California Lottery fixes major problem with Derby game

Comment #24

CASH Only — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:25:38 GMT

mike:That's s/he .

Comment #23

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:41:44 GMT

Comment #22

CASH Only — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:58:00 GMT

Comment #21

LOTTOMIKE — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:55:47 GMT

i play with balls and balls only

Comment #20

Greg — Wed, 18 May 2005 02:00:16 GMT

A computer can make a missile turn on a dime and then hit a penny in the middle of a forest so how do we absolutely know a state lottery computer isn't programmed to pick a selection of numbers not picked by any player? We don't know!!!! Delaware is a case in point. Despite protests to legislators its games are still being picked by computers. And its jackpots are SO low. Conclusion: there is nothing random in computer selected numbers. Computers are just another way for a state like Delaw... [ More ]

Comment #19

CASH Only — Mon, 16 May 2005 15:41:59 GMT

Maybe it has.

Comment #18

Todd — Mon, 16 May 2005 01:55:01 GMT

dvdiva: great points! Furthermore, who is to say it hasn't already happened

Comment #17

dvdiva — Mon, 16 May 2005 01:11:35 GMT

I would agree that this is a classic example of why computer rng's are not always the best. I always thought it was fine for keno (which I don't play) but for large jackpot games it's a disaster waiting to happen. While people will probably ignore small news like this on a minor game eventually the same news will happen on a major state game like the California superlotto and that will be the real test when people find out the game was rigged to make losing tickets.

Comment #16

LOTTOMIKE — Sun, 15 May 2005 01:41:51 GMT

i agree i'd make COMPUTERIZED DRAWINGS poof gone...

Comment #15

Badger — Sat, 14 May 2005 23:55:30 GMT

Wow ! The PET and the VIC-20 -- brings back old memories. You know, for their time, those were darn good machines !Agree the programs back then were buggy. But one back then didn't release the program chock full of bugs. The programmers used to ask selected users to Beta Test it to discover the bugs. Actually, I had a lot of fun beta-testing. Back then programmers used to often say something like Don't be afraid to hit any combination of keys you want to see if the program crashes. The programme... [ More ]

Comment #14

Todd — Sat, 14 May 2005 16:52:25 GMT

I programmed the C-64 as well, but it sounds like I started a little earlier than you: I also programmed Commodore PETs and VIC-20s. I learned machine code in order to squeeze code in a small space (plus make it run faster), so I understand your point about sloppy coding.We all tend to look down on the bloated coding of today, but an honest appraisal of programming back then would acknowledge that programs were just as buggy as today. People love to program, but they hate to test, and that's b... [ More ]

Comment #13

Badger — Sat, 14 May 2005 16:42:25 GMT

Todd, that was my personal shot at MS. I was not saying that MS was involved. My point is that even MS does the same things...i.e. poor programming and lack of pre-testing (which used to be called Beta Testing in the early PC days. Poor programming is rampant these days because programmers have so much RAM and ROM to play with that they aren't forced to be disciplined.I've been into personal computers since the early 1980's when the C-64 came out. Those days, you not only had to program your o... [ More ]

Comment #12

Todd — Sat, 14 May 2005 03:18:36 GMT

NOOOO!!!!! It has absolutely 100% NOTHING to do with Microsoft! Microsoft has nothing to do with someone programming the Derby game whatsoever. It is very important not to introduce an unrelated element in the argument, because people will use it to try to get rid of their fault.

Comment #11

Badger — Sat, 14 May 2005 02:27:25 GMT

Todd wrote: Normally I would say that's the case, but to me, it appears that the computer programmer who programmed the RNG for the Derby game was not very good. They probably did not test very well either. I think the combination of those two things (bad programming + poor testing which did not ferrit out the problem) led to the glitch.I can't get over what a classic case this is, in showing how terrible computers are for drawing lottery numbers.I can't believe there is not more outrage over... [ More ]

Comment #10

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 13 May 2005 23:10:27 GMT

the powers that be will keep doing it as long as the players keep letting them get away with it by still playing......

Comment #9

Badger — Fri, 13 May 2005 22:38:13 GMT

I agree about the computerized drawings. THe problem is that the Powers That Be have the power. About the only thing the players can do is hit 'em in the pocketbook....by not playing.

Comment #8

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 13 May 2005 19:59:20 GMT

computers should not be used in any lottery game....

Comment #7

JimmySand9 — Fri, 13 May 2005 19:45:01 GMT

I have contacted Governator Ah-nold about the fiasco a few minutes ago. Godspeed.

Comment #6

Todd — Fri, 13 May 2005 19:20:01 GMT

RJOh,Normally I would say that's the case, but to me, it appears that the computer programmer who programmed the RNG for the Derby game was not very good. They probably did not test very well either. I think the combination of those two things (bad programming + poor testing which did not ferrit out the problem) led to the glitch.I can't get over what a classic case this is, in showing how terrible computers are for drawing lottery numbers.I can't believe there is not more outrage over this.... [ More ]

Comment #5

RJOh — Fri, 13 May 2005 16:52:42 GMT

Had the computer program been making a mistake that were in the players favor, it would have been discovered and fixed before going on line. Someone always know what a computer is doing, because it is following a set of instructions.RJOh

Comment #4

JimmySand9 — Fri, 13 May 2005 16:33:02 GMT

The only concern with balls is that a number might be MIA, and all that would mean is that another number would be accepted. Computers are very secretive about what they're actually doing. So nobody knows if the computer is actually drawing random numbers.

Comment #3

CASH Only — Fri, 13 May 2005 16:01:30 GMT

CA requires the cash/annuity choice when you PLAY instead of after you win. I could see CA (or NY, or TX) drawing its lotto by computer, with the software programmed so that only players who chose annuity had a chance to win the jackpot.

Comment #2

Todd — Fri, 13 May 2005 15:47:55 GMT

This story is a great example of how the lotteries are makign a HUGE MISTAKE by going to computerized drawings. We must do everything we can to STOP THEM.There are so many other things that can go wrong, just like this. The whole system of independence and scrutiny is getting the shaft with the mire of computerized drawings.

Comment #1

JAG331 — Fri, 13 May 2005 15:25:17 GMT

I bet that a lot of avid Daily Derby players did notice something and are upset at these guys for speaking up.

California Lottery fixes major problem with Derby game

Lottery Post — Fri, 13 May 2005 14:32:59 GMT

Computerized lottery drawings the culprit in flawed results

Dave Andres, an insurance underwriter from Altadena, California, thought he alone was in the habit of scanning hundreds of winning numbers in the lottery's least-popular game, Daily Derby.

He assumed no one else noticed that for 100 days running this winter, none of the winning times in the horse race-themed game had numbers that were repeated.

He knew that players had to not only pick the right horses but also the last three d... [ More ]