Welcome Guest
You last visited April 28, 2017, 3:41 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Do you believe every combination has the same probability?

Topic closed. 595 replies. Last post 5 months ago by Soledad.

 Page 38 of 40
NY
United States
Member #23835
October 16, 2005
3544 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 31, 2016, 12:25 am - IP Logged

"Why does it matter why or how a player chooses their numbers when the bet is conditional?"

The entire point is that it doesn't matter how you choose your numbers. The lottery is a random event, so no matter how oyu choose your numbers your chances are determined solely by the odds of the game.

"And the chances of 15 QPs winning something or a 15 line wheel winning something are exactly the same."

That's why you don't get any improvement in the odds by using a wheel. Do you think all of the people who play wheels actually understand that?

"simple conditions like if 3 or more of the 15 numbers they picked are drawn, they get at least one 3 number match."

Only if they play enough combinations to have all possible sets of 3 on at least one ticket. That makes it a bit expensive to chase that 3 number match, especially since the odds of 3 numbers coming from the subset of 15 is very small. I'm sure the lotteries love it, though, since the average loss on aticket is about 50% and the more tickets a player buys the more the lottery wins.

"what is the definition of random?"

Random is what happens when each of the possible events has the same chance of occurring. The results of flipping a perfectly fair coin are random because despite the popular delusion,  it's always a 50/50 chance and nothing makes heads more likely than tails just because the last n results were all heads. Similarly, for ball drawn games with equipment that's capable of mixing and selecting balls so that each ball has an equal chance the # 17 ball doesn't become more likely to be selected just because it hasn't turned up in the last 50 drawings or because of any other previous event.

"math laws follow the patterns of the balls once you put values of numbers on them."

What on Earth is that supposed to mean? The balls are just balls. The labels are there so that we can tell one ball from the next, but the machines don't know about the labels, gravity doesn't know about the labels, the air blowing through the machine doesn't know about the labels, and so on. Math has nothing to do with how probability works. It's just a tool for analyzing and describing probability.

New York, NY
United States
Member #140634
March 23, 2013
3947 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 31, 2016, 12:35 am - IP Logged

Despite popular delusion"

I don't know what that's supposed to mean

" What is that supposed to mean "

Anybody with a reasonable understanding of math would know and understand what that means. Is it not easier to have numbers on balls instead of faces or pictures. Isn't 1..2..3 much easier to understand than cat..dog...cat. It doesn't matter what's on the balls, it just matters that they can be followed. That's what that means. And I am quoting here..and I do agree. Anything further than that doesn't belong in the discussion.

And for  the record don't compare every system as the same. And don't ever compare wheeling with anything that I personally do. I have never even tried. Ever. I have won straight playing one number once. More than once. Did I jump for joy saying the universe is on my side? No.

New York, NY
United States
Member #140634
March 23, 2013
3947 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 31, 2016, 1:25 am - IP Logged

Ok I'm sorry but,

"Math has nothing to do with how probability works"

Probability theory is a branch of mathematics. And math concepts are theories. Once again Probability theory is a branch of mathematics. Is there a question here? Are you trying to prove something by saying this. Otherwise I think you're mistaken not in theory.

That's fine that you only believe in one side. But that is not the way lotteries have ever been viewed ever since they were created thousands of years ago. Superstition vs. Science, it's as simple as that. There's really nothing more that needs to be argued. You're still observing.

San Angelo, Texas
United States
Member #1097
January 31, 2003
1434 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 31, 2016, 1:11 pm - IP Logged

You folks are really beating this topic to death.
Suggest you step back and consider the possibility that there are no correct answers.
The odds of winning a game are clearly stated on the back of most play slips, and in official lottery literature.
Most lottery gamblers know that the chances of winning a significant prize are not very great, but that doesn't deter anyone from trying.
Personally, I never consider the odds.
I don't play the predator jackpot games not because of the odds, but, in my world, trying to manage 60-plus integers is too much work for very small rewards.
Question.
Have you ever taken a picture of a picture and then tried to remove the flaws in the copy?
You can't do it.
Why not?
When the original photo was taken, millions of 'bits' or 'pixels' were used to create the image.
However, this information is not transferred to the copy, therefore, no adjustments are possible.
There are no bits or pixels in a lottery drawing machine.
The balls are dead as dirt objects having unique identifiers needed for game administration purposes.
Anyone who believes the balls are alive, have a memory and can be individually managed to achieve a desire result really need to step back and consider the possibility that they are living in a fantasy world.
Yes, math-based strategies do provide good results - some of the time.
Throw enough crap up against a wall and sooner or later some of it will stick!
Unfortunately, folks using these methods eventually end up a corner with a bunch of questions but no answers.
Rather than accept the possibility they are not winning because they are using bogus strategies, they start accusing the lottery folks of manipulating the games.
I really have to laugh when I read a post where the writer claims he isn't winning because the drawings are 'not random' enough!
These folks have obviously not watched a lottery drawing machine at work. If they had, they would immediately realize that manipulation is impossible, except perhaps when someone with access and proper skills can change computer codes to gain a temporary advantage.
I wish someone would do some heavy research and try to determine why and when mathematical models became popular and attracted the interest of a lot of highly respected individuals who probably now wish they had remained silent.
My belief is that at some point in the past, someone decided to treat lottery  balls as live objects and, through the use of 'back testing', came up with some plausible, but incorrect, mathematical strategies.
Lacking any other alternatives, a  lot of desperate gamblers looking for an edge adopted those methods and carried them forward.
As result, some smart folks have taken advantage of the situation and are living a good life selling what is commonly known as 'snake oil.'
Today, millions of people are betting millions of dollars on the mistaken premise that there is a mathematical solution to successful lottery play.
If Todd removed all of the posts regarding 'math-based' workouts, there wouldn't be much left to read!
And the official lottery folks are getting richer and richer.
Yes, some folks are winning, but, their numbers are small compared to the millions of lost bets.
So, in my way of thinking, instead of arguing about odds, probability, randomness and percentages, we should focus on non-mathematical methods.
I use such a method and I'm winning often enough to make all the work worthwhile.
Maybe one day my guesswork will produce a set of integers that completely match those coming out of a lottery machine.
How would I do it??
My methods are the result of more than 10 years of effort.
I'm not about the just hand them over.
A search of my posts will provide enough information for anyone wanting to try something different.
New York, NY
United States
Member #140634
March 23, 2013
3947 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 31, 2016, 2:53 pm - IP Logged

Lol. I never claimed to be an expert at anything. What I know is what I know. I can only do my best if it's not good enough so be it. I don't care really. Because I tried my best. Most people start playing based on hmm what should I play? I just heard from someone look back and that person said now do you see this well I would bet this and this. I just took it from there. My way of playing is my way of playing. It's based on 1 + 1 stuff. But to all of you, can you deny that 1 + 1 is 2? I didn't think so. For anyone to believe that math laws don't apply well then play for your own reasons. Believe in what you believe. That's the point isn't it? Trying to prove that you should cross your fingers isn't really proving anything. Beating this to death, not really, going in circles? Yes. But I have actually gained something from going in this circle, so I've had nothing to lose. Unless you're my father or mother you're gonna have a hard time convincing me fully of anything. These are my opinions. What does it matter to you if I disagree. Why take it so personal? I have only been trying to comment based on information that is out there. I'm sorry if everyone decides to be so stubborn and take it to a never ending level of repeating themselves. Save for a few. All the best, sincerely. I still find this topic interesting. As was stated earlier, the concept of probability is based on theory. So yes there is no 100% correct answer. Who said that there was? Not me. Did you?

New York, NY
United States
Member #140634
March 23, 2013
3947 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 31, 2016, 3:11 pm - IP Logged

Hi Amber

Absolutely No on Pre or Post Testing, because it changes the next outcome

Check out:

Heisenberg Effect

Werner Heisenberg was a German theoretical physicist was a quantum forerunner saying that an event did not exist unless witnessed & when observed the event becomes changed.....

Note Bene:

Our Coin Toss, has a wealth of hands on experience on both sides of the tables.

Eddessa_Knight with Invisible Light

This actually relates to his topic. While it may take me a very long time to understand Werner Heisenberg and I'm not saying I will.This is insightful and relevant to this topic. So perhaps this is the step that it needs to be taken back to. There are other sides as well. But the point is believe what you want to believe. You can only prove yourself right or wrong. Salute and have a good day. At least I hope. Yes I honestly do.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7458 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 31, 2016, 4:47 pm - IP Logged

"Why does it matter why or how a player chooses their numbers when the bet is conditional?"

The entire point is that it doesn't matter how you choose your numbers. The lottery is a random event, so no matter how oyu choose your numbers your chances are determined solely by the odds of the game.

"And the chances of 15 QPs winning something or a 15 line wheel winning something are exactly the same."

That's why you don't get any improvement in the odds by using a wheel. Do you think all of the people who play wheels actually understand that?

"simple conditions like if 3 or more of the 15 numbers they picked are drawn, they get at least one 3 number match."

Only if they play enough combinations to have all possible sets of 3 on at least one ticket. That makes it a bit expensive to chase that 3 number match, especially since the odds of 3 numbers coming from the subset of 15 is very small. I'm sure the lotteries love it, though, since the average loss on aticket is about 50% and the more tickets a player buys the more the lottery wins.

"what is the definition of random?"

Random is what happens when each of the possible events has the same chance of occurring. The results of flipping a perfectly fair coin are random because despite the popular delusion,  it's always a 50/50 chance and nothing makes heads more likely than tails just because the last n results were all heads. Similarly, for ball drawn games with equipment that's capable of mixing and selecting balls so that each ball has an equal chance the # 17 ball doesn't become more likely to be selected just because it hasn't turned up in the last 50 drawings or because of any other previous event.

"math laws follow the patterns of the balls once you put values of numbers on them."

What on Earth is that supposed to mean? The balls are just balls. The labels are there so that we can tell one ball from the next, but the machines don't know about the labels, gravity doesn't know about the labels, the air blowing through the machine doesn't know about the labels, and so on. Math has nothing to do with how probability works. It's just a tool for analyzing and describing probability.

It's difficult to tell by wording it slightly different if you're agreeing or disagreeing.

"simple conditions like if 3 or more of the 15 numbers they picked are drawn, they get at least one 3 number match."

"Only if they play enough combinations to have all possible sets of 3 on at least one ticket."

Every 3 if 3 of 15 number wheel I played match 3 numbers on one line when 3 numbers were drawn.

"That makes it a bit expensive to chase that 3 number match, especially since the odds of 3 numbers coming from the subset of 15 is very small."

I used a 3 number match as an example and betting \$57 to guarantee collecting \$5 playing MM doesn't sound like a very good bet. But IMO playing MM is all about making bad bets compared to other lottery games. The chances of matching 4 MM numbers is 1:52,835 paying \$500 and matching 4 pick-4 numbers is 1:10,000 paying \$5000 both for a \$1 bet. Granted much larger prizes can be won playing MM, the odds against winning are much larger too.

"I'm sure the lotteries love it, though, since the average loss on a ticket is about 50% and the more tickets a player buys the more the lottery wins."

You're painting a much brighter picture than I would. Only 6.8% of all MM tickets will win something and most of them will win \$50 or less.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20021 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 1, 2016, 3:36 pm - IP Logged

So far all the opinions and theories posted prove nothing either way, it's a case of the blind trying to lead the blind.  What is needed is a jackpot winner to explain what he/she did or didn't do to win his/her jackpot.

It might not clear things up but it would make the conversation more interesting.

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

Zaperlopopotam
Belgium
Member #173932
March 26, 2016
1301 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 1, 2016, 4:58 pm - IP Logged

For what I've read, nothing was boiling my interest. I read a once in a while a short like anonymous correct mathematical statement, but that is like one out of 10000 posts on LP.

Aime les nifles!
.
Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1661 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 1, 2016, 6:57 pm - IP Logged

So far all the opinions and theories posted prove nothing either way, it's a case of the blind trying to lead the blind.  What is needed is a jackpot winner to explain what he/she did or didn't do to win his/her jackpot.

It might not clear things up but it would make the conversation more interesting.

What is needed is a jackpot winner to explain what he/she did or didn't do to win his/her jackpot.

Then I'd suggest one of two things. Either go back a page or two and search the link provided about the MIT students' mathematical and financial approach, or, look up one of them and ask them to provide some insight on specifically what they did....and they will oblige you. Trust me on this. Two ways will get you to your jackpot, both of which are extremely tough. One, a very prompt labor of luck. Or, two, investors who'll front the funds based on your ability to logistically prove through mathematics that you can do it.

It might not clear things up but it would make the conversation more interesting.

If what was covered in the story regarding how they sought out to win with a pure, unadulterated system isn't interesting and doesn't clear things up, then it explains why so many people really do expect to win.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living

Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1661 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 1, 2016, 8:04 pm - IP Logged

You folks are really beating this topic to death.
Suggest you step back and consider the possibility that there are no correct answers.
The odds of winning a game are clearly stated on the back of most play slips, and in official lottery literature.
Most lottery gamblers know that the chances of winning a significant prize are not very great, but that doesn't deter anyone from trying.
Personally, I never consider the odds.
I don't play the predator jackpot games not because of the odds, but, in my world, trying to manage 60-plus integers is too much work for very small rewards.
Question.
Have you ever taken a picture of a picture and then tried to remove the flaws in the copy?
You can't do it.
Why not?
When the original photo was taken, millions of 'bits' or 'pixels' were used to create the image.
However, this information is not transferred to the copy, therefore, no adjustments are possible.
There are no bits or pixels in a lottery drawing machine.
The balls are dead as dirt objects having unique identifiers needed for game administration purposes.
Anyone who believes the balls are alive, have a memory and can be individually managed to achieve a desire result really need to step back and consider the possibility that they are living in a fantasy world.
Yes, math-based strategies do provide good results - some of the time.
Throw enough crap up against a wall and sooner or later some of it will stick!
Unfortunately, folks using these methods eventually end up a corner with a bunch of questions but no answers.
Rather than accept the possibility they are not winning because they are using bogus strategies, they start accusing the lottery folks of manipulating the games.
I really have to laugh when I read a post where the writer claims he isn't winning because the drawings are 'not random' enough!
These folks have obviously not watched a lottery drawing machine at work. If they had, they would immediately realize that manipulation is impossible, except perhaps when someone with access and proper skills can change computer codes to gain a temporary advantage.
I wish someone would do some heavy research and try to determine why and when mathematical models became popular and attracted the interest of a lot of highly respected individuals who probably now wish they had remained silent.
My belief is that at some point in the past, someone decided to treat lottery  balls as live objects and, through the use of 'back testing', came up with some plausible, but incorrect, mathematical strategies.
Lacking any other alternatives, a  lot of desperate gamblers looking for an edge adopted those methods and carried them forward.
As result, some smart folks have taken advantage of the situation and are living a good life selling what is commonly known as 'snake oil.'
Today, millions of people are betting millions of dollars on the mistaken premise that there is a mathematical solution to successful lottery play.
If Todd removed all of the posts regarding 'math-based' workouts, there wouldn't be much left to read!
And the official lottery folks are getting richer and richer.
Yes, some folks are winning, but, their numbers are small compared to the millions of lost bets.
So, in my way of thinking, instead of arguing about odds, probability, randomness and percentages, we should focus on non-mathematical methods.
I use such a method and I'm winning often enough to make all the work worthwhile.
Maybe one day my guesswork will produce a set of integers that completely match those coming out of a lottery machine.
How would I do it??
My methods are the result of more than 10 years of effort.
I'm not about the just hand them over.
A search of my posts will provide enough information for anyone wanting to try something different.

Today, millions of people are betting millions of dollars on the mistaken premise that there is a mathematical solution to successful lottery play.

There are mathematical solutions to every single lottery-type numbers game out there and this is a fact. Heck, the lotteries use mathematics to stack the odds against players, okay. They didn't just sit down and say, "Hey, let's drop ten marked ping-pong balls into three different chambers, draw one ball from each, and who ever matches all three numbers wins all the money!!!!"

Today, millions of people are betting millions of dollars on the mistaken premise that there is a mathematical solution to successful lottery play.

I'm willing to bet that you're stuck on this anti-math trip because you're prolly not that good at math in relation to these games but, are willing to continue propping up your supposedly non-math based approach. To assume that there aren't players out there applying proper math to also win makes you appear extremely green in all this...and I don't mean with envy either.

And the official lottery folks are getting richer and richer.

Yes, they are especially on PB and MM's because people think it's easy to win a jackpot. I guarantee that the MIT students could knock off one of these jackpots because they've already proven they can do it on a smaller scale several times over. PB and MM's are just larger games requiring a helluva lot more money and logistics. It's no secret.

Yes, some folks are winning, but, their numbers are small compared to the millions of lost bets.

BINGO!!! And, how many times have I already said this? There must absolutely be more losers than winners or the game(s) will cease. Losers pay the winners. This is also the reason why any player(s) possessing a winning system aren't going to put it out there but, you called my analysis of this a load of bullcrap just a few pages back.

I use such a method and I'm winning often enough to make all the work worthwhile.

This is prolly the most sensible thing you've actually said due to two reasons. One, it makes perfect sense because to win often enough will keep the player out of the negative. Two, you've obviously APPLIED MATH or else you wouldn't actually know whether or not it's worthwhile. Then again, maybe you really don't know. Here's just a small piece of math for you, bobby. That \$200 winning ticket you recently posted is only as good as how much it costed you to play over "X" amount of plays before you actually hit my friend. If it was less than \$200 invested over that time frame, then you only show a profit for what's left after you've recovered losing plays prior to your win. If it was more than \$200 in plays over time, then all it actually reveals is that you recovered \$200 in playing expenses, which is still good. Would you be interested in posting ALL THE OTHER LOSING TICKETS you played over time, since your last win, which lead up to that winning ticket? I'd oblige you with some very very, very basic math.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20021 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 1, 2016, 10:19 pm - IP Logged

What is needed is a jackpot winner to explain what he/she did or didn't do to win his/her jackpot.

Then I'd suggest one of two things. Either go back a page or two and search the link provided about the MIT students' mathematical and financial approach, or, look up one of them and ask them to provide some insight on specifically what they did....and they will oblige you. Trust me on this. Two ways will get you to your jackpot, both of which are extremely tough. One, a very prompt labor of luck. Or, two, investors who'll front the funds based on your ability to logistically prove through mathematics that you can do it.

It might not clear things up but it would make the conversation more interesting.

If what was covered in the story regarding how they sought out to win with a pure, unadulterated system isn't interesting and doesn't clear things up, then it explains why so many people really do expect to win.

"Then I'd suggest one of two things. Either go back a page or two and search the link provided about the MIT students' mathematical and financial approach"

I'm familiar with the MIT students logic.  It wasn't math but money that enabled them to win a game that normally required 6of6 to win was changed to 5of6 to win the jackpot during its roll down as the couple from Michigan proved several times by buying \$300K worth of tickets.  There is no way in a regular game matching 5of6 in a game that requires 6of6 to would show a profit spending that kind of money.

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

Bronx, NY
United States
Member #164554
March 6, 2015
1359 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 1, 2016, 10:49 pm - IP Logged

Exactly the person who won the jackpot and didn't use a quick pick and got lucky, or spent \$300,000 to win or the MIT group of students. There has to be a winner that has a pencil paper system, or made their own program, there has to be one of those is just that they are not going to share it for fear maybe there is a jackpot winner in LP who has a system will that member ever come out maybe let's hope so.

Bronx, NY
United States
Member #164554
March 6, 2015
1359 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 1, 2016, 10:56 pm - IP Logged

Lucky is right by the time I win in the numbers game I am making back what I invested on the losing tickets yes I am happy I won but it doesn't make a difference. Why I continue playing because I enjoy it its my hobby and it keeps me entertained I use everything to try and get a winning number some days it works other days it doesn't and that includes using vtracks, math, lottery math, one up one down, and substitution from Bobby charts graphs pyramids I use it all and do it all and I still get one off.

Ny
United States
Member #167314
July 5, 2015
1819 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 1, 2016, 11:16 pm - IP Logged

Math can be useful but is it necessary? I feel math can steer you toward a win or away just as any other methodical approach. Math becomes technical/complex while only leaving room for only one answer at a time at it's core with the slightest error leading to an incorrect calculation or answer. Using math to predict something that has no beginning or end in concepts we use can possibly make no difference at all in winning. In a number game where there is always a variable or second guess as to the winning result I prefer to use interpretation of the next situation and put down on combinations of the same situation that I interpret to be likely. This to me seems like in the future will work most effectively in a random game such as pick 4.

Creativity..

" What's more likely to happen will happen.. "

Million dollar operation

 Page 38 of 40