other such thing due because it hasn't happened as we would expect it to happen in the recent past. Others here will disagree, but my view is that random is forward looking, so playing due numbers or other such things will not improve the odds of hitting.

      Avatar
      Lincoln, California
      United States
      Member #167130
      June 27, 2015
      256 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 24, 2016, 2:21 pm - IP Logged

      Just my opinion here so take it for whatever its worth.

      Random will not seek to correct past trends. The even average you are seeking is what you can expect over the future, but random does not care if the past draws didn't come out as expected.

      There is a name for the idea that past results which or over or under what the odds would suggest will be corrected by future results. The Gambler's Fallacy. Google it if you want to read about it.

      this thinking is behind most of the systems on LP for pick 3/pick 4. There is some number or sum or other such thing due because it hasn't happened as we would expect it to happen in the recent past. Others here will disagree, but my view is that random is forward looking, so playing due numbers or other such things will not improve the odds of hitting.

      You know, I am about 99.9% in agreement with you.  True Random maybe what you say it is; but does it not have the option of including all things possible including balance?  Part of my question is "are Lotteries Truly Random".  I,am not so sure,  I am looking for things to grow the gap between us,  maybe go down to 99.5%.

      Do You believe that anything can improve your odds?  Are you always seeding the clouds on parade day?  Seams like it to me.

        Avatar
        Madison, WI
        United States
        Member #172977
        February 11, 2016
        515 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 24, 2016, 3:01 pm - IP Logged

        You know, I am about 99.9% in agreement with you.  True Random maybe what you say it is; but does it not have the option of including all things possible including balance?  Part of my question is "are Lotteries Truly Random".  I,am not so sure,  I am looking for things to grow the gap between us,  maybe go down to 99.5%.

        Do You believe that anything can improve your odds?  Are you always seeding the clouds on parade day?  Seams like it to me.

        Like I said, my personal opinion.

        The first question is: "Is the draw random?" If yes, then all of these systems that base the predictions on past draws are meaningless. If you've spent hours and hours researching past numbers and sums and vtracs and all that stuff and its meaningless, then that sucks so people get real defensive about it. 

        If the draw is not random, then that opens up some possibilities. If the numbers are computer generated, then you have to assume that you have the ability to crack the computer code that is generating the numbers. Ask yourself, do you think the computer code would base its numbers on the sums, short sums, odds/evens, all that stuff?

        Also, put yourself in the position of the lottery. Your goal is to make a profit. When you are talking non-jackpot games like pick 3/4, what would be the incentive to not make every effort to make the draws truly random? When the draws are truly random, they make about 50% profit. Pretty <snip> good for them.

        Right now, I'm not sure anything can improve your odds in pick 3/4. I haven't seen anything that convinces me. I gamble in other ways where I can improve the odds. Blackjack and daily fantasy sports for example. There are clear tangible ways that the odds change or you can add skill to the equation in those.

        Overall, the biggest thing I can't get past is why would the lottery not want to be random? Give me a good answer for that question and I might have more of a belief.

        This post has been automatically changed by the Lottery Post computer system to remove inappropriate content and/or spam.

          Avatar
          NY
          United States
          Member #23835
          October 16, 2005
          3474 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 24, 2016, 3:01 pm - IP Logged

          "Does Random Seek Balance?"

          I'm willing to consider that the universe seeks balance. Your state lottery in its infinitesimally small backwater corner of the universe? Not very likely.

          "does it not have the option of including all things possible including balance"

          You're asking if random can also be perfectly ordered. It could be, but only as a result of random chance, and the probability of that is extremely low.

          Even if something did drive things towards balance how long do you suppose it might take? How long for a particular pick 3 game to have all possible numbers represent exactly 0.1% of trials? Even if you believe that something drives results towards a balance it would take a completely separate delusion to think it will happen in your lifetime.

          "Are you always seeding the clouds on parade day?"

          If the parade happens on a day that's cloudy seeing clouds is what some of us refer to as reality.

            Avatar
            Lincoln, California
            United States
            Member #167130
            June 27, 2015
            256 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 24, 2016, 5:43 pm - IP Logged

            "Does Random Seek Balance?"

            I'm willing to consider that the universe seeks balance. Your state lottery in its infinitesimally small backwater corner of the universe? Not very likely.

            "does it not have the option of including all things possible including balance"

            You're asking if random can also be perfectly ordered. It could be, but only as a result of random chance, and the probability of that is extremely low.

            Even if something did drive things towards balance how long do you suppose it might take? How long for a particular pick 3 game to have all possible numbers represent exactly 0.1% of trials? Even if you believe that something drives results towards a balance it would take a completely separate delusion to think it will happen in your lifetime.

            "Are you always seeding the clouds on parade day?"

            If the parade happens on a day that's cloudy seeing clouds is what some of us refer to as reality.

            Even if something did drive things towards balance how long do you suppose it might take? How long for a particular pick 3 game to have all possible numbers represent exactly 0.1% of trials? Even if you believe that something drives results towards a balance it would take a completely separate delusion to think it will happen in your lifetime.

            I totally agree, that is why a noted the small samples we have to choose from. 

             

            If the parade happens on a day that's cloudy seeing clouds is what some of us refer to as reality.

            It is one thing to see the clouds and think it will rain, and another to seed them to try to make it rain.

            I am a realist; but, sometimes it is fun to think "what if" and then try to find the  IFs.

              Tialuvslotto's avatar - Jailin
              Texas
              United States
              Member #150797
              December 31, 2013
              815 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 25, 2016, 7:55 am - IP Logged

              Interesting thread!

              I recently read about a study (maybe on the Math forum?) where the researchers asked subjects to generate a random series of heads and tails.  In general the human-generated series was much more regular and patterned than a true random series, and had shorter runs and more transitions.  Maybe we humans have a bias towards "fairness"?

              This is part of what makes lottery prediction so challenging -- random does not behave as we feel it should and we are always getting "surprises".

              I do believe that random seeks balance, however it may not happen as quickly as you would like.

              "There is no such thing as luck; only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."

              ~Robert A. Heinlein

                Avatar
                NY
                United States
                Member #23835
                October 16, 2005
                3474 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 25, 2016, 6:12 pm - IP Logged

                "Maybe we humans have a bias towards "fairness"?"

                It's not so much a bias towards fairness, as a lack of understanding about what random is, or what probability is. We all know that if you flip a coin 100 times you'll end up with about 50 heads and about 50 tails. Most people have no grasp of how often you should get 5 heads or 5 tails in a row, and a fair number don't even know how to figure it out.

                  Edibs3's avatar - not found.png
                  Saint Martinville
                  United States
                  Member #155819
                  May 30, 2014
                  283 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 25, 2016, 11:37 pm - IP Logged

                   Old Mr Harold, my friend use to say that statisticians use randomness as a tool.

                  He use to say that statisticians didn't think of randomness as something bothersome. It was always a necessary component in creation of real world data.

                  They didn't think of it as something that goes offf and just tends to be unpredictable or just haphazzard. They depended on randomness to give them an accurate picture of real world data and the way they drew their conclusions. The way they drew those conclusions was from  data that depended on randomness as one of the components.

                  Seems like we are all trying to simulate tiny lottery realities in our own old stubborn ways. With all our experiments/trials and without godod use of randomness as that necessary tool. Mr Harold's words haunt me every day.     

                   One thing he used to say.

                  "Humans will see shapes and patterns that really aren't there...  some times humans are right!"