Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 9:15 am
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 12 of 23
53
PrintE-mailLink
LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
Tennessee
United States
Member #7853
October 15, 2004
11338 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 2, 2005, 5:01 pm - IP Logged

also that person is from wisconsin......a computerized state

    MMGuy's avatar - waveform
    Houston, Tx
    United States
    Member #13043
    March 28, 2005
    119 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: June 2, 2005, 7:19 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.

    There is a lack of security in computerized draws. For computerized drawings, true randomness is impossible to replicate. Programs are written to create an illusion of randomness. Your full of it, swaa.

      Avatar
      New Member
      Wisconsin
      United States
      Member #16601
      June 2, 2005
      11 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: June 2, 2005, 10:16 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.

      There is a lack of security in computerized draws. For computerized drawings, true randomness is impossible to replicate. Programs are written to create an illusion of randomness. Your full of it, swaa.

      Heh...we can build computers to do just about everything you can think of in the world, but we can't make it pick a random number...right Unhappy I like your logic MMGuy. I suppose you have a PhD in computer science and software engineering as well.

      Computers can produce randomness, the only illusion is the one you have on the subject.

        Avatar
        New Member
        Wisconsin
        United States
        Member #16601
        June 2, 2005
        11 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: June 2, 2005, 10:18 pm - IP Logged

        also that person is from wisconsin......a computerized state

        Funny, b/c the only lottery I play is the powerball...

          LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
          Tennessee
          United States
          Member #7853
          October 15, 2004
          11338 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: June 2, 2005, 10:29 pm - IP Logged

          also that person is from wisconsin......a computerized state

          Funny, b/c the only lottery I play is the powerball...

          you keep contradicting yourself on everything you say......weren't you the one championing computerized drawings,hate to say this but you might want to quit powerball its not computerized.......

            Avatar
            New Member
            Wisconsin
            United States
            Member #16601
            June 2, 2005
            11 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: June 2, 2005, 10:30 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...

            Amazing, you sit there and can't handle the other side of the coin. Not only that but you flame, as the admin??? You know nothing about reality, b/c in reality you will never win this battle...welcome to the computer age...

            Stop Whining And Accept...

            Like I said before, I have no preference in how the lottery is played but you must understand that you can't base this entire petition on "security issues" or "randomless flaws" with a computer...the exact same exists in using real balls. And real balls are less random than computerized drawings. The only troll is the one spending the time looking for the smiley to attach to their flaming message.

            I'm not this previous person you are talking about...funny because I never said anything wrong, I only state the facts on computerized games and how about a thoughtful argument instead of troll smilies.

              Avatar
              New Member
              Wisconsin
              United States
              Member #16601
              June 2, 2005
              11 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: June 2, 2005, 10:32 pm - IP Logged

              also that person is from wisconsin......a computerized state

              Funny, b/c the only lottery I play is the powerball...

              you keep contradicting yourself on everything you say......weren't you the one championing computerized drawings,hate to say this but you might want to quit powerball its not computerized.......

              What??? Contradicting what?? I said I had no preference on lottery games...read my last replies. I'm making a statement to the lottery players about the facts on computerized drawings, what lotteries I play have no bearing facts...think about it.

                Avatar
                Michigan
                United States
                Member #15460
                May 15, 2005
                131 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: June 2, 2005, 10:42 pm - IP Logged

                i am studying computer science in college... the fact that a program can be tampered with or told to do other than is suppose to could change the game... they could create a computer program to give a random three digit number, thats ez. the fact that they can use there own rules and regulations on the program that no one will know about is the bs... with real balls u see what u get, its probably more exciting and the fact that there is so many regulations they have to follow to make sure these balls are equal in every aspect makes the game fair... computerized drawings will probably ruin lottery for the people who do like to predict and try and make best efforts to create picks that have a better chance than others...

                "A fool and his money are soon to part"

                well at least i will have fun doing it

                  LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
                  Tennessee
                  United States
                  Member #7853
                  October 15, 2004
                  11338 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: June 2, 2005, 10:52 pm - IP Logged

                  i am studying computer science in college... the fact that a program can be tampered with or told to do other than is suppose to could change the game... they could create a computer program to give a random three digit number, thats ez. the fact that they can use there own rules and regulations on the program that no one will know about is the bs... with real balls u see what u get, its probably more exciting and the fact that there is so many regulations they have to follow to make sure these balls are equal in every aspect makes the game fair... computerized drawings will probably ruin lottery for the people who do like to predict and try and make best efforts to create picks that have a better chance than others...

                  your right its not fun predicting computerized numbers because even if you go play those numbers in a computerized state they'll program the computer to put out a winning number that wasn't picked by anyone...indiana and maybe delaware are good examples of this.....

                    MMGuy's avatar - waveform
                    Houston, Tx
                    United States
                    Member #13043
                    March 28, 2005
                    119 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: June 2, 2005, 11:19 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.

                    There is a lack of security in computerized draws. For computerized drawings, true randomness is impossible to replicate. Programs are written to create an illusion of randomness. Your full of it, swaa.

                    Heh...we can build computers to do just about everything you can think of in the world, but we can't make it pick a random number...right Unhappy I like your logic MMGuy. I suppose you have a PhD in computer science and software engineering as well.

                    Computers can produce randomness, the only illusion is the one you have on the subject.

                    swaa, if YOU knew anything about computer science and software engineering you wouldn't have posted this non-sense in the first place.

                      Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
                      Chief Bottle Washer
                      New Jersey
                      United States
                      Member #1
                      May 31, 2000
                      23260 Posts
                      Online
                      Posted: June 3, 2005, 9:57 am - IP Logged

                      swaa does not appear to be a fan of lottery games at all, and his opinions seem based lees on the realities of the lottery industry and more of a "script-kiddie" mentality.  We have some impressively wise and insightful young members on this forum, but he does not appear to be one of them.  (And no, pointing out your trolling ways does not mean that I am flaming you — it means that I am identifying what you are doing, so that others can take your comments in context.)

                      *sigh* Yes, swaa, computers are really great, and being somewhat of a computer expert myself, I am quite impressed with their capabilities.  But being smart with computers does not automatically make you wise with computers.  As you get older and get out into the real world for a few years, you will start to realize that many of the things you once thought to be sacrosanct are quite different than you believed.  You will also start to see many more sides to everything, not just the black and white.

                      At this point, let's just say we have a very different opinion on this issue, and leave it at that.

                      If you are a fan of lottery games, then I'm sure I will see you post on some other topics here.  If you are simply trolling this forum, then you'll maybe post a couple more rebuttals and then we won't hear from you again.  We'll see.

                       

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

                       

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

                        bobby623's avatar - abstract
                        San Angelo, Texas
                        United States
                        Member #1097
                        January 31, 2003
                        1394 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: June 3, 2005, 10:49 am - IP Logged

                        The Texas Lottery Commission and lottery staff had a long discussion about computer drawings, animation, etc, at their May 10, 2005 meeting.

                        I'm not qualified to evaluate what was said. However, many of you folks who are members here seem to know a lot about computer drawings. I think everyone interested in computerized drawings could get a handle on how this issue is advancing in Texas.

                        Be interesting to know what you folks think, how you evaluate what the people who are pushing for computer drawings and animation said on behalf of the  products they are selling.

                        Please go to www.txlottery.org Then go to Legal Notices, Commission meetings and Public Hearings,  May 10,2005.  Items 4 and 5. Also item 7.

                        I await you comments.

                         

                          Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
                          Chief Bottle Washer
                          New Jersey
                          United States
                          Member #1
                          May 31, 2000
                          23260 Posts
                          Online
                          Posted: June 3, 2005, 12:22 pm - IP Logged

                          Thanks for the interesting link.  The first thing I found interesting was how profitable the Megaplier is, and it really makes me wonder why all states don't offer it.

                          With regard to the computerized drawings discussion, I found that the Textas Lottery Commission (TLC) Board appears to be hypnotized by computerized lottery drawing people/companies.

                          The testimony of the A&M professor was amazing in that he must have spoke for an hour, and said what could be boiled down into one minute.  Basically, he said that when he analyzed the computerized drawing results for the Megaplier, he found them to be fair.  He said that he disagreed with the other analysis that was previously performed, but admitted that he did not use the same drawing data that they did.

                          So basically the professor, in between all the wacky asides, tried to impress everyone with his knowledge of statistics, yet before that meeting had never even used PowerPoint before.  Come back to Earth, professor.

                          Then the board heard a bunch of glowing testimony from the computerized drawing companies themselves.  Naturally, the company president described computerized drawings as the best thing since sliced bread, and claimed that his company's drawing computer was the "Humvee" of drawing computers.  (Strangely, the board brought up different automobiles to compare various competitors.)

                          There was no testimony from manufacturers of ball machines however.  Why not find out what the president of Criterion drawing machines has to say to computerized drawing companies?  I'll answer that one: because the TLC board has decided that they want to use computers, and nothing will stand in their way of eventually achieving that goal.

                          Here's a great example, using an event that occured later in the meeting:

                          Dawn Nettles (who the notes incorrectly called "Donna" Nettles) spoke as a member of the public at the meeting about the topic.  She had some very interesting remarks.  In particular, she mentioned that sales were being killed by the lack of televised drawings, and further stated that sales would go down even more if/when the lottery went to computerized drawings.

                          The best point:  people want to know that balls are being dropped out of a machine, even if they don't watch it on TV.  So TV ratings have nothing to do with people's desire to have real drawings.

                          Interestingly, the board was all over Ms. Nettles, and seemed to argue every single point she made, unlike the friendly treatment they gave to the computerized drawing people.  To me, that tells the whole story right there.

                          I have copied the portion of the transcript with Ms. Nettles comments below, so you can judge for yourself:

                          14                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Thank you, Mr. Marker.
                          15                  Next item, I'd like to return to Item
                          16  Number Five on our agenda.
                          17                  Ms. Nettles, you had filled out a
                          18  witness affirmation form, I think, regarding that item,
                          19  and I called on you at that time and you were not here,
                          20  so I'd like to call on you now, if you're ready,
                          21  please.
                          22                  MS. NETTLES:  Thank you.  It never
                          23  fails, every time I step outside, y'all get right where
                          24  I don't want you to be.  For the record, My name is
                          25  Donna Nettles, I put a lottery report out of Dallas.
                          0141
                          1  As I was listening to you all talk earlier,
                          2  specifically Commissioner Clowe -- or, I don't remember
                          3  who it was -- you said something about the Commission
                          4  had been using a random generator since the inception
                          5  of the Quick Picks, and as soon as you said that, my
                          6  mind just went off because I remembered something that
                          7  I've been tracking for awhile.  I know that several of
                          8  you all know that a couple of years ago I had printed,
                          9  in my Lotto report as well as on my web site, that I
                          10  don't recommend people to purchase quick picks, and
                          11  I've never fully explained why I made that statement,
                          12  other than I simply stated it's because they're not
                          13  random.
                          14                  And when you said that, I realized that,
                          15  of all your reports that I've seen, and I mentioned
                          16  I've never seen anything from Dr. Eubanks with regard
                          17  to the Quick Pick process and any analysis that he has
                          18  done, so I actually had an opportunity today to ask him
                          19  if he had ever done that, and I asked him if he had
                          20  evaluated the pretest results and he said yes, he had.
                          21  And I asked him at that time if he had ever evaluated
                          22  the Quick Pick process, and he said no.  So at that
                          23  time, I did tell him that he really ought to do that
                          24  because he's going to find that they're not random at
                          25  all.  I picked up on something two years ago and I
                          0142
                          1  followed it, and I would be real curious to see if he
                          2  comes out with the same conclusion that I did in my
                          3  findings on it.  I did have some additional help from
                          4  statisticians from across Texas that reviewed this with
                          5  me, but I was unable to get some of the documents that
                          6  I needed out of the Commission to fully, completely
                          7  evaluate the whole thing.  So, with relations to the
                          8  Quick Picks, I simply want to say that I hope that you
                          9  all will really evaluate G-Tech's Quick Pick selection,
                          10  and you're going to find that they're really semi
                          11  random, and I would like to see that done away with
                          12  playing.
                          13                  Last month, if y'all will recall, the
                          14  bingo folks were here and you had people from
                          15  everywhere in here, and I seized on the opportunity,
                          16  knowing that the issue of animated draws was
                          17  forthcoming, so I took it upon myself to do a little
                          18  research with those bingo people last month, and I
                          19  asked those people outside what their players would do
                          20  if their hall decided to take away the balls and the
                          21  machines, universally, every one of them here died
                          22  laughing and said, we'll we'd lose all of our
                          23  customers.  And I said, you mean you think your
                          24  customers would object to not being able to see those
                          25  balls coming out of the machines?  And they said, oh,
                          0143
                          1  absolutely, they would object.  And we got to discuss
                          2  the computerized draws with those people that were here
                          3  last month, and they said that they would definitely
                          4  lose all their business.  So Billy has a perfect
                          5  opportunity to ask people and to get their input about
                          6  what they see.
                          7                  I did used to play bingo many, many
                          8  years ago, and I can assure you that, as a bingo
                          9  player, I want to see that number coming out of the
                          10  ball, and that goes for Lotto or the online games as
                          11  well, so I really hope that before you really do
                          12  consider switching over to just animated draws that you
                          13  really take into consideration that the people really
                          14  want to see the balls come down.
                          15                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Let me ask you a
                          16  question in that regard:  I'm failing to get an
                          17  accurate picture of the comparison you're attempting to
                          18  draw there.  In a bingo hall, people are there
                          19  physically and they see the drawing, the act of the
                          20  drawing.  One of the problems I'm having about our
                          21  broadcasting of the lottery draws is that I think it
                          22  gives people comfort that the balls are drawn, but very
                          23  few people are seeing it, and when you say that you
                          24  feel that the lottery customer wants to see the balls
                          25  drop, if that's a correct term, what do you mean by
                          0144
                          1  that?  What -- You just want to -- are you saying they
                          2  just want to know that they're dropped?  They're not
                          3  seeing them.
                          4                  MS. NETTLES:  Yeah, you're exactly
                          5  right.
                          6                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Help me understand your
                          7  position.
                          8                  MS. NETTLES:  Okay.  My position is --
                          9  and I've been saying this for a long time -- the Texas
                          10  Lottery needs television coverage and they need to see
                          11  those draws.  I can assure you that that is a big
                          12  problem, besides the odds issue, which you know how I
                          13  feel about.  Besides the odds issue, you're losing a
                          14  lot of business because people cannot see those
                          15  drawings on television.  They used to be aired.  And I
                          16  have already told the television stations -- I did that
                          17  about a year ago, and I got -- I don't know -- probably
                          18  30 different stations across Texas, or maybe even 50,
                          19  on why they were not showing the drawings, and it
                          20  really doesn't have anything to with to time -- well,
                          21  it did have something to do with the time because it
                          22  was too many draws was the bottom line, but somehow or
                          23  another if this Commission really wants to improve
                          24  their sales, they really need to find a way to get
                          25  those drawings -- at least Lotto Texas on Wednesday and
                          0145
                          1  Saturday night and Mega Millions.  They need to get
                          2  those draws on TV and those people need to see the real
                          3  balls.
                          4                  I know you all know about New York.  New
                          5  York has -- from what I've observed just an Mega
                          6  Millions, they have tremendous sales.  New York
                          7  wouldn't even consider animating their draws because
                          8  their TV stations air them.  You did know that, didn't
                          9  you, that New York has tremendous television coverage
                          10  on their draws?
                          11                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  I'm not aware of their
                          12  television coverage.
                          13                  MS. NETTLES:  Oh, they -- every TV
                          14  station in New York -- or, every major area in New
                          15  York, they have coverage.
                          16                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  And do you have
                          17  personal knowledge of that?
                          18                  MS. NETTLES:  Yes, sir.
                          19                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  How do you have
                          20  personal knowledge?
                          21                  MS. NETTLES:  Actually, I got it from
                          22  the Commission in an e-mail discussing this issue here
                          23  about computerized draws, and then I confirmed it.
                          24                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  And do you have that
                          25  document with you?  Could I see that?
                          0146
                          1                  MS. NETTLES:  I don't have it on me,
                          2  sir.  I can find it.  I know exactly where it is.  I
                          3  know the stack that it's in.  And, absolutely, it's in
                          4  an e-mail, I believe, from -- I can't remember who did
                          5  the research.  I guess it was Robert Tirloni doing the
                          6  research, and it was a report sent to Gary, I believe.
                          7  But, Commissioner Clowe, I could be wrong, but, yes,
                          8  sir, I do have it.
                          9                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Well, you know, we've
                          10  been down this road so many times just talking about
                          11  television coverage.  We have done so many things in
                          12  this agency to increase the attractiveness of those
                          13  drawings and talk about changing the times, you know,
                          14  to make it more attractive, and we have that up link,
                          15  and the coverage is not at all, in my opinion, drawing.
                          16  My sense is, the majority of the players get it --
                          17  rather than live, they may get it after the numbers are
                          18  drawn and they're just flashed up on the television set
                          19  very briefly, but the majority of them either get it
                          20  out of the newspaper the next day or online at the or
                          21  convenience store on a purchase point at a grocery
                          22  store, HEB or Albertsons or wherever it may be, by
                          23  taking their tickets there.  So you're telling me that
                          24  you think television coverage is extremely important?
                          25                  MS. NETTLES:  It's every important.  And
                          0147
                          1  I actually can tell you why you lost you're television
                          2  coverage.  I know because I did the research at the
                          3  time and I actually told the Commission at the time
                          4  that this was why.  You got to go back to a number of
                          5  years ago when Texas started -- introduced the game
                          6  Texas Million, like when they had the 100 balls and
                          7  draw four or whatever, at that time they changed the
                          8  drawing studio and they had that -- conducted that
                          9  drawing first and then they proceeded on to the Cash
                          10  Five and the Pick Three and whatever.  I forget which
                          11  days it was on television.  The television stations
                          12  reported back to the Texas Lottery Commission and told
                          13  them, we do not have time.  If you read -- get your
                          14  format back, look at it.
                          15                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  When was that?
                          16                  MS. NETTLES:  I don't remember when
                          17  Texas Million started.  '95, '97, '98.
                          18                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  And do you have
                          19  personal knowledge that the television stations --
                          20                  MS. NETTLES:  Absolutely.  In fact, I
                          21  took it up to Linda Cloud because it was Linda who --
                          22                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  What do you have that
                          23  you can show me about that?
                          24                  MS. NETTLES:  I don't know what I have
                          25  that I can show you about it, but I've commented on it
                          0148
                          1  up here.
                          2                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  When you say that, help
                          3  me understand how you come to that conclusion.  What
                          4  documentation do you have?
                          5                  MS. NETTLES:  I contacted television
                          6  stations myself and spoke to the producers.
                          7                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  And have you got a
                          8  record of that, who you talked to?
                          9                  MS. NETTLES:  Well, yes, sir, but --
                          10                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  See, we've started
                          11  doing the same thing.  We've gone back and talked to
                          12  the television stations and we don't get that answer
                          13  that you're getting.  We get --
                          14                  MS. NETTLES:  You'll have to go back to
                          15  Keith Elkins or Linda Cloud, and I can assure you that
                          16  that's what they discovered back at the time, because
                          17  that's what I discovered and I discussed it with them
                          18  at length.
                          19                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Well, the problem I'm
                          20  having is that, you know, we've done it more recently
                          21  than that period and we're not getting those answers
                          22  today.
                          23                  MS. NETTLES:  Well, that's -- that was
                          24  the initial upset at the television stations as to the
                          25  Texas Lottery, because the opinion was -- and,
                          0149
                          1  actually, I'm just remembering one in particular, and
                          2  he very emphatically told me, he says, we tried to tell
                          3  them and they wouldn't listen, so we were pissed.
                          4                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Who was that?
                          5                  MS. NETTLES:  That's what he didn't want
                          6  known, but it was a major TV station in Dallas, but I
                          7  don't honestly don't even remember his name.  I would
                          8  have to go find my notes.  Sir, I have so many notes
                          9  from all these years.
                          10                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Well, I'm trying to
                          11  understand.
                          12                  MS. NETTLES:  I'm telling you the truth
                          13  and I --
                          14                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  I don't doubt that at
                          15  all, but I just --
                          16                  MS. NETTLES:  That's where the trouble
                          17  started, and you can go back and almost pinpoint it
                          18  when it stopped being aired because that's when the
                          19  Texas Lottery lost their drawings because there was
                          20  only so much time in that one minute.  That's when the
                          21  drawings were on at 9:59, and that tape had been
                          22  edited.  They did not have enough time for the drawing
                          23  of the Texas Million.  I can't even remember what time
                          24  Texas Million was drawn.  Was that Tuesdays and
                          25  Fridays?  I don't even remember, but I know that that
                          0150
                          1  was the start of the problem.
                          2                  And I do know for sure -- and I know
                          3  this because the players told me -- they can't see the
                          4  drawings so they don't want to play it.  If they can't
                          5  watch those drawings on TV, they don't really want to
                          6  play because that's taking away the fun.  I would
                          7  get -- if the Commission wants to start picking up,
                          8  they really need to see that those draws are seen on
                          9  TV.  And I -- the animation I'm not in favor of and I
                          10  don't believe that it's the time that it takes, and I
                          11  know the people want to see the real thing.  And I
                          12  really think it would help your sales if you could --
                          13  maybe it would help your sales.  But, anyway, about New
                          14  York, I will try when I got back to Dallas tomorrow to
                          15  find the very specific e-mails that describe New
                          16  York's.  I can see.  I can visualize.
                          17                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  I'd appreciate that.
                          18                  MS. NETTLES:  To show you that New
                          19  York -- and, anyway, they can tell you, I'm sure.
                          20                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Reagan, you're familiar
                          21  with the director at the New York Lottery and I'd
                          22  appreciate it if you would gather what information you
                          23  can on the subject as well.
                          24                  MR. REAGAN:  I'll be happy to get that
                          25  information.
                          0151
                          1                  MS. NETTLES:  Okay.  And this doesn't
                          2  have anything to do with this other, but as the
                          3  advertising people were talking, they also struck a
                          4  note with me, too.  I've never really looked at the
                          5  lottery's advertising.  I've never really studied any
                          6  of it, where y'all advertise, besides what I see on TV
                          7  or billboards.  And you all know I'm an ad agency, but
                          8  I don't do your kind of business, so I'm not going to
                          9  try to solicit your business.
                          10                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  You're an ad agency?
                          11                  MS. NETTLES:  Yes, sir, that's what I've
                          12  been.
                          13                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  I thought you were a
                          14  publisher.
                          15                  MS. NETTLES:  I am.  I started out as an
                          16  ad agency, and that's where I got my first start, in
                          17  publishing, but --
                          18                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  I didn't know that.
                          19                  MS. NETTLES:  Oh, yes.  I've assisted a
                          20  lot, mostly in the home building industry in the Dallas
                          21  area.  I've assisted a great many builders to try to
                          22  get their sales up or their inventory sold.  But at any
                          23  rate, my point is that -- do y'all do print advertising
                          24  in magazines and such?
                          25                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Yes.
                          0152
                          1                  MS. NETTLES:  You are in magazines?
                          2                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Yes.  And the
                          3  newspaper.
                          4                  MS. NETTLES:  One suggestion I might
                          5  have for the agency -- the Texas Lottery Commission is,
                          6  some ad agencies -- well, all print media gives a
                          7  commission for selling advertising in their magazines.
                          8  Some agencies give that commission back to their
                          9  customer.  In the case of the Texas Lottery, I don't
                          10  know if your agency is giving you that commission back
                          11  for you to have additional funds or if they're keeping
                          12  it, and, you know, a lot of agencies keep it.  In fact,
                          13  most keep the money and the customer never even know
                          14  that there is such a discount, but when an agency plays
                          15  media, they get a commission for it and a discounted
                          16  rate.  You pay the agency and the agency pays the --
                          17  well, so you might ought to -- that might be a way to
                          18  save on the $32 million a year budget.
                          19                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Of course, those
                          20  contracts are bids, you know.
                          21                  MS. NETTLES:  Those contracts --
                          22                  MS. KIPLIN:  Mr. Chairman, I think
                          23  we're --
                          24                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  I'm getting ready to go
                          25  to the item that we're in now, and I knew that you were
                          0153
                          1  going to say something about it.  I think this is
                          2  covered, isn't it, counselor?  Let me find the item on
                          3  the agenda, because I know we must stay on the agenda.
                          4  Would that be either under item five or --
                          5                  MS. KIPLIN:  Item six?
                          6                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Item six, yes.
                          7                  MS. NETTLES:  It's about your
                          8  advertising.  Which one would that be when they were
                          9  talking --
                          10                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Would we be okay under
                          11  six?
                          12                  MS. KIPLIN:  Yes, we would be.  I just
                          13  wanted to make sure for the record.
                          14                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  And I knew you were
                          15  going to call me on that, so I wanted to get either on
                          16  five or six.  I would refer you to the contracts the
                          17  Commission has if you'd like to see those.
                          18                  MS. NETTLES:  No, sir.  I'm just
                          19  offering you a piece of friendly advice.  That's all I
                          20  was doing, nothing more than that.
                          21                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Okay.  Very good.
                          22                  MS. NETTLES:  That would be an avenue
                          23  that y'all might check into when you do your bids, are
                          24  they giving you the discount price or are they giving
                          25  you the retail price?  That's it.
                          0154
                          1                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Sure.
                          2                  MS. NETTLES:  So that's all I had to say
                          3  today is, I basically wanted to just comment on the
                          4  Quick Pick selection and the random draws that you were
                          5  referring to earlier.  That's what prompted my entire
                          6  comment.  I hope that y'all will talk to the bingo
                          7  folks and ask them to confirm what I'm telling you
                          8  about the players seeing those balls.
                          9                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Well, I just would,
                          10  then -- since you brought that up again, I would just
                          11  have to tell you that I see those two examples as being
                          12  very different.  I see folks being in a bingo hall
                          13  playing bingo and watching the balls and marking their
                          14  cards, the cardboard, or having electronic card
                          15  minders.  I see them engaged in an activity that is
                          16  very different, at least in my mind, from a person who
                          17  purchases a ticket, an online ticket, and the
                          18  drawing -- the activity that designates a winner is
                          19  conducted at a remote location and at a different time
                          20  than that's purchased.
                          21                  I understand what you're pointing out as
                          22  a similarity in your mind, and I just want to respond
                          23  to you that I see it as a social event in a bingo hall,
                          24  having visited the number of halls that I have, where
                          25  people are engaged in something of a social activity
                          0155
                          1  and the purchase of an online ticket where a person
                          2  could carry that in their pocket or their purse and
                          3  then seeing the balls fall and that choosing of the
                          4  winner.  I don't associate that in the same way as I do
                          5  what goes on in a bingo hall.
                          6                  MS. NETTLES:  I would venture to say
                          7  that probably 50 percent of the people that play your
                          8  lottery are bingo players.
                          9                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  That's an interesting
                          10  question.  I think -- I think Billy wishes a lot more
                          11  of them were bingo players.
                          12                  MS. NETTLES:  Well, no, I'm saying he
                          13  lost bingo players.  I'm telling you, I used to play
                          14  bingo twice a week, and have since I was 18 years old,
                          15  until the lottery.
                          16                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  They have migrated from
                          17  being bingo players to lottery?
                          18                  MS. NETTLES:  From bingo players to
                          19  lottery, yes, they have moved.  And those bingo
                          20  players, they want to see those balls, they want to see
                          21  those machines.  You take those balls and machines away
                          22  from them and they're not going to have any trust, and
                          23  that's what those bingo people told me.  I said, you
                          24  know if they're computerized draws, you know that
                          25  computer can generally send those computers that they
                          0156
                          1  play bingo on there.  And they said, oh, we know
                          2  exactly what numbers are in those computers, and if we
                          3  did have computerized draws, we could know who could
                          4  win and we could control that.
                          5                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  You know, that's an
                          6  interesting view.  We had a presentation here.  Where
                          7  are we?  Are we okay?
                          8                  MS. KIPLIN:  Back on Item Five.
                          9                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  We had a presentation
                          10  here where the bingo industry came in and they want to
                          11  go with a random number generator, or fairness number
                          12  of generators, I think they were.  They want to get
                          13  away from the balls, and it's interesting that they --
                          14  where these are authorized and were they are legal, and
                          15  if I remember correctly, it is enhancing the
                          16  playership, and what they do, Ms. Nettles, is they
                          17  can -- it's like if you've been where this type of
                          18  gambling is legal, they can multiply and make choices
                          19  and it adds complexity.  It's not just hitting five
                          20  numbers.  You know, this is a very interesting subject.
                          21                  MS. NETTLES:  I know.  Well, you see,
                          22  bingo lost its pazzazz.  I really didn't follow the
                          23  Texas Lottery and the bingo and all of that and how
                          24  y'all come to play, but I remember being in the hall
                          25  and hearing how this Texas law was affecting them and
                          0157
                          1  all of this, affecting their licenses, and I remember
                          2  hearing all of the complaints from the bingo owners,
                          3  and I distinctly remember the bigger halls taking over.
                          4  You see, I played with the VFW.  We had a crowd of 100,
                          5  200 people there twice a week and we had good jackpots,
                          6  you know, $200 or $300 a night, and, of course, your
                          7  big ones, and the bigger halls were not -- I hate to
                          8  say this, but they weren't as honest as your little
                          9  ones, and sometimes those people were always saying the
                          10  owners of those big halls are cheating.  I remember
                          11  some newspaper stories.  In fact, I even remember a
                          12  builder or a developer who owned a bingo hall and he
                          13  got caught and he got in a lot of trouble.
                          14                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  We're out of bounds.
                          15                  MS. NETTLES:  I'm just talking.  I'm
                          16  just telling you that bingo players -- Billy lost his
                          17  people to the Texas Lottery and they want to see balls
                          18  and machines.
                          19                  CHAIRMAN CLOWE:  Thank you.  Thank you
                          20  very much.

                           

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

                           

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

                            time*treat's avatar - radar

                            United States
                            Member #13130
                            March 30, 2005
                            2171 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: June 4, 2005, 2:29 pm - IP Logged

                            After watching downloadable clips of a Virginia State lottery (machines) and something that looks like a 'Wallace & Grommet' production (Minnesota), I see why some would be less than impressed with computer drawings if they had machines before.

                            For those who argue that any 'problem' with a computer drawing will be found and fixed, it may help to point out that this will always be AFTER the fact. Like the Olympic runner tackled in Athens in 2004, the opportunity is gone. The race is not re-run. Plenty of people can lose their money before 'eventually' arrives.

                            The fact is the behavior of a computer program is more controlable than that of a physical machine. When that program is tied to money/power (lotteries/elections), you can be sure someone will try to skew the outcome. Physical tampering leaves more evidence than electronic manipulation any day.

                            Computer drawings will eventually become the rule because critical thinking is no longer part of public education.

                            In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
                            Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

                              LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
                              Tennessee
                              United States
                              Member #7853
                              October 15, 2004
                              11338 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: June 4, 2005, 4:32 pm - IP Logged

                              like i said we need to get a law BANNING computerized drawings because its a form of cheating that gives the lottery commission an unfair advantage in my opinion.like you said it could be skewed,tampered,messed with in any way they like including monitoring the results and programming the drawing to make the daily number the number that was bought the least or not at all by players that day giving the lottery commission maximum profit and the players little or nothing.indiana ia a good example of this and everyone knows they have other scandals already.....

                                 
                                Page 12 of 23