United States
Member #1,826
July 11, 2003
2,645 Posts
Offline
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.
Tennessee United States
Member #7,853
October 15, 2004
11,352 Posts
Offline
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....
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...
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?
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.
Tennessee United States
Member #7,853
October 15, 2004
11,352 Posts
Offline
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......
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....
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.
Tennessee United States
Member #7,853
October 15, 2004
11,352 Posts
Offline
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
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.
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?
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.
New Jersey United States
Member #1
May 31, 2000
27,930 Posts Online
The experienced members at Lottery Post recognize swaa for what he is: a 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.