649 formula

Reply #109

RJOh — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:24:46 GMT

I've been playing Ohio's Classic Lotto (6/49) recently and using a group from the last 29-35 drawings has been useless since all forty-nine numbers have hit in the last 25 drawings or less. You need to know more than just the average number of drawings it takes for all 49 numbers to hit.

Reply #108

Gwoof — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:00:13 GMT

I'm now using a variable average (29 to 35) groups of games when picking my numbers to play. I managed to get 5 numbers plus the bonus in 26 numbers on the last draw comparing these groups. Note this is on paper only. If this continues I will need to find a way to play them where I won't break my bank. Are there any sugestions as to how to play that many numbers where you could at least break even or get a resonable return. This average thing so far looks promising. (I hope it wasn't just a one... [ More ]

Reply #107

Stack47 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:22:26 GMT

I guess they assumed when you said you would have better odds of winning the jackpot by using the number 31 that you were trying to trick a reader into believing the overall odds were better. They must believe we under some type of oblication to show a mathematical breakdown because one or two readers don't understand the overall odds are factored into a conditional bet.

The odds against matching 3 numbers in Ohio Classic Lotto are 57 to 1. If you played a 36 line 2 if 5 of 48 numbers wheel k... [ More ]

Reply #106

RJOh — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:46:07 GMT

It has been said that name calling is the last refuge of those who lack an alternate logical argument or any thing intelligent to add to the conversation so that's the cost one pays for posting facts even though the source of those facts are available for anyone to check.

Reply #105

Stack47 — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:27:33 GMT

In their first post Mathhead said:

Gwoof, this thread will degenerate into a lot of name-calling and other ad hominem comments very quickly. I just want to forewarn you.

At least they got something right, but from my point-of-view they provoked it.

Reply #104

RJOh — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:51:27 GMT

Glad to hear you got the information you sought in spite of all the non informative opinions that were posted. Good luck to you.

Reply #103

Gwoof — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:04:03 GMT

For anyones information a friend made for me the calculations for the average appearance of the numbers from 1 to 49 over the history of the Atlantic 649 up to Wednesdays draw. With the bonus the min. was 14 and the max. was 52 giving an avg. 27.8 . Without the bonus min. 17 and the max. was 63 giving an avg. of 32.9 . Presently number 49 is out 41 games. That is in I think 1112 games. It looks close to the averages given by you guys. I'm not quite understanding the quads and trips you are refer... [ More ]

Reply #102

CARBOB — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:57:36 GMT

The number was 7115, are you still disbelieving, non lottery players? Have no idea why anyone who does not play the lottery would be on this forum. I think, I recommend all non lottery players not be allowed!! Maybe, include all the Obama supporters.

Reply #101

Stack47 — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:49:08 GMT

The way you dismiised Richard Arnold Epstein when I first referenced him, it would appear you don't respect his knowledge and experience.

I can't find him on the members list so you'll have to show me his posts. If he is not responding to comments, remarks, suggestions, or any general discussion, he is irrelevant on LP. Do you personally know Epstein?

BTW, most psychologists will tell you that people who are secure with their intelligence and self worth very seldom find it necessary to a... [ More ]

Reply #100

jimmy4164 — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:39:47 GMT

Stack47,

Well, you've done it again! As I said earlier:

It's really quite impossible for you to learn anything from me. Besides, since you have this all figured out, I hate to see you missing so many winning opportunities by wasting your time explaining to me in detail how well you understand my posts, repeatedly mentioning errors I have since fixed, and how I could have better presented material in other ways.

The way you dismiised Richard Arnold Epstein when I first reference... [ More ]

Reply #99

jimmy4164 — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:24:38 GMT

Had I would have would have had I

Hindsight - Amazing, isn't it

Reply #98

CARBOB — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:00:26 GMT

What I don't understand is, why they keep posting the same message, over and over. Do they not understand this a lottery forum where we discuss gambling methods for the different games. Every bet we make is a conditional bet, we win or we lose. There was a poster from Tn, I think Tntea, not sure if that is correct. She came up with this tip about the zero, in Cash 3. This is the way it worked. If the draw contain a 0 , like 806, you would play the 886 866 008 880 600 doubles. One Friday night, i... [ More ]

Reply #97

RJOh — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:19:33 GMT

That post was a response to a post that CARBOB made to me, nothing more.

Your need to post about what I could know and not know is starting to make me think the same way about your posts as you do about Stack's posts.

Reply #96

Stack47 — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:08:49 GMT

It's called gambling, you and all the rest of the non-believers keep believing the past does not affect the future.

If Larry Hughes had known prior to the WVA pick-4 drawing that 1234 would be drawn, he would have certainly bet more than $61 on that number. Though the majority of us already know betting $61 on the same number in every drawing that was only drawn once in 10,000 drawings is a terrible bet, lately it seems there will always be someone lecturing us on why.

You and RJ were dis... [ More ]

Reply #95

mathhead — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:32:36 GMT

CARBOB wrote: ``The number 31 was the only value that could change the direction the string was going. It's called gambling, you and all the rest of the non-believers keep believing the past does not affect the future.``

``Whereas games of chance provided the impetus for the mathematical study of probability, fundamental issues are still obscured by the superstitions of gamblers`` -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability#History.

CARBOB wrote: ``In Fla Play 4, P3. The digit 1 is the on... [ More ]

Reply #94

Stack47 — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:16:46 GMT

It's obvious there is nothing I can teach you about mathematics, especially about probability as it applies to the lottery.

If this was an English class you would try to teach an obscure Chinese dialect. A member asks a simple question that has a simple answer and you try to turn into a learning experience and it still took you three tries before coming close to the answer they were looking for. What you fail to realize is your answer of about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 an... [ More ]

Reply #93

mathhead — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:13:01 GMT

PS: I wrote: ``the 1:1032 odds do not include the limitation of combinations with 31.``

Well, I believe the odds of randomly matching any 4 (and not more) of a combination that includes 31 is 9660/13,983,816, about 1:1448.

But on second thought, I don't think that's the better odds that RJOh is looking for. He is still talking about matching all 6, I think. The odds will always be 1:13,983,816. We just need to count the compound conditions (includes 31 and excludes any previously-drawn qua... [ More ]

Reply #92

CARBOB — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:50:47 GMT

mathhead,

The number 31 was the only value that could change the direction the string was going. It's called gambling, you and all the rest of the non-believers keep believing the past does not affect the future.

In Fla Play 4, P3. The digit 1 is the only value that can stop the string where all the digits 0-9 have been coming from. So if you played all the straight combos with a 1 in P1 and the 1 hits, you have just won $5000. Again, it's called gambling.

1 17

2 1 4521... [ More ]

Reply #91

mathhead — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:27:34 GMT

RJOh wrote: ``Had I played and picked 31 as my key number, my odds of picking the other five winning numbers would have been 1:1,712,304``.

Yes, if you could know a priori that 31 would be picked. But looking forward, you cannot know that. So your true odds are the probability of matching a combination with 31 (1/1,712,304) times the probability that one of those combinations is drawn (1,712,304/13,983,816). That is 1:13,983,816, the same probability as matching all 6 randomly. So your odds a... [ More ]

Reply #90

RJOh — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:30:22 GMT

*Note:

For those interested in such things yesterday's OCL drawing 06/12/13 - 04 14 27 31 37 38 was its 1001. Each combination of six has 15 combinations of fours of which OCL have used 14,521 of the 211,876 possible. Yesterday's drawing added 15 new ones to that growing list.

Reply #89

RJOh — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:54:02 GMT

Had I played and picked 31 as my key number, my odds of picking the other five winning numbers would have been 1:1,712,304 instead of the 12M I was guessing. Odds would have been even better had I avoided any combination of four that had already hit. Something to think about when I play this Saturday.

Reply #88

CARBOB — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:58:42 GMT

Maybe past draws can be used after all

Reply #87

jimmy4164 — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:16:08 GMT

Stack47,

It's obvious there is nothing I can teach you about mathematics, especially about probability as it applies to the lottery. If you had been a student in one of my classes years ago, and you had been as vocal there as you are here, I would have reminded you of the drop/add period dates, and suggested you take another course. The equivalent of that in these Forums would be for you to ignore my posts. It's really quite impossible for you to learn anything from me. Besides, since you hav... [ More ]

Reply #86

RJOh — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:25:11 GMT

I see 31 did come up in tonight's OCL drawing so all 49 numbers have hit in the last 29 drawings for Saturday's drawing.

Reply #85

Stack47 — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:18:14 GMT

Gwoof is looking for an average number of drawings where they could expect to see all 49 numbers drawn and asked if there is a formula.

95% of the variates will tend to fall within TWO(2) Standard Deviations.

You might think you understand mathematics better than most of us, but most of us were taught an average is usually determined by using 100% of the events. In the third post on this thread, Gwoof said they knew at least 80% of the numbers were drawn in an average 20 drawings and mad... [ More ]

Reply #84

RJOh — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:10:12 GMT

I think I see what you mean now with 31 being the last or 49th number to come up in the last 33 drawings.

Ronnie316 was trying something similar with the multi-states games and I don't think he found any numbers were more likely to be drawn based on their positions on a list of numbers that were last drawn. Beside even if 31 came up, I would still have to pick five other numbers which still leaves me with 12 millions possible combinations.

I follow the pick5 and all jackpot games played i... [ More ]

Reply #83

CARBOB — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:00:52 GMT

Ohio 6/49 Classic

The last column are the numbber of draws for all 49 numbers to show. The last draw, all 49 numbers was covered in 33 draws. If you think it will not go to 34, play the 31, where all the numbers are covered in the last 29 draws, if my calca are correct.

Reply #82

RJOh — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:34:36 GMT

Sounds like you and Gwoof are looking for the same information, keep an eye on his threads just in case.

Reply #81

Elizabeth03 — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:08:23 GMT

I live in Canada, and want to win the lotto 649; and I am ready now;

anybody have any helpful hint's for me please

Reply #80

RJOh — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:56:14 GMT

What string and game are you talking about? What I posted was just the number of drawings it took for all 49 numbers to be drawn in Ohio's Classic Lotto history, nothing about picking numbers to play.

Reply #79

jimmy4164 — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:56:55 GMT

Stack47,

You quoted me saying, Which menas that about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 and 54.4.

And then you said, But if the mean is 35.2 and the standard deviation is 9.6, shouldn't that be between 25.6 and 44.8?

9.6 is ONE(1) Standard Deviation. 95% of the variates will tend to fall within TWO(2) Standard Deviations.

It pays to click and read the references that people post before critiquing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule

--Jimm... [ More ]

Reply #78

CARBOB — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:57:18 GMT

RJ,

If you believe the string will continue( last column), don't play 31, if you think the string will break, play 31.

DRAWS

X X X X X 31 29

6 22 29 44 45 48 33

6 13 25 26 36 47 32

21 23 29 30 39 45 31

3 9 15 23 29 47 30

1 2 10 12 16 29 29

1 11 26 42 45 48 28

10 18 23 42 45 48 28

7 10 12 25 37 46 27

8 30 33 38 40 46 26

2 5 12 16 24 45 36

Reply #77

Stack47 — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 06:40:28 GMT

Again, I usually ignore your postings as wasted hot air.

Speaking of hot air , other than telling us about day dreaming of purchasing lots of tickets, you basically posted what's in the article.

No explanation of what Harvey considered optimal . My definition, again, is: maximum number of unique sub-combinations.

Actually there is a simple explanation, but you won't see it by day dreaming, fantasizing, or running 4,000 simulations.

With just 4000 simulated sets of draws, we can d... [ More ]

Reply #76

jimmy4164 — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:57:45 GMT

Mathhead,

When you said, ...the article says exactly what I have been saying all along, namely: the only way to improve your odds is to purchase more tickets (lines). , you said it all! And your description of the roll down clinches it.

This horse was beaten to death in April but these people are so desperate to prove we are wrong that they've picked up their clubs yet again. They apparently want people to believe that the syndicates that expoited the Roll Down were using previous dr... [ More ]

Reply #75

mathhead — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 03:24:51 GMT

Again, I usually ignore your postings as wasted hot air. But that comment is interesting because of how it reflects on you.

Referring to http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2012/08/14/winning-the-lottery, the article says exactly what I have been saying all along, namely: the only way to improve your odds is to purchase more tickets (lines). And the tickets should have the maximum number of unique sub-combinations. I'm sure that is all the group in the article did.

The article states: ``T... [ More ]

Reply #74

Stack47 — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 03:05:06 GMT

Have you noticed how Jimmy tries to take over even the simplest topics because of his Delusions of Grandeur?

Maybe he can explain the difference between my answer You'll never get an exact number because some number have gone 50, 60, or more drawings without being drawn and it's possible for all 49 numbers to be drawn in under 20 drawings. and his answer 90 is closer to the expected average. his second answer Which menas that about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 and 54.4. he ga... [ More ]

Reply #73

Stack47 — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 02:45:36 GMT

I guess that proves some mathematicians use their knowledge to win money and our resident pretend mathematicans just spread the BS.

Reply #72

Ronnie316 — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:05:55 GMT

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2012/08/14/winning-the-lottery

Reply #71

Ronnie316 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:55:05 GMT

What I have been repeatedly trying to tell you is that, over the long haul, it makes absolutely no difference how you select your numbers

What about the short haul Jammy

Reply #70

jimmy4164 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:37:27 GMT

RJOh,

You asked, Are you suggesting that any effort beyond using quick picks and combinations of birth dates is a waste of time?

If you read below, you can answer your own question.

Please excuse me for paraphrasing myself.

Yes! You CAN effect the DISTRIBUTION of your winnings!

The mathematics governing probability in lottery games is elementary and pathetically simple. There's no logical reason AGAINST selecting your numbers in any way you wish. You won't lose [or... [ More ]

Reply #69

Stack47 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:12:49 GMT

It's really a tough call whether or not to include the bonus number because the seventh and bonus number drawn only applies to matching the second prize of 5 + 1 in the Atlantic game.

Match Prize Amount

6 of 6 CA$1 Million

5 of 6 + Bonus CA$64,900

5 of 6 CA$649

4 of 6 CA$64

3 of 6 CA$6

Ohio had a similar game called Super Lotto Plus that drew a seventh and bonus number too, but that game paid for matching 3 + 1 and 4 + 1. I know RJ remembers that g... [ More ]

Reply #68

Stack47 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:58:59 GMT

The only benefit of matching the bonus number is the matching five of the six drawn numbers plus the bonus number. Successfully picking the bonus number won't help you win the jackpot. If I was looking for say 18 numbers that consistently match three or more numbers, I might exclude the bonus number because matching the bonus number wouldn't give me a three or more numbers match.

For statistics, either always use the bonus number or never use it. Over time you may discover which way benefits... [ More ]

Reply #67

RJOh — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:02:56 GMT

Are you suggesting that any effort beyond using quick picks and combinations of birth dates is a waste of time? Players who pick their own combinations aren't picking them for the benefits of anyone other than themselves. If they chose to post their picks on the prediction board, who does it harm? Playing the lotteries is limited to adults. Why should players picking their own combinations care any more about your opinion than you care about theirs

Reply #66

RJOh — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:51:40 GMT

Any question can be asked, it's getting a correct answer that's the problem. Questions are usually asked by players who wants someone else to expend the effort to get an answer.

Reply #65

CARBOB — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:36:07 GMT

If all the balls are in the same machine and they use the first 6 balls as the draw and the 7th ball as the bonus, why wouldn't they all be in your analysis? Instead of asking, how many draws does it take for a 6/49, why not ask how many draws doesit take for a 7/49? Just asking

Reply #64

Gwoof — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:13:11 GMT

Am I to understand then even though the bonus number comes out of the machine at the same time as the 6 regular numbers it would not have an effect on the 6 regular numbers in the following draws since all the balls have an equal chance of dropping? I always thought it might have an effect. I have always used it in my search for a winning combination. If that's the case I will have to rethink my methods.

Reply #63

jimmy4164 — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:52:08 GMT

Mathhead Yoho,

Trying to demonstrate to people here that it is FUTILE to attempt to predict lottery draws by looking back at previous draws... IS FUTILE! The stakes are too high for the most aggressive of our obfuscators. If we were to succeed in helping too many people to understand their futility, at least ONE of our detractors would have to go out and get a REAL JOB! This same ONE thinks he's the smartest guy in the room as he dismisses our work as hogwash, but fails to realize how telling... [ More ]

Reply #62

Stack47 — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:27:44 GMT

If the data you're looking for depends on an equal amount of drawings, it will have to be your best guess because there is no set amount of drawings and there will be times when that won't show all 49 numbers drawn. If you don't need a set amount of drawings, just go back to the number of drawings when all 49 numbers were drawn.

The Atlantic 6/49 creates a difference set of circumstances because the bonus (seventh) number is one of the remaining numbers, but doesn't contribute to a jackpot wi... [ More ]

Reply #61

Gwoof — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:18:17 GMT

Sorry for not commenting earlier. I don't no if you could call it a filter . What I was thinking if you had an average for the length of games it would take to include all the numbers from 1 to 49 instead of the 80% in 20 games you would be able to see by taking that average segement of the history in your game, how the numbers performed in that group and comparing it to another average group and would the 20% make much difference to the results. I don't know if anyone else uses the 80% in 20 ga... [ More ]

Reply #60

Stack47 — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:35:07 GMT

It's difficult because it's an insufficient and misleading statement.

What is so difficult about answering a question

Is there away to calculate the average number of games it would take for all the numbers from 1 to 49 to appear over the history of a 649 game or do you have to run down through the history 1 game at a time to check how long it takes.

with You'll never get an exact number because some number have gone 50, 60, or more drawings without being drawn and giving a ball park... [ More ]

Reply #59

Stack47 — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 05:51:00 GMT

Moreover, I did not say that __I__ answered Gwoof's question. I simply said it had already been answered .

Saying you didn't answers Gwoof's question doesn't change the fact you gave a wrong answer.

On average, it takes about 539 draws to see all 49 numbers; 90 drawings of 6 numbers each.

Even Jimmy noticed you said it.

If you check back with Mathhead's revised simulation results you will discover that using 35-39 as your expected average is quite likely going to put you into ban... [ More ]

Reply #58

mathhead — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 22:42:08 GMT

I usually ignore your postings (certainly in this thread) as a waste of hot air. But I suppose that nonsensical remark deserves a response, even though it reflects more on your character than on mine.

I posted the following at https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/262010/3100463 on June 5: ``Actually, that demonstrates that neither of my passes is correct. I'll have to look for a programming error later. [....] Sorry for the misdirection.``

Moreover, I did not say that __I__ answered Gwoof's... [ More ]

Reply #57

jimmy4164 — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 22:07:26 GMT

It's difficult because it's an insufficient and misleading statement. Mathhead, RJOh, and myself went to the trouble to do the calculations; all you did was come to kibitz.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/262010/3100543

Reply #56

Stack47 — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:23:18 GMT

Posters are getting like politicians with their answers, when someone ask a question it gets answered by what ever the poster want to talk about.

Asking on average how many drawing cycles should it take before each of 49 numbers drawn at 6 in each drawing isn't what I would call complex math. Just like with politicians, we're seeing complex answers that never really answer the question.

What is so difficult about saying in the majority of drawing cycles all 49 numbers should be drawn in 3... [ More ]

Reply #55

Stack47 — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:08:03 GMT

Don't get your panties in a bunch! Gwoof's 6/49 question had already been answered.

You're correct because even your wrong answer is still an answer!

On average, it takes about 539 draws to see all 49 numbers; 90 drawings of 6 numbers each.

I believe the majority of us acknowledge we just made a mistake. Was your mistake a panties in a bunch type of mistake

Reply #54

RJOh — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:38:19 GMT

Sorry, my fruit of the loom are not in a bunch, please continue in the direction you were headed. No need to bother Todd, I'm he got better things to do.

Reply #53

mathhead — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:20:55 GMT

Don't get your panties in a bunch! Gwoof's 6/49 question had already been answered. I was responding to a question from Jimmy4164, which I interpreted as conceptual in nature even though it was specific to a comment about the OCL that you made. I used the MM as an example of the concepts, since that is what I had numbers for off-hand. I thought Jimmy might appreciate the numerical details.

I am sorry that my incessant embellishments went so far off-topic, although I'm sure this is not the fir... [ More ]

Reply #52

RJOh — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 16:07:33 GMT

This thread started out asking about 6/49 games, how did it get to answering questions about MegaMillions that weren't asked?

Posters are getting like politicians with their answers, when someone ask a question it gets answered by what ever the poster want to talk about.

There are plenty of 6/49 games around the country with decent jackpots that if LP members had any special knowledge or skills to win a jackpot, one of them should have won one by now. I came close back in 2002 and earlier... [ More ]

Reply #51

mathhead — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 15:18:39 GMT

Errata.... I wrote: ``The probability that a particular quad (4-tuple) will be drawn is 1 in 367,290 for a 5/56 game like MegaMillions. That probability is unchanged by history.``

Arrgghh! In an attempt to KISS, I misstated the statistic.

We can indeed form 367,290 quads with 56 numbers -- C(56,4). So there is a 1-in-367,290 chance of randomly generating a particular quad.

But the probability that a particular quad is drawn is 52 in 3,819,816, which is the same as 1 in 73,458, because t... [ More ]

Reply #50

dr san — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:01:01 GMT

Hello mathhead as the formula could work considering that we

Poderiams separate lottery in two digit = initial and final digit, and then how to join two parts, one can see how a party may give evidence of the other and vice versa, eg, after a study predicted that if the last digits (0-9) favors were 2,3,4,5,8,9 (a lottery for 49/6) then through these can give clues to the initial digits

From 0-4 or vice versa, digits = 000,112 initial example may give evidence of the last digit

When div... [ More ]

Reply #49

mathhead — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:59:05 GMT

JKING wrote: ``Even though the draws are not physically connected, the results in some criteria from one draw to the next are connected. Once in a blue moon those off the wall possibilities occur, however, historically the historical data shows that they don't happen very often.``

I hope I did not contribute to this misunderstanding. Jimmy is right; and I am right. We are answering different questions.

Consider the following analogy.... A family has 3 female children. What is the probabili... [ More ]

Reply #48

JKING — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 05:27:02 GMT

Hi Jimmy,

I hope you are not dead before you read this. Afterall anything is possible.

But, given your long history of survival at the LP, you probably will read this. *S*

Even though the draws are not physically connected, the results in some criteria from one draw to the next are connected. Once in a blue moon those off the wall possibilities occur, however, historically the historical data shows that they don't happen very often. Either you can believe that historically you will be... [ More ]

Reply #47

jimmy4164 — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 03:50:12 GMT

mathhead,

You said, It should be noted that any filtering of this sort is completely arbitrary. It does not increase the odds of a match. But we have to find a subset of the possible combinations somehow. And it just makes us feel good to choose from a subset that matches pattern(s) that arise a large percentage of time.

It makes us feel good. That tells it all!

It should also be noted that, as with other popular filtering criteria, lotteries don't pay any more when you win with a... [ More ]

Reply #46

JKING — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 03:16:15 GMT

This concept looks familiar.....

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/254159/2832411?q=JKING tab=us rp=search

Reply #45

mathhead — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:55:52 GMT

Errata.... I wrote: ``Empirically, among the past 827 drawings, there have been 4095 unique quads and 20 quads that appeared twice -- 4135 in all (= 827*5). So the current probability of a duplicate quad is 20-in-4135 (0.48%).``

That conclusion is not right. And I see I failed to correct a typo in one place. There's an excuse for that .

First, C(56,4) is 367,290. Second, in the first 827 drawings, there are no drawings with more than 1 duplicate quad -- that is, a 4-tuple that appears in... [ More ]

Reply #44

RJOh — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 23:35:20 GMT

Do you think this might be because the total number of drawings conducted thus far in the Ohio Classic Lotto is minuscule compared to the total possibilities, 13,983,816?

That could be true because I tracked Buckeye5(5/37) and Rolling Cash5(5/39) and they didn't have any of their winning combinations repeat until after 0.1% of their possible combinations had been drawn.

Reply #43

mathhead — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 23:30:47 GMT

I cannot say with impunity what RJOh meant, but this is how I interpret his comment. My observations about about the 3,819,816 combinations of regular numbers for the MegaMillions 5/56. My data is a little out of date: 827 drawings from 6/24/2005 through 5/24/2013.

If I select a combination (for my ticket) that exactly matches a previous drawing, I would exclude it because there is only an 827-in-3,819,816 chance (0.02%) that the next drawing would repeat a previous drawing.

It's not that... [ More ]

Reply #42

jimmy4164 — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:23:51 GMT

RJOh,

The only thing I've ever figured out is winning combinations seldom repeat if ever.

Do you think this might be because the total number of drawings conducted thus far in the Ohio Classic Lotto is minuscule compared to the total possibilities, 13,983,816?

The number of combinations not yet draw is overwhelmingly large, so why would you think there is any significance to your observation?

--Jimmy4164

Reply #41

jimjwright — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:47:28 GMT

As I said in a previous thread for a 5/39 game combinations of the following form L L A H H eliminate around 200,000 combinations. Where L is a number between 1-19, and H is a number between 20-39, and A stands for ANY meaning it can be either Low or High. 70 out of the last 100 draws in Ohio Rolling Cash 5 would pass this filter.

I'm not currently doing any pick 6 games but I would expect L L A A H H would do very well as a filter for a 6/49 game.

Another useful filter if you like filteri... [ More ]

Reply #40

jimjwright — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:16:16 GMT

My software already calculates what the skip counts are for each number for a particular draw. I guess my point is that I have not found the information all that useful because as a filter the skip counts by themselves do not eliminate all that many combinations without you being very specific. I have other filters that are more mathematically predictable that eliminate a lot more combinations.

Jimmy

Reply #39

RJOh — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:15:09 GMT

Have you even figured out the usefulness of filtering when trying to pick a lottery winner? The only thing I've ever figured out is winning combinations seldom repeat if ever.

Reply #38

Stack47 — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 04:11:05 GMT

They should create a chart like yours and simply count how many drawings the last number skips and average it. Or just wait until the last number is drawn and they do the analysis.

Reply #37

dr san — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 00:54:15 GMT

Hello, gwoff, good if you are playing a lottery 49/6 half already hit 100% of any lot, can check the draw can be simulated up will always hit 100%, but initial attention are the digits 0 through 4 garanatido this 100% clear lack wing terminations 0a 9, but the front does not need to worry ok

As for cycles, one filter is numbered lines within each cycle = example at the moment after you're starting a new line noa 16 numbers that in 16:17 cycles of cycles, you can delete a numbers 30,

Below... [ More ]

Reply #36

jimjwright — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:27:33 GMT

I'm still trying to figure out the usefulness of this information as a lottery filter.

Jimmy

Reply #35

RJOh — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:39:19 GMT

I have no idea what she would answer but I doubt if she would say very much since she hasn't said very much about her jackpot win.

Since OCL jackpots have been won very few times, if I get the chance I might go back and check what the number distribution patterns were when they were won to see if there is a pattern.

Reply #34

jimmy4164 — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:04:45 GMT

I wonder if that going to make it easier for someone to win the jackpot.

What do you think Gloria C. Mackenzie's answer would be to this question

Reply #33

RJOh — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:46:24 GMT

For this Saturday drawing all 49 numbers in OCL has come up in the last 31 drawings which is right in the middle of that sweet spot , I wonder if that going to make it easier for someone to win the jackpot.

Reply #32

Stack47 — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 00:10:06 GMT

It looks like the sweet spot is between 25 and 39 drawings and it looks unlikely that will ever reach 90.

Reply #31

mathhead — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 00:02:30 GMT

Jimmy4164 wrote: ``I think your first pass at the simulation was the correct one! ``

I wrote: ``Actually, that demonstrates that neither of my passes is correct.``

Looking back, I see you are correct. But my first reported results were in the ballpark only by coincidence. The design of the simulation was incorrect. However, I suspect I introduced a programming error when I corrected the design, resulting in a wildly incorrect result.

Reply #30

jimmy4164 — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:52:27 GMT

RJOh,

For anyone who's interested, 958 completed cycles of 49 numbers appearing could be counted in the 997 drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto that varies from 19 to 65 drawings. Below are those results

It looks like the Ohio Classic is in the Ballpark with my random number generator.

I double checked my code, ran it for 20,000 iterations, and got:

Low Mean Median High Std Dev

14 35.2 34 116 9.6

Which menas that about 95% of the time it's going to fall between 16 and... [ More ]

Reply #29

mathhead — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:06:34 GMT

RJOh wrote: ``For anyone who's interested, 958 completed cycles of 49 numbers appearing could be counted in the 997 drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto that varies from 19 to 65 drawings.``

And that is consistent with my analysis of the 31-year(!) data for the Canada 6/49 lotto: 19 to 64 drawings for all 49 numbers to appear in the first 6 numbers (not considering the bonus number), with a mean of 36 +/-2 rounded (with 95% confidence).

FYI, Gwoof, when the bonus number is included (i.e. a draw... [ More ]

Reply #28

Stack47 — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:54:13 GMT

There are 7 numbers drawn so including the bonus number, you probably could set it at 28 drawings and shouldn't expect to see more than two or three numbers that didn't hit. Looking at the current past 30 drawing, number 49 hasn't hit, but it hit 3 times in the 10 drawings before that.

What type of analysis are you doing that requires all the numbers to be drawn

Reply #27

RJOh — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:47:19 GMT

For anyone who's interested, 958 completed cycles of 49 numbers appearing could be counted in the 997 drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto that varies from 19 to 65 drawings. Below are those results

0: 0 10: 0 20: 4 30: 53 40: 26 50: 12

1: 0 11: 0 21: 9 31: 54 41: 21 51: 10

2: 0 12: 0 22: 18 32: 54 42: 19 52: 9

3: 0 13: 0 23: 20 33: 47 43: 16 53: 9

4: 0 14: 0 24: 28 34: 38 44: 15 54: 7

5: 0 15: 0 25: 34 35: 37 45: 13 55: 6

6: 0 16: 0 26: 37 36: 39 46: 13 56: 5

7: 0 17: 0 27: 4... [ More ]

Reply #26

jimmy4164 — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:09:00 GMT

Mathhead,

Your doubt is understandable. I am taking a look at that right now. I will post my conclusions soon, I hope, if I'm not interrupted.

I think your first pass at the simulation was the correct one! When I noticed the questions here, I wrote a quick and dirty program to see what I get. With 10,000 Trials, I got a mean number of draws of 35.05 with a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 106.

In my program a Trial is to set 49 ball monitors to zero and randomly generate sets of 6, chan... [ More ]

Reply #25

Stack47 — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:43:37 GMT

An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any other 6/49 game.

I was wondering about that too because if it's true, 90% of the drawings are a 6/48 game. A couple extreme amount of skips could shift the average much higher, but according to your chart, normal is between 26 and 42 drawings. For that to average 90, there will be several 100 drawing plus skips in the future.

Reply #24

RJOh — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:24:38 GMT

The data I used in on Ohio's lottery website and probably available to premium LP members at LP. On Ohio's website only the last 180 drawings can be easily gotten, the rest are in a PDF format that contains the results for all Ohio's games which means you will have to extract the data you want. The DB of Cananda's 6/49 should be good enough for what you want.

Reply #23

Gwoof — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:07:38 GMT

I'm using Atlantic 649. I was just wondering if the average of the repeatable of each set of the numbers from 1 to 49 in my game along with other methods of selecting would help me. I think it would be a good tool to use some how in the process of what numbers to play. I also think the bonus number would make a differance since it is drawn from the same set at the same time. I'm only an occational player so there is no chance of breaking the bank.

Thanks for the input

Reply #22

mathhead — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:28:14 GMT

RJOh wrote: ``An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any other 6/49 game. ``

Your doubt is understandable. I am taking a look at that right now. I will post my conclusions soon, I hope, if I'm not interrupted.

I am not able to find a program-readable DB of past OH 6/49 drawings. If you can point me to one (that's free), I'd appreciate it. By program-readable , I mean an ASCII file in... [ More ]

Reply #21

RJOh — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:42:54 GMT

An average of 90 drawings is nowhere close to what happens in Ohio's 6/49 game for 977 drawings and I doubt if it's even close to what happens in any other 6/49 game.

With only 49 numbers and using 6 of them in each drawing, if no number repeated all the numbers would come up at least once in 9 drawings. For it to take an average of 90 drawings for all 49 to appear, some numbers would have to be constantly repeating and if that happened the drawings wouldn't appear random or that some number... [ More ]

Reply #20

jimmy4164 — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:50:09 GMT

Gwoof,

If you check back with Mathhead's revised simulation results you will discover that using 35-39 as your expected average is quite likely going to put you into bankruptcy at some point. 90 is closer to the expected average.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/262010/3098480

On average, it takes about 539 draws to see all 49 numbers; 90 drawings of 6 numbers each.

Be sure to reread the entire post.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #19

RJOh — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:18:39 GMT

If the bonus number was picked from its own pool I would consider it separately as if it was another drawing.

Years ago Ohio had a game Super Lotto Plus which was a 6/49 +1 game and the bonus number was the seventh number picked from the pool of 49 which wouldn't change anything. The jackpot winner only had to match the first six numbers drawn, the bonus numbers were used for lower tier prizes.

Reply #18

Stack47 — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:47:04 GMT

For example if the overall average was 30 drawings and you were playing when all 49 numbers had just hit in the previous 20 drawings, why would you look back 30 drawings?

If someone was looking for a specific trend that required each number to be drawn, they would always have to go back to the number of drawings where all the numbers were drawn. On average they should expect to see each number drawn every 30 drawings, but because it's an average, there will be times when not all the numbers... [ More ]

Reply #17

Gwoof — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:53:34 GMT

So for a usable average I would use something between 35 and 39 . How much does this change if you add in the bonus ball. I'm guessing it would drop to somewhere between 29 and 33. What is the formula I would use so I can check my own history. (Again I'm not very good at math but I get by.)

Good luck on to-nights draw RJ.

Thanks for all the great input

Reply #16

RJOh — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 06:19:29 GMT

The overall average would have little or no meaning in 50 % or more of the situations. For example if the overall average was 30 drawings and you were playing when all 49 numbers had just hit in the previous 20 drawings, why would you look back 30 drawings? You might want the average when all the numbers had come up in the previous 20 drawings or wait until 30 drawings might work.

I'll be picking 5-10 lines for PowerBall tonight and all 59 numbers have come up in the last 46 drawings but I'll... [ More ]

Reply #15

Stack47 — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 02:32:07 GMT

Then it would be the average of the lengths of drawing skips of the 49th number. Since the length of skips varied from 19 to 56 as RJ pointed out over 260 drawings, it might be very difficult coming up with a usable average.

Reply #14

Stack47 — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 02:21:13 GMT

This has no connection to any individual draw

IMAO

Reply #13

dr san — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:42:01 GMT

hello, mathead if I split the lottery 49/6 or any other, in two digits starting

Go 0-4 and final digits 0-9 in the case of 49/6, as one might use the medium to come in favor of the gambler, and knew the probabidade is average, this engulfing the punter

So instead of predicting numbers we provide small segments (patterns) or the number or not this this. Because you need the numbers is an event very narrow with many variants

Being unique event, now small segments (small tens of rows and c... [ More ]

Reply #12

RJOh — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:31:38 GMT

If you have a data file with all the data in order by date of drawing you can just do a physical count back or write a routine to do it, that what I did. Ohio has three drawings a week and 977 drawings represent drawings going back to 01/22/2007 when the game was started.

Reply #11

mathhead — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:12:58 GMT

Good input! That's within about -2.39sd to -1.14sd of what I would expect. I would expect to have to look at 1130 to 1200 drawings of 6 numbers each in order to know the historical average with any reasonable degree of confidence. That's about 11.5 years (!).

Reply #10

RJOh — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:55:29 GMT

I checked the last 260 cycle of Ohio's Classic Lotto (6/49) to see how long it took for all 49 numbers to appear and it varied for 19-56 drawings.

0: 0 10: 0 20: 1 30: 15 40: 10 50: 4

1: 0 11: 0 21: 1 31: 14 41: 8 51: 3

2: 0 12: 0 22: 3 32: 13 42: 8 52: 3

3: 0 13: 0 23: 3 33: 13 43: 6 53: 3

4: 0 14: 0 24: 6 34: 12 44: 5 54: 2

5: 0 15: 0 25: 7 35: 11 45: 4 55: 2

6: 0 16: 0 26: 9 36: 11 46: 4 56: 1

7: 0 17: 0 27: 11 37: 10 47: 4 57: 0

8: 0 18: 0 28: 11 38: 10 48: 3... [ More ]