Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 6, 2016, 2:46 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Sign the petition - eliminate computerized drawings!

Topic closed. 338 replies. Last post 10 years ago by rdc137.

Page 11 of 23
53
PrintE-mailLink
Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
Chief Bottle Washer
New Jersey
United States
Member #1
May 31, 2000
23262 Posts
Online
Posted: May 22, 2005, 8:46 pm - IP Logged

Awesome John, thanks much.

(From my non-air conditioned basement office.)

 

Check the State Lottery Report Card
What grade did your lottery earn?

 

Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
Help eliminate computerized drawings!

    Avatar

    United States
    Member #1826
    July 11, 2003
    2645 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 22, 2005, 9:25 pm - IP Logged






    I really need to put together a page on this, describing each and every game that is computerized.  ("Games to Avoid").

    I'll put it high on my to-do list.





    Hokey-Dokey Todd. Let's start with sunny and warm California.

    Daily-3 Mid and Eve:  Computer Picks

    Fantasy-5:  Computer Picks

    California Super Lotto Plus, the old fashioned way with Ping-Pong balls.

          From my airconditioned computer room,  Platinum John



    Not quite. Super Lotto + uses rubber balls.

    (insert signature here)

      Avatar

      United States
      Member #1826
      July 11, 2003
      2645 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 22, 2005, 9:26 pm - IP Logged



      I think most folks agree that the MegaMillions game is run by a quasi-secret organization. The met in secret and came up with the new odds. They haven't given any explanation that I've heard about.

      I think I found the answer - the play slip.

      All lotteries have playslips having 5 panels, to entice players to spend $5.

      I don't know if other states use the same playslip, but in Texas there only room for 2 additional numbers in the main number panel. In order to make room for 4 numbers, a 7th line must be created. This takes space away from the Mega ball panel, thus the reduction to 46 numbers. 

      Otherwise, the panels would have to be made smaller, which would make it harder for folks with poor vision to mark their numbers.

      I haven't seen the new playslips. It will be interesting to see if they decided to make everything smaller.



      Massachusetts' MM slips only allow for 3 plays.

      (insert signature here)

        Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
        Chief Bottle Washer
        New Jersey
        United States
        Member #1
        May 31, 2000
        23262 Posts
        Online
        Posted: May 22, 2005, 9:45 pm - IP Logged

        Anyone who has never seen a computerized drawing should check out this link.

        It's a Minnesota "drawing" conducted by computer.  After watching the video, you decide: 





        • Is this what you want?




        • Do you feel confident that a fair drawing was conducted?




        • Is this worth the savings of .0001% of the lottery's budget every year?




        • Does this make you want to run out and buy a ticket?




        http://www.mnlottery.com/drawshow/wed256wm.html

         

        Check the State Lottery Report Card
        What grade did your lottery earn?

         

        Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
        Help eliminate computerized drawings!

          LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
          Tennessee
          United States
          Member #7853
          October 15, 2004
          11338 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 28, 2005, 2:23 am - IP Logged

          its stupid for a state to try and save one percent just to switch to computers and compromise the integrity of the drawings and risk losing loyal players....

            Avatar
            New Member
            Wisconsin
            United States
            Member #16601
            June 2, 2005
            11 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: June 2, 2005, 3:21 am - IP Logged



            Anyone who has never seen a computerized drawing should check out this link.

            It's a Minnesota "drawing" conducted by computer.  After watching the video, you decide: 





            • Is this what you want?




            • Do you feel confident that a fair drawing was conducted?




            • Is this worth the savings of .0001% of the lottery's budget every year?




            • Does this make you want to run out and buy a ticket?




            http://www.mnlottery.com/drawshow/wed256wm.html



            Heh, that was great. Actually the computerized lottery systems are more random than using real balls in a air cycle system, balls wear over time and get dented over time, those balls that do tend to not show up as much...and the fact that human hands are always in there inspecting the real lottery balls that all adds to the likelihood of "rigged" lotteries. All you need to do is add 1 sq inch of scotch tape (yes lottery balls are that light) to put the likelihood of the drawing of the ball down more than 2 fold...

             Since I work a lot with randomized systems I understand that computers are actually more random, there are so many less factors (wear, tear, gravity) that all go into affecting the odds that certain balls show up. In a computer this is not so. And also because it is a computer program it is 100% code verifiable...you can't as easily verify which lottery balls are wearing and denting more than others over time, plus that takes hands and fingers getting involved.

             Automated lotteries indeed are more random, it's undeniable. And it's impossible to rig a program unless you change the code and recompile it, that would take explicit work to do and would be found out with no doubt. You worried people need to think a little bit before going haywire over this...

              Bryan's avatar - Lottery-002.jpg
              Mid-Missouri
              United States
              Member #644
              August 31, 2002
              4271 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: June 2, 2005, 3:58 am - IP Logged






              Anyone who has never seen a computerized drawing should check out this link.

              It's a Minnesota "drawing" conducted by computer.  After watching the video, you decide: 





              • Is this what you want?




              • Do you feel confident that a fair drawing was conducted?




              • Is this worth the savings of .0001% of the lottery's budget every year?




              • Does this make you want to run out and buy a ticket?




              http://www.mnlottery.com/drawshow/wed256wm.html





              Heh, that was great. Actually the computerized lottery systems are more random than using real balls in a air cycle system, balls wear over time and get dented over time, those balls that do tend to not show up as much...and the fact that human hands are always in there inspecting the real lottery balls that all adds to the likelihood of "rigged" lotteries. All you need to do is add 1 sq inch of scotch tape (yes lottery balls are that light) to put the likelihood of the drawing of the ball down more than 2 fold...

               Since I work a lot with randomized systems I understand that computers are actually more random, there are so many less factors (wear, tear, gravity) that all go into affecting the odds that certain balls show up. In a computer this is not so. And also because it is a computer program it is 100% code verifiable...you can't as easily verify which lottery balls are wearing and denting more than others over time, plus that takes hands and fingers getting involved.

               Automated lotteries indeed are more random, it's undeniable. And it's impossible to rig a program unless you change the code and recompile it, that would take explicit work to do and would be found out with no doubt. You worried people need to think a little bit before going haywire over this...





              swaa,

              Why wasn't this caught before 159 races had taken place. It wasn't even discovered by the lottery officials.  It had to be pointed out to them by the players. With all the supposed testing and verification they do on the computerized system why wasn't this found much earlier. Surely, the code was gone over by several independent programmers before the software could be used, so how do you think this happened?

              http://www.lotterypost.com/news/112810.htm

              Any thoughts?,

              Bryan  :)

                Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
                Chief Bottle Washer
                New Jersey
                United States
                Member #1
                May 31, 2000
                23262 Posts
                Online
                Posted: June 2, 2005, 8:12 am - IP Logged






                Anyone who has never seen a computerized drawing should check out this link.

                It's a Minnesota "drawing" conducted by computer.  After watching the video, you decide: 





                • Is this what you want?




                • Do you feel confident that a fair drawing was conducted?




                • Is this worth the savings of .0001% of the lottery's budget every year?




                • Does this make you want to run out and buy a ticket?




                http://www.mnlottery.com/drawshow/wed256wm.html





                Heh, that was great. Actually the computerized lottery systems are more random than using real balls in a air cycle system, balls wear over time and get dented over time, those balls that do tend to not show up as much...and the fact that human hands are always in there inspecting the real lottery balls that all adds to the likelihood of "rigged" lotteries. All you need to do is add 1 sq inch of scotch tape (yes lottery balls are that light) to put the likelihood of the drawing of the ball down more than 2 fold...

                 Since I work a lot with randomized systems I understand that computers are actually more random, there are so many less factors (wear, tear, gravity) that all go into affecting the odds that certain balls show up. In a computer this is not so. And also because it is a computer program it is 100% code verifiable...you can't as easily verify which lottery balls are wearing and denting more than others over time, plus that takes hands and fingers getting involved.

                 Automated lotteries indeed are more random, it's undeniable. And it's impossible to rig a program unless you change the code and recompile it, that would take explicit work to do and would be found out with no doubt. You worried people need to think a little bit before going haywire over this...



                You sound very inexperienced in the concept of reality.

                Saying that computers are "undeniably" more random than a real lottery ball drawing destroys any credibility you might have had.  Even a Lottery Director in charge of a slew of computerized lottery games would not make such a preposterous claim.

                I supposed after 10 years that hard rubber lottery balls do get scuffed a little, but that's why they replace them.  And any scuffing would appear on all the lottery balls, so the randomly quality of the drawings would not be affected in any way.  But the lotteries replace the ball set before anything would get affected anyway, so your whole point is moot.

                And I love your scotch tape example.  It shows how someone trying to get away with something like that would easily get caught - because there is physical evidence.  Unlike what would happen with a computer scam.  The scammer would just need to replace the computer drawing program with their own scammed version, and then after the draw put the old one back and erase the log entries.  A clever programmer can have the drawing computer itself automatically "clean up" after the drawing using a timer-based scheduler, so they would only need to gain access to the system one time before the drawing.  In such a scenario, an audit would turn up nothing.

                Of course, you'll claim all kinds of security exists, but it also exists with a ball drawing, and that didn't stop you from coming up with the "scotch tape" heist.

                 

                Check the State Lottery Report Card
                What grade did your lottery earn?

                 

                Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
                Help eliminate computerized drawings!

                  LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
                  Tennessee
                  United States
                  Member #7853
                  October 15, 2004
                  11338 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: June 2, 2005, 2:54 pm - IP Logged

                  maybe one of these days all this will lead to a bill banning computerized drawings and every state would have ball drawings......that would be the ultimate accomplishment for all lottery players......

                    Avatar
                    New Member
                    Wisconsin
                    United States
                    Member #16601
                    June 2, 2005
                    11 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: June 2, 2005, 3:29 pm - IP Logged









                    Anyone who has never seen a computerized drawing should check out this link.

                    It's a Minnesota "drawing" conducted by computer.  After watching the video, you decide: 





                    • Is this what you want?




                    • Do you feel confident that a fair drawing was conducted?




                    • Is this worth the savings of .0001% of the lottery's budget every year?




                    • Does this make you want to run out and buy a ticket?




                    http://www.mnlottery.com/drawshow/wed256wm.html





                    Heh, that was great. Actually the computerized lottery systems are more random than using real balls in a air cycle system, balls wear over time and get dented over time, those balls that do tend to not show up as much...and the fact that human hands are always in there inspecting the real lottery balls that all adds to the likelihood of "rigged" lotteries. All you need to do is add 1 sq inch of scotch tape (yes lottery balls are that light) to put the likelihood of the drawing of the ball down more than 2 fold...

                     Since I work a lot with randomized systems I understand that computers are actually more random, there are so many less factors (wear, tear, gravity) that all go into affecting the odds that certain balls show up. In a computer this is not so. And also because it is a computer program it is 100% code verifiable...you can't as easily verify which lottery balls are wearing and denting more than others over time, plus that takes hands and fingers getting involved.

                     Automated lotteries indeed are more random, it's undeniable. And it's impossible to rig a program unless you change the code and recompile it, that would take explicit work to do and would be found out with no doubt. You worried people need to think a little bit before going haywire over this...





                    You sound very inexperienced in the concept of reality.

                    Saying that computers are "undeniably" more random than a real lottery ball drawing destroys any credibility you might have had.  Even a Lottery Director in charge of a slew of computerized lottery games would not make such a preposterous claim.

                    I supposed after 10 years that hard rubber lottery balls do get scuffed a little, but that's why they replace them.  And any scuffing would appear on all the lottery balls, so the randomly quality of the drawings would not be affected in any way.  But the lotteries replace the ball set before anything would get affected anyway, so your whole point is moot.

                    And I love your scotch tape example.  It shows how someone trying to get away with something like that would easily get caught - because there is physical evidence.  Unlike what would happen with a computer scam.  The scammer would just need to replace the computer drawing program with their own scammed version, and then after the draw put the old one back and erase the log entries.  A clever programmer can have the drawing computer itself automatically "clean up" after the drawing using a timer-based scheduler, so they would only need to gain access to the system one time before the drawing.  In such a scenario, an audit would turn up nothing.

                    Of course, you'll claim all kinds of security exists, but it also exists with a ball drawing, and that didn't stop you from coming up with the "scotch tape" heist.



                    Inexperienced in the conept of reality...I see. You know what reality is? Reality is random. You waking up one morning, deciding to buy a lottery ticket that has a computerized outcome seems pretty random, especially when you could have randomly broke your toe or randomly decided not to buy a ticket. The essence of reality is a random entity in of itself. So don't tell me I'm inexperience with reality.

                    If you call scuffing, gravity, dents, weight, people constantly picking them up inspecting them...replacing them...if you call that all more random than a computer system picking numbers just because it's a computer, you're wrong. It's just as easy to rig a lottery with real balls as it is using a computer.

                    Also, here is some reality: What are you going to do when a rigged computer lottery drawing lands on your numbers, or any rigged lottery drawing for that matter? Hmm, that must be random too...

                    Scotch tape heist is an example of "rigged" in a non computer drawing. I could find easier ways to rig a lottery using real balls then by breaking into a machine with compiled code, then removing that compile code (which is burned into a chip, which means you've got to replace that too) then sticking a new one it's place, then after the lottery, put everything back to normal all without getting caught...a lot of reality bs it seems....

                      MMGuy's avatar - waveform
                      Houston, Tx
                      United States
                      Member #13043
                      March 28, 2005
                      119 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: June 2, 2005, 3:41 pm - IP Logged












                      Anyone who has never seen a computerized drawing should check out this link.

                      It's a Minnesota "drawing" conducted by computer.  After watching the video, you decide: 





                      • Is this what you want?




                      • Do you feel confident that a fair drawing was conducted?




                      • Is this worth the savings of .0001% of the lottery's budget every year?




                      • Does this make you want to run out and buy a ticket?




                      http://www.mnlottery.com/drawshow/wed256wm.html





                      Heh, that was great. Actually the computerized lottery systems are more random than using real balls in a air cycle system, balls wear over time and get dented over time, those balls that do tend to not show up as much...and the fact that human hands are always in there inspecting the real lottery balls that all adds to the likelihood of "rigged" lotteries. All you need to do is add 1 sq inch of scotch tape (yes lottery balls are that light) to put the likelihood of the drawing of the ball down more than 2 fold...

                       Since I work a lot with randomized systems I understand that computers are actually more random, there are so many less factors (wear, tear, gravity) that all go into affecting the odds that certain balls show up. In a computer this is not so. And also because it is a computer program it is 100% code verifiable...you can't as easily verify which lottery balls are wearing and denting more than others over time, plus that takes hands and fingers getting involved.

                       Automated lotteries indeed are more random, it's undeniable. And it's impossible to rig a program unless you change the code and recompile it, that would take explicit work to do and would be found out with no doubt. You worried people need to think a little bit before going haywire over this...





                      You sound very inexperienced in the concept of reality.

                      Saying that computers are "undeniably" more random than a real lottery ball drawing destroys any credibility you might have had.  Even a Lottery Director in charge of a slew of computerized lottery games would not make such a preposterous claim.

                      I supposed after 10 years that hard rubber lottery balls do get scuffed a little, but that's why they replace them.  And any scuffing would appear on all the lottery balls, so the randomly quality of the drawings would not be affected in any way.  But the lotteries replace the ball set before anything would get affected anyway, so your whole point is moot.

                      And I love your scotch tape example.  It shows how someone trying to get away with something like that would easily get caught - because there is physical evidence.  Unlike what would happen with a computer scam.  The scammer would just need to replace the computer drawing program with their own scammed version, and then after the draw put the old one back and erase the log entries.  A clever programmer can have the drawing computer itself automatically "clean up" after the drawing using a timer-based scheduler, so they would only need to gain access to the system one time before the drawing.  In such a scenario, an audit would turn up nothing.

                      Of course, you'll claim all kinds of security exists, but it also exists with a ball drawing, and that didn't stop you from coming up with the "scotch tape" heist.





                      Inexperienced in the conept of reality...I see. You know what reality is? Reality is random. You waking up one morning, deciding to buy a lottery ticket that has a computerized outcome seems pretty random, especially when you could have randomly broke your toe or randomly decided not to buy a ticket. The essence of reality is a random entity in of itself. So don't tell me I'm inexperience with reality.

                      If you call scuffing, gravity, dents, weight, people constantly picking them up inspecting them...replacing them...if you call that all more random than a computer system picking numbers just because it's a computer, you're wrong. It's just as easy to rig a lottery with real balls as it is using a computer.

                      Also, here is some reality: What are you going to do when a rigged computer lottery drawing lands on your numbers, or any rigged lottery drawing for that matter? Hmm, that must be random too...

                      Scotch tape heist is an example of "rigged" in a non computer drawing. I could find easier ways to rig a lottery using real balls then by breaking into a machine with compiled code, then removing that compile code (which is burned into a chip, which means you've got to replace that too) then sticking a new one it's place, then after the lottery, put everything back to normal all without getting caught...a lot of reality bs it seems....



                      Everyone has different views on reality. No "sure" concept of reality has been proven.

                        LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
                        Tennessee
                        United States
                        Member #7853
                        October 15, 2004
                        11338 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: June 2, 2005, 3:58 pm - IP Logged

                        my opinion is the ball drawings are more random because think of this when those balls are dropped anything is possible and no one knows the numbers until the ball drawing starts and then its over but with computerized drawings the numbers are already known day to day because its in a code,how do we know that if they put a chip in the computer that has random numbers for everyday that someone can't break in and get a peek at these numbers.they are not random like balls because the "results" are already written and known before the drawing even takes place in computerized drawings but in ball drawings until the balls are dropped no one knows.this right here proves that ball drawings are more random because no one knows the outcome before those balls are dropped........BALL DRAWINGS ARE MORE RANDOM

                          Avatar

                          United States
                          Member #1826
                          July 11, 2003
                          2645 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: June 2, 2005, 4:11 pm - IP Logged






                          Anyone who has never seen a computerized drawing should check out this link.

                          It's a Minnesota "drawing" conducted by computer.  After watching the video, you decide: 





                          • Is this what you want?




                          • Do you feel confident that a fair drawing was conducted?




                          • Is this worth the savings of .0001% of the lottery's budget every year?




                          • Does this make you want to run out and buy a ticket?




                          http://www.mnlottery.com/drawshow/wed256wm.html





                          Heh, that was great. Actually the computerized lottery systems are more random than using real balls in a air cycle system, balls wear over time and get dented over time, those balls that do tend to not show up as much...and the fact that human hands are always in there inspecting the real lottery balls that all adds to the likelihood of "rigged" lotteries. All you need to do is add 1 sq inch of scotch tape (yes lottery balls are that light) to put the likelihood of the drawing of the ball down more than 2 fold...

                           Since I work a lot with randomized systems I understand that computers are actually more random, there are so many less factors (wear, tear, gravity) that all go into affecting the odds that certain balls show up. In a computer this is not so. And also because it is a computer program it is 100% code verifiable...you can't as easily verify which lottery balls are wearing and denting more than others over time, plus that takes hands and fingers getting involved.

                           Automated lotteries indeed are more random, it's undeniable. And it's impossible to rig a program unless you change the code and recompile it, that would take explicit work to do and would be found out with no doubt. You worried people need to think a little bit before going haywire over this...



                          Do you work for one of the lotteries that went that route? Apparently you're forgetting that computer draws are no fun to watch. Balls are much more fun to watch, and therefore makes it more fun to play. I don't want to play a game where all I have to watch is some cheap animation.

                          (insert signature here)

                            Avatar
                            New Member
                            Wisconsin
                            United States
                            Member #16601
                            June 2, 2005
                            11 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: June 2, 2005, 4:15 pm - IP Logged









                            Anyone who has never seen a computerized drawing should check out this link.

                            It's a Minnesota "drawing" conducted by computer.  After watching the video, you decide: 





                            • Is this what you want?




                            • Do you feel confident that a fair drawing was conducted?




                            • Is this worth the savings of .0001% of the lottery's budget every year?




                            • Does this make you want to run out and buy a ticket?




                            http://www.mnlottery.com/drawshow/wed256wm.html





                            Heh, that was great. Actually the computerized lottery systems are more random than using real balls in a air cycle system, balls wear over time and get dented over time, those balls that do tend to not show up as much...and the fact that human hands are always in there inspecting the real lottery balls that all adds to the likelihood of "rigged" lotteries. All you need to do is add 1 sq inch of scotch tape (yes lottery balls are that light) to put the likelihood of the drawing of the ball down more than 2 fold...

                             Since I work a lot with randomized systems I understand that computers are actually more random, there are so many less factors (wear, tear, gravity) that all go into affecting the odds that certain balls show up. In a computer this is not so. And also because it is a computer program it is 100% code verifiable...you can't as easily verify which lottery balls are wearing and denting more than others over time, plus that takes hands and fingers getting involved.

                             Automated lotteries indeed are more random, it's undeniable. And it's impossible to rig a program unless you change the code and recompile it, that would take explicit work to do and would be found out with no doubt. You worried people need to think a little bit before going haywire over this...





                            swaa,

                            Why wasn't this caught before 159 races had taken place. It wasn't even discovered by the lottery officials.  It had to be pointed out to them by the players. With all the supposed testing and verification they do on the computerized system why wasn't this found much earlier. Surely, the code was gone over by several independent programmers before the software could be used, so how do you think this happened?

                            http://www.lotterypost.com/news/112810.htm

                            Any thoughts?,

                            Bryan  :)



                            Bryan,

                            This is a perfect example of a problem. Programmer error and lack of testing. The advantages of having a computer drawing wasn't utilized. Such as 1000s of tests at a time to look for trends. All you can do with a computer to see if there is a problem (without going through the computer code) is to look for trends. With lottery balls the only thing you can look for are defects in the machine/balls/etc. These are two different approaches. However, the problem was fixed. Now the code never again has to be replaced, no wear, no tear, no gravity or anything affecting it. Computerized lotteries are more random because of this.

                            See I don't have any preference on how the lottery is played. My argument is that someone can't say that it is less random to use a computer. It is actually more random. If you watch the powerball, which uses real balls and you look on the end of the pile and see 2 of your numbers, you know for a fact that none of them are going to get picked because they're on the end...hence gravity has just affected randomness. With a computer, at any given time, all numbers have equal chance to be picked. With the powerball, the balls on the end have a less chance of being picked for every single draw...

                            That is what I am saying. No one can say lotteries that are computerized are worse off because they're not as random. That is a fallacy.

                              Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
                              Chief Bottle Washer
                              New Jersey
                              United States
                              Member #1
                              May 31, 2000
                              23262 Posts
                              Online
                              Posted: June 2, 2005, 4:18 pm - IP Logged

                              The experienced members at Lottery Post recognize swaa for what he is: a troll. Troll

                              There is no logic, only refuting obvious facts for the sake of argument and disagreement.  Anyone who says computers are more random that true lottery drawings really just has an axe to grind, and does not have a footing in reality.

                              JS9, I believe youre' on to something with your comments (and where this person comes from).  I would not be surprised if "swaa" is the same person that previously came on here a few months back saying the same annoying dreck.

                              In fact, I think I'll check into it...

                               

                              Check the State Lottery Report Card
                              What grade did your lottery earn?

                               

                              Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
                              Help eliminate computerized drawings!

                                 
                                Page 11 of 23