Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 6, 2016, 5:13 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 16 of 23
53
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #16612
June 2, 2005
3493 Posts
Offline
Posted: July 26, 2005, 11:53 pm - IP Logged

I agree with this.

    Avatar
    Alabama
    United States
    Member #17830
    June 27, 2005
    309 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: July 27, 2005, 12:04 am - IP Logged

    I signed the petition last week.  I played a bit of Hoosier Lottery (Lotto and Lucky 5) while on vacation a few weeks ago, however I'm finished with them.  I haven't won anything recently (since they went to all computerized drawings).  I have family living in Indiana and visit 2-4 times a year.

    Before computer drawings, I won $203 and $206 in Lucky 5 (evening draw), playing mulit draws.  That was over a period of 7 or 8 months.  On the $203 prize, I was one number on one ball away from $50,000 (I had a 3 and needed a 2)!

      LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
      Tennessee
      United States
      Member #7853
      October 15, 2004
      11338 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: July 27, 2005, 12:11 am - IP Logged

      as you know indiana is a great state....but as far as the lottery goes it could be voted the worst....we've even had members of this site take this to the council in indiana to try and get a measure on the ballot so people could vote on if they wanted computerized drawings or ball drawings but all the major players behind the scenes with the lottery commission made sure that it didn't even get to a vote.with the scratch off scandal and sales steadily dipping in indiana the only game worth having a fair shot is powerball because they can't get their hands on it.there is a member here who goes by the name losingjeff and him and jim695 have attempted to fight this but they are up against too many powerful people.if i would've been there i would've been right there with them fighting it........

        Avatar
        New Member

        United States
        Member #19660
        August 3, 2005
        5 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: August 11, 2005, 10:02 am - IP Logged

        It has been proven more than once that computerized random drawings are NOT RANDOM--the question is how skewed are they.  However, in the book "The Lottery Industry" you'll find there are several examples of stuff that goes wrong with mechanical drawings as well.  (Although the book also includes the worst computerized random drawing incident ever)! 

        Make them random!!!

          cahaba's avatar - moon
          Birmingham
          United States
          Member #18850
          July 21, 2005
          82 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: August 19, 2005, 4:27 pm - IP Logged

          Thanks!

          Cahaba

            NemeSys's avatar - Nemesis
            Harrogate
            United Kingdom
            Member #16589
            June 1, 2005
            107 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: August 25, 2005, 12:56 pm - IP Logged

            This is a contentious topic, to say the least. From the length of the petition thread I can see many people here are firmly against electronic random number generators. So I'd like to play devil's advocate and propose that RNGs aren't such a bad thing after all (now I know how spokespeople for nuclear energy and vivisection feel).

            Mechanical draws appeal to lottery players for several reasons: they are seen to be fair; people like to root for their numbers; watching the balls provides both tension and a thrill; and it just looks good when televised. Electronic draws, however, are viewed with suspicion; there is simply nothing to see. No matter how large and flashy the display, an electronic draw has all the appeal of a cash register.

            But the main criticism of electronic draws is the most serious, and that is the question of randomness (whcih also means fairness). Not only is there nothing to see, but electronic RNGs aren't even random! For the first few decades of the digital computer era this was true. The numbers are pseudo-random, and after thousands or even millions of numbers they repeat themselves. Obviously such RNGs are useless for lottery games protected in law, with severe penalties for lottery operators who fall foul of them. But mathematics has finally triumphed, creating RNGs comparable to any natural or physical means of generating random numbers.

            Modern RNG algorithms are triumphs of computation and the mathematician's craft. They have truly astonishing periods (how many numbers they generate before they begin to repeat themselves). The current best RNG is MT19937, developed by two Japanese mathematicians, Makoto Matsumoto and Takuji Nishimura in 1998 (revised in 2002 to remove undesirable results obtained from certain seed values).

            For the technically-minded, MT19937 is a variant of the twisted generalized feedback shift-register algorithm, and has a Mersenne prime period of 2^19937 - 1 (hence the name, the MT standing for "Mersenne Twister"), or about 10^6000. Let's put this gargantuan number into perspective: at the rate of 1,000,000,000 numbers PER SECOND it would take 10^5983 years before MT19937 began to repeat. Our universe is estimated to be only about 1.2 x 10^12 years old.

            Naturally such a powerful RNG is no mere academic plaything. It is used in quantum chromodynamic calculations, lattice field theory simulations, cosmological computer models, simulations of nuclear weapon explosions, and numerical tests of high-end supercomputers (MT19937 can even be adapted for cryptography). MT19937 has passed the most rigorous statistical tests for randomness yet devised, the toughest of which is the ominously-named Diehard suite of tests:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard_tests

            MT19937 represents the pinnacle of RNG science, but more modest algorithms would serve just as well for a lottery draw. One known as gsl_rng_rand has a period of 2^31, more than 2,000,000,000 numbers. At the rate of six numbers per week this would run for the best part of seven million years before it began to repeat. The human race might not even exist seven million years from now, let alone lotteries...

            So, modern RNGs are no longer anything to be afraid of. The security issues are exactly the same as for any mechanical draw (locks, safes, and more than one pair of eyeballs). Several countries around the world use computerized draws. One of the largest is in China. Also, some games actually employ an RNG so players can get their numbers at the point-of-sale terminal. Nobody seems to mind this.

            Finally, for the curious (or just plain masochistic) Matsumoto and Nishimura's original 1998 paper on MT19937 can be viewd at:

            http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~m-mat/MT/ARTICLES/mt.pdf

            "God is subtle but He is not malicious." - Albert Einstein

            "In my experience there's no such thing as luck." - Alec Guinness, Star Wars Episode IV

              Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
              Chief Bottle Washer
              New Jersey
              United States
              Member #1
              May 31, 2000
              23261 Posts
              Online
              Posted: August 25, 2005, 1:32 pm - IP Logged

              It's extremely annoying that people keep playing devil's advocate with the theory of randomness.  It is like people like this who close their ears and refuse to listen to what we are all saying.

              I frankly could care less about scientific theory of randomness, and if you took the time to really understand what we are all saying, you would stop posting this theorectical stuff.

               

               

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

               

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

                NemeSys's avatar - Nemesis
                Harrogate
                United Kingdom
                Member #16589
                June 1, 2005
                107 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: August 25, 2005, 2:38 pm - IP Logged

                You accuse me of closing my ears and refusing to listen, and yet you become "extremely annoyed" when you hear an opposing view!

                As for all the theoretical stuff, ultimately it's what underpins the arguments for and against computerized draws. I think without it you aren't left with much, just simple disagreement.

                At least it wasn't a one-line post...

                "God is subtle but He is not malicious." - Albert Einstein

                "In my experience there's no such thing as luck." - Alec Guinness, Star Wars Episode IV

                  Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
                  Chief Bottle Washer
                  New Jersey
                  United States
                  Member #1
                  May 31, 2000
                  23261 Posts
                  Online
                  Posted: August 25, 2005, 2:47 pm - IP Logged

                  I rest my case.  You appear not to have good listening (or rather, reading) skills.

                  I never said I was "extremely annoyed" by opposing views, as you wrongly stated.  I said that I was annoyed by people who play devil's advocate with the theory of randomness, when that is not the single (or major) reason for opposing computerized drawings.

                  You appear to have no concept of the argument whatsoever, if you think theoretical garbage is the underpinnings of our argument against computerized drawings.

                  Tell you what:  you go through the petition, and run down each of the arguments listed in there, and show how your theory of randomness counters it.  I think you'll find that only one or two arguments has anything remotely to do with your theory stuff.

                   

                   

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

                   

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

                    NemeSys's avatar - Nemesis
                    Harrogate
                    United Kingdom
                    Member #16589
                    June 1, 2005
                    107 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: August 25, 2005, 3:02 pm - IP Logged

                    I understand the issues perfectly. And your phrase "theoretical garbage" speaks volumes. It isn't the first time you have derided theory when I have mentioned it. Perhaps you should learn some first. Clearly my thoughts aren't welcome in this thread, so you can have the last word.

                    "God is subtle but He is not malicious." - Albert Einstein

                    "In my experience there's no such thing as luck." - Alec Guinness, Star Wars Episode IV

                      Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
                      Chief Bottle Washer
                      New Jersey
                      United States
                      Member #1
                      May 31, 2000
                      23261 Posts
                      Online
                      Posted: August 25, 2005, 3:09 pm - IP Logged

                      You know, I'm not going to accept your turning this around on me.  I have every same right you do to have a strong opinion, and I'm expressing mine.

                      I have not limited your ability to spread your opinions, as wrong as they might be, and I don't appreciate the implication that I am doing that.

                      I also don't appreciate that you seem to be saying that there is something wrong with me saying what's on my mind.

                      What, am I supposed to sit here and listen to your support for computerized drawings and not say something?  Am I supposed to disagree with you, but not be able to say so?

                      You are not superior to anyone here, and you do not have some kind of special priveledge to shut down my opinions.

                      And yes, you are spewing "theoretical garbage", because it has very little to do with the issues raised by the majority of people on this web site, and therefore it is worth very little -- like garbage is.

                       

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

                       

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

                        Avatar
                        New Member

                        United States
                        Member #19660
                        August 3, 2005
                        5 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: August 25, 2005, 4:00 pm - IP Logged

                        Interesting bantering going on here. 

                        Which one of the following best represents the fundamental question?

                        1) Which method (mechanical or computerize) of drawing numbers for lottery games consistently delivers adequately random results?

                        2) Which method of drawing numbers for lottery games delivers the "most" random results when there is not a problem with the drawing? 

                        3) Which method of drawing numbers for lottery games delivers adequately random results and is the least likely to have a disruption in the drawing process?

                        Or, am I missing it completely? 

                        I am very interested in the issue of randomness for lottery drawings, but both methods have had very serious problems in the past. 

                          Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
                          Chief Bottle Washer
                          New Jersey
                          United States
                          Member #1
                          May 31, 2000
                          23261 Posts
                          Online
                          Posted: August 25, 2005, 6:15 pm - IP Logged

                          Since you only have 4 posts so far, I'm not sure if you are asking genuine questions, or if you're another pseudonym made up by the same person who keeps signing up under different names, but I'll explain, hopefully for the last time, that randomness plays only a small part in the case against computerized drawings.

                          All this is clearly spelled out in the petition, and I'm sure you've read it, which is why I have my suspicions about everyone that comes here spouting off about randomness being a big thing.  It's not.

                          People who work for these computerized drawing companies are feeling the heat of players who strongly dislike their products, so they come here to try to defend their wares.  They try to break everything down into a discussion of "how random" their products are.  Who really cares about that?  It doesn't matter how random something is if someone can change a program to spit out whatever numbers they choose.

                           

                           

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

                           

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

                            Avatar
                            NY,NY
                            United States
                            Member #3793
                            February 21, 2004
                            845 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: September 1, 2005, 12:17 am - IP Logged

                            Hey guys Signed too

                            The Pic 3 guy of NY-Sheldon :) Hi all

                              LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
                              Tennessee
                              United States
                              Member #7853
                              October 15, 2004
                              11338 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: September 21, 2005, 7:05 am - IP Logged

                              i'm hoping that both of the new states to join the lottery will be ball oriented and stay that way.north carolina and oklahoma deserve a fair game.....

                                 
                                Page 16 of 23