Lottery question revisited
Quote: mrjjjA better record than you.
You won't even post your age, really?
Ken
Nope, as it's completely irrelevant.
You didn't answer my question about Mersenne Twister pRNGs, but that's okay as well.
I do answer most questions I feel like answering. I was pointing out 95% of the time, you do actually answer the question posed. It might just be in a way that no-one understands or likes...
It wasn't meant to be nasty or harsh.
Quote: weaselmanNo, that was rhetorical ... more of a statement than a question really.
The real question I asked you was whether an event never having happened in the past is in your view an indication that it is more (like the numbers you pick making sure they have not hit before) or less (like a repeat of the same combination) likely to happen in the future.
(I have time for one post, then out the door again)
The ole' trick question but I'm a good sport, I'll play along.
A) If I answer.....yes, it is more likely to happen because it has not hit yet, WOW, LOOK OUT. I'll get 31 more posts with all kinds of charts/graphs, insults etc.
B) If I answer.....no, then I'll get asked why I stick with the same sets? Its an attack either way.
This isn't my first rodeo, use your Jedi mind bulls**t on some rookie member. I will answer......I do play BOTH, same sets AND quick picks. Does that not say, I do not believe in either? Look at the example that was posted, in 2,360 draws in Colorado, ONE time the numbers repeated.
So to date, isn't it (in any larger lottery) a 99% chance it won't be a repeat? I am *NOT* asking, what can happen, we went through this already. The math goofs crack me up, I'll give an example >>> The math goofs will say, in the next 50 Powerball drawings, its POSSIBLE (cough) the numbers could be 1 2 3 4 5 6.
Ok, the sane person will say >>> Are you nuts, no damn way. Thats the funny thing about the math goofs, they know the exact math calculation of taking a s**t but they make TERRIBLE roulette players. Did you notice something? Ya thought you were gonna get me to use the word 'gamble', hey? (lol)
Nope.....then I get the speech regarding...."we dont gamble at the casino" blah blah blah, I heard it all before. Listen man, the LAST people I want/need advice from regarding roulette, are math guys.
'They' are *TERRIBLE* problem solvers (roulette, not Apollo 13). How the hell did I get from the lottery over to roulette? (lol)
Ken
Quote: mrjjj
A) If I answer.....yes, it is more likely to happen because it has not hit yet,WOW, LOOK OUT. I'll get 31 more posts with all kinds of charts/graphs, insults etc.
No. No charts or graphs. Just a follow up question. If you think something that has not happened before is more likely to happen, and also claim that a repeat combination has not happened before ... that must mean it is more likely to hit next time. In that case, how come you are not picking one of them every time? Don't you like winning?
Quote:B) If I answer.....no, then I'll get asked why I stick with the same sets? Its an attack either way.
If the answer is just "no", I have no further comments.
If the answer is "no, it makes it less likely to happen in the future", then I have another follow up.
If something that has not happened before is less likely to happen in the future, then why are you playing the combinations that have not hit before, if you think they are less likely to happen than a repeat? Don't you like winning?
Quote:So to date, isn't it (in any larger lottery) a 99% chance it won't be a repeat?
No. It is actually about 99.955%
Compare it to about 99.99998% chance that a particular combination you pick will not hit.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI'm waiting for his claims of: "My method beats the lottery."
Well you're close but I'm STILL waiting for PROOF you do 'well' at the casino.
WAITING........
Ken
Quote: mrjjjWell you're close but I'm STILL waiting for PROOF you do 'well' at the casino.
WAITING........
Ken
I thought we established that there was no possible proof you'd accept... same way as there's no proof you can give that you "do well".
Same rule for both of you, surely?
(Hopefully I am on cue)
Quote: thecesspitI thought we established that there was no possible proof you'd accept... same way as there's no proof you can give that you "do well".
Same rule for both of you, surely?
(Hopefully I am on cue)
VERY TRUE......but does that mean the POINT goes bye bye? (lol) Not on my watch.
(Hopefully I am on cue) I have all day to tear you up.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjVERY TRUE......but does that mean the POINT goes bye bye? (lol) Not on my watch.
Well, yes it does go bye-bye as you are the only one asking for proof right now. So, surely you have to provide it first, before anyone else will provide it to you!
Quote:(Hopefully I am on cue) I have all day to tear you up.
Ken
Go play some roulette Ken, it's more profitable than talking to me.
Quote: thecesspitWell, yes it does go bye-bye as you are the only one asking for proof right now. So, surely you have to provide it first, before anyone else will provide it to you!
Go play some roulette Ken, it's more profitable than talking to me.
I cant play until late July, I addressed that already.
No, it does not go bye bye.
Okay, your turn.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjI cant play until late July, I addressed that already.
Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually read all your posts :) In that case, I'm sure you can find another thing to do which is more profitable than debating rubbish with me.
Quote:No, it does not go bye bye.
Oh it does, cos your not going to get an answer from the poster. It can hang around for a while, but you know, it just hangs around and everyone ignores it.
Quote:Okay, your turn.
Why thank you.
Quote: thecesspitContrary to popular belief, I don't actually read all your posts :) In that case, I'm sure you can find another thing to do which is more profitable than debating rubbish with me.
Oh it does, cos your not going to get an answer from the poster. It can hang around for a while, but you know, it just hangs around and everyone ignores it.
Why thank you.
You're welcome. No, it does not go bye bye. You COMPLAIN regarding 'debating rubbish' but yet.......wait for it.......here you still are.
Why? To argue and cause trouble. I know your type. You better PM the Wizard cause I'm not going anywhere.
Ken
Ken
Quote: mrjjjYou're welcome. No, it does not go bye bye. You COMPLAIN regarding 'debating rubbish' but yet.......wait for it.......here you still are.
Yep, I am. I'm not going to apologize for it, Ken. I'm not going to go away even if you don't like it. I'm just saying, I know you'll keep replying, with a Pavlovian response. You see... I know your type as well.
Quote:Why? To argue and cause trouble. I know your type. You better PM the Wizard cause I'm not going anywhere.
Ken
To argue.... hell yeah, you know it. Why would I PM the Wizard, Ken? A : he'd not listen and B: why ruin the fun. But cause trouble? There's trouble in the intellectual sport of pointing out how someone can't string two logical arguments together? I must be in lots of trouble, Ken!
Quote: thecesspitYep, I am. I'm not going to apologize for it, Ken. I'm not going to go away even if you don't like it. I'm just saying, I know you'll keep replying, with a Pavlovian response. You see... I know your type as well.
To argue.... hell yeah, you know it. Why would I PM the Wizard, Ken? A : he'd not listen and B: why ruin the fun. But cause trouble? There's trouble in the intellectual sport of pointing out how someone can't string two logical arguments together? I must be in lots of trouble, Ken!
Just so we agree.....if this was the opposite, I would be labeled as 'trolling' with a possible ban.
That is 100% accurate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ken
That's what I thought ...
Quote: weaselmanSo, you are not going to answer me after all, are you?
That's what I thought ...
I do/will...nice try though. I'm doing like 20 different things at the moment. BTW, any comment on my post?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjJust so we agree.....if this was the opposite, I would be labeled as 'trolling' with a possible ban.
That is 100% accurate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ken
This post. (regarding thecesspit and I)
Ken
Quote: CrystalMathWisconsin Supercash Repeat drawings 10/22/05 and earlier
date numbers Sunday, July 24, 2005 1 4 11 17 27 35 Thursday, October 12, 2000 1 4 11 17 27 35 Monday, October 07, 2002 1 7 8 25 27 32 Monday, June 26, 2000 1 7 8 25 27 32 Tuesday, July 05, 2005 3 6 19 27 32 35 Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3 6 19 27 32 35 Saturday, July 04, 1998 4 5 8 14 16 19 Friday, April 08, 1994 4 5 8 14 16 19 Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5 14 21 26 27 33 Thursday, August 01, 1991 5 14 21 26 27 33 Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7 10 11 17 20 31 Friday, February 04, 2005 7 10 11 17 20 31 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9 17 23 27 29 34 Monday, December 08, 2003 9 17 23 27 29 34 Wisconsin Supercash Repeat drawings 10/23/05 and later
date numbers Tuesday, September 08, 2009 3 14 19 23 25 28 Monday, September 15, 2008 3 14 19 23 25 28 Thursday, February 09, 2006 4 5 10 16 25 29 Monday, January 30, 2006 4 5 10 16 25 29
There are two tables here, because the number of balls available increased on 10/23/05 from 36 to 39, making the probability of winning 1 in 3,262,623.
The lottery advertises the chance of winning as 1 in 1,631,312, but this is based on purchasing two panels (the minimum purchase) and choosing unique numbers in each of the panels. If you choose the same number in both panels, the chance of winning is 1 in 3,262,623, but your payout will be double.
So 9 in the last 7,665 draws (est)? Yep, I'll stick to staying with same sets IN ADDITION to quick picks.
Ken
Quote: weaselmanNo. No charts or graphs. Just a follow up question. If you think something that has not happened before is more likely to happen, and also claim that a repeat combination has not happened before ... that must mean it is more likely to hit next time. In that case, how come you are not picking one of them every time? Don't you like winning?
If the answer is just "no", I have no further comments.
If the answer is "no, it makes it less likely to happen in the future", then I have another follow up.
If something that has not happened before is less likely to happen in the future, then why are you playing the combinations that have not hit before, if you think they are less likely to happen than a repeat? Don't you like winning?
No. It is actually about 99.955%
Compare it to about 99.99998% chance that a particular combination you pick will not hit.
I said 99%, good enough. So you DO AGREE....in the next lottery, its a 99% chance that a repeat will NOT happen, correct? Also, you didn't comment regarding the fact that I play BOTH, same sets and quick picks. If I only believed in one of the two, why would I play both? I know your game, this isn't tough. You *WANT* me to say a certain something. Other members from other boards have waited for YEARS for me to say the same thing....aint gonna happen, stop waiting. You WANT me to say......I play same set numbers because they are due, they'll hit any damn day now, you'll see!!
Do me a favor, stop waiting for it, move on sir.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjI said 99%, good enough. So you DO AGREE....in the next lottery, its a 99% chance that a repeat will NOT happen, correct?
Yes, correct. Just like there is a (way more than) 99% chance that any particular non-repeat combination will not happen.
Quote:Also, you didn't comment regarding the fact that I play BOTH, same sets and quick picks.
I don't know what you mean by "same sets".
I am going by the statements you made in the earlier posts of this thread, where you explain that in your opinion it is a bad idea to pick a combination that has hit before.
Like this one:
Quote: mrjjjYep, myself.....I would never play repeating numbers but to each their own.
or this:
Quote: mrjjjI play BOTH quick picks and I have 10 sets of numbers that have never hit since 2/91 (21 LONG years).
This is exactly what I am asking. If you think, the fact that something hasn't happened in the past makes it less likely to happen in the future, why in the world would you pick those sets that never hit in "21 long years"? Aren't you interested in maximizing your chance to win?
"If you think, the fact that something hasn't happened in the past makes it less likely to happen in the future" >>> You did it AGAIN, you are in attack mode or something?
I/we know what you want me to say. Now go ahead, ask me again.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjREPEATING NUMBERS as in.....back to back draws, the same numbers.
"If you think, the fact that something hasn't happened in the past makes it less likely to happen in the future" >>> You did it AGAIN, you are in attack mode or something?
I/we know what you want me to say. Now go ahead, ask me again.
What "attack mode" are you talking about?
I am simply asking you a question, that you evidently are having difficulty answering. That is not surprising, because any answer you give will immediately contradict one of the two of your statements I quoted earlier.
This is not happening because I am "in attack mode", it is happening because the position you are defending is self-contradictory. I am not attacking it (let alone you), I am simply pointing out the contradiction to you.
Do you see it now?
Quote: weaselmanWhat "attack mode" are you talking about?
I am simply asking you a question, that you evidently are having difficulty answering. That is not surprising, because any answer you give will immediately contradict one of the two of your statements I quoted earlier.
This is not happening because I am "in attack mode", it is happening because the position you are defending is self-contradictory. I am not attacking it (let alone you), I am simply pointing out the contradiction to you.
Do you see it now?
Nope, no contradiction. Why am I always repeating myself with you? I said.....I would not play REPEATING NUMBERS as in, BACK TO BACK DRAWS. Like this....The Powerball numbers for Wed. were, 4,7,23,27,33,38. I would NOT play those numbers for Saturday. Now go ahead, ask me the same question AGAIN.
Ken
Once again, the definition of 'trolling' does NOT apply to all.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjNope, no contradiction. Why am I always repeating myself with you? I said.....I would not play REPEATING NUMBERS as in, BACK TO BACK DRAWS.
I have no idea why you are always repeating yourself. I can only guess, that it probably has to do with you trying to avoid having to admit that you cannot answer the question you are asked, so instead you are just repeating something irrelevant to try and take the discussion off the point.
Is that it?
Quote: weaselmanI have no idea why you are always repeating yourself. I can only guess, that it probably has to do with you trying to avoid having to admit that you cannot answer the question you are asked, so instead you are just repeating something irrelevant to try and take the discussion off the point.
Is that it?
(LMAO) Are you joking? Are you going to ask me the same answered question AGAIN?? If you dont like my answer, thats tough, I really dont care.
Ken
Quote: mrjjj(LMAO) Are you joking? Are you going to ask me the same answered question AGAIN??
Ok, what is the question you think you have answered? Can you please repeat it for me?
Quote: weaselmanOk, what is the question you think you have answered? Can you please repeat it for me?
Geez, playing the back to back same numbers question. I had said, NO to playing the just hit numbers from the previous draw.
You asked regarding if I thought I had a better chance of hitting if I stuck with the same set. I said.....(we both agreed) that there is a 99% chance a repeat will NOT happen AND I said I play both, same sets and quick picks AND I said......I know what answer you WANT me to give and it will NOT happen so stop waiting for it but here you are.....still thinking I'll say it.
Was there something I missed?
Ken
Quote: mrjjj
You asked regarding if I thought I had a better chance of hitting if I stuck with the same set.
Ok, there is some kind of a misunderstanding here. I never asked you anything like that.
Once again, here is my question to you:
If an event has never happened in the past, does it in your view make it more or less likely to happen in the future?
Quote: weaselmanOk, there is some kind of a misunderstanding here. I never asked you anything like that.
Once again, here is my question to you:
If an event has never happened in the past, does it in your view make it more or less likely to happen in the future?
There it is and dont act so blind. For the 5th time, you *WANT* me to give a certain reply....DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, YES or NO?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjThere it is and dont act so blind. For the 5th time, you *WANT* me to give a certain reply....DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, YES or NO?
For the 5th time, NO, I don't agree.
I don't care what reply you give me as long as it answers the actual question I am really asking.
It can be either one of the three options:
A) Less likely
B) More likely
C) None of the above (i.e. equally likely)
How hard can it be?
Quote: weaselmanFor the 5th time, NO, I don't agree.
I don't care what reply you give me as long as it answers the actual question I am really asking.
It can be either one of the three options:
A) Less likely
B) More likely
C) None of the above (i.e. equally likely)
How hard can it be?
'C' but with something added......there is a 99% chance the numbers that hit tonight on Supercash, have not hit before.
(......wait for it folks)
Ken
Quote: mrjjj'C' but with something added......there is a 99% chance the numbers that hit tonight on Supercash, have not hit before.
So, you believe that the fact that something has not happened in the past does not affect the likelihood of it happening in the future, right?
In that case, what is the rationale behind your starting of this thread in general, and making this statement in particular:
Quote: mrjjjYep, myself.....I would never play repeating numbers but to each their own.
In the beginning of this thread you mentioned that the same combination of numbers has never hit twice in the past, and implied that for that reason it may not be a good idea to pick the same numbers again.
If you really believe what you just said, that the likelihood of a particular combination hitting today is not affected by whether or not it has hit yesterday, then why do you think it is a bad idea to pick such combination?
If it was a good idea to pick it yesterday (before it hit), and the fact that it hit yesterday did not affect the likelihood of it hitting today, then what factor is it that makes it a bad idea today? It is as likely to hit as it was yesterday.
I explained what I play for my Supercash game in my home state. For SOME REASON, this bothers you. I owe you no explanation as to what/why I play a certain way. You continue trying to 'get me', good luck with that BTW. You asked me a question and gave me choices of A or B or C....I answered BUT YET, you continue on.
Now if it was me hounding you, it would be called TROLLING. I love the consistency here.
Ken
Ken
Quote: mrjjj
I explained what I play for my Supercash game in my home state. For SOME REASON, this bothers you.
I owe you no explanation as to what/why I play a certain way.
Nope, it does not bother me a tiny bit. And, of course, you don't owe me anything.
You started a thread on a public forum, which kinda implies that you wanted to make some kind of a point or convey some information, or just start a discussion ...
If that's not the case, and all you want to do is to continue incoherent blabbering instead of engaging into a conversation, that's a different story. Please just say that it is the case, and I will gladly leave you alone and stop reading your ramblings.
Quote:You asked me a question and gave me choices of A or B or C....I answered BUT YET, you continue on.
Well, yeah ... Like I said, I am trying to have a conversation. That usually involves more than one question.
But again, if you prefer blabbering alone to conversing, just say so.
Ken
Quote: weaselmanSo, no conversation then?
Conversation? Sure.
Trying to BAIT me into saying a certain something for your amusement? No.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjConversation? Sure.
Trying to BAIT me into saying a certain something for your amusement? No.
I don't get it.
Why do you think I am trying to "bait" you? What is it you think I am trying to get you to say anyway? And why do you think I would want you to say it?
Quote: weaselmanI don't get it.
Why do you think I am trying to "bait" you? What is it you think I am trying to get you to say anyway? And why do you think I would want you to say it?
I answered that ALREADY but can do it again....... you (and others from different boards) try and get me to say, "I have a better chance of hitting my lottery numbers because I am playing numbers that are due, they will hit soon".
Whether its roulette or the lottery. Then, if I say that (which I won't) its attack time regarding "nothing is due" blah blah blah, I've been down this road 300 times before. The part I dont get, is that you dont respect how I play. I play both ways, same sets and quick picks......SO WHAT??
Ken
Quote: mrjjjI answered that ALREADY but can do it again....... you (and others from different boards) try and get me to say, "I have a better chance of hitting my lottery numbers because I am playing numbers that are due, they will hit soon".
And you don't think so? Well, that's even better. I am not at all trying to get you to say anything you do not believe to be true. To the contrary, what I want to find out is what it is actually that you do believe to be true.
So, you and I agree, that all combinations of lottery numbers have equal chance of hitting in the next drawing, right?
In that case, why do you think it is a bad idea to pick the same numbers that hit last time? I am not trying to get you say anything. I am asking that you explain your reasoning to me, that's all.
Quote:I play both ways, same sets and quick picks......SO WHAT??
I don't know "so what". You started the thread. You tell me "so what". Why did you start it? What was the point you wanted to make?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjThis is what I know....in my next lottery drawing here, there is OVER a 99% chance that those numbers have not yet hit.
Indeed. But what do you think is the chance that the numbers you pick do not hit? Is it more or less? Or the same?
Quote: weaselmanIndeed. But what do you think is the chance that the numbers you pick do not hit? Is it more or less? Or the same?
Now answering TWICE...'C'. (same)
Ok, now you fire back with your other 7 questions.....OMG, I'm going to bed. Get a hobby or something. What about stamp collecting?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjNow answering TWICE...'C'. (same)
Ok, now you fire back with your other 7 questions....
No, not 7. Just one ... Same old question.
If the chance is the same, then how does it matter which numbers to pick? Why do you think that picking a repeat sequence is a bad idea? Wasn't the purpose of starting this thread for you to explain this very point? Now is the time!
Quote: weaselmanSo, you and I agree, that all combinations of lottery numbers have equal chance of hitting in the next drawing, right?
In that case, why do you think it is a bad idea to pick the same numbers that hit last time? I am not trying to get you say anything. I am asking that you explain your reasoning to me, that's all.
Not to totally derail things, but it's a bad idea in the same way that playing 1-2-3-4-5-6 is a bad idea, or that playing your birthday day/month is a bad idea: more people play those numbers than other combinations, so if you win with those numbers, you'll win less than you'd win with other numbers. Since all combinations are equally likely to appear, but not equally wagered-upon, you're better off playing the numbers that are less likely to be wagered upon and therefore less likely to split the jackpot. Expectation is the product of probability and value. The probability of each outcome is fixed, but the value isn't because not everyone plays quick-picks.
Quote: weaselmanNo, not 7. Just one ... Same old question.
If the chance is the same, then how does it matter which numbers to pick? Why do you think that picking a repeat sequence is a bad idea? Wasn't the purpose of starting this thread for you to explain this very point? Now is the time!
Also, when I do my 'same set' numbers, I do them twice. So it would be 700K instead of 350K. I'll tell you what. You tell me what you WANT TO HEAR and I'll post it. Sound cool?
Ken
Quote: MathExtremist
Not to totally derail things, but it's a bad idea in the same way that playing 1-2-3-4-5-6 is a bad idea,
Yeah ... it was said early on, that we are not talking about splitting the jackpot. Assume that if multiple tickets win, multiple prizes of the same size are awarded.
But to your point ... There is a possibility that this theory with multiple people picking an "easy" combination has become so common, that it is actually better to pick something like 1-2-3-4-5-6, or, perhaps, the last drawing's sequence, because no other idiot will do it :)
Also, interestingly enough, I have heard in some Eastern European countries the exact opposite of this theory - most people think like mrjjj, and will not pick such an "unlikely" combination, so, by choosing it, you must be increasing your potential prize.
