On Mar 13, 6:34=A0pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:27:18 -0700 (PDT), Mensanator
>
>
>
>
>
> <mensana...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Mar 13, 7:06=A0am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:19:15 -0700 (PDT), Mensanator
>
> >> <mensana...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 12, 3:59=A0pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Mensanator
>
> >> >> <mensana...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mar 11, 9:45=A0am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrot=
e:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), Mensanator
>
> >> >> >> <mensana...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Mar 10, 8:19=A0pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
w=
rote:
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:14:21 -0700 (PDT), Mensanator
>
> >> >> >> >> <mensana...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Mar 10, 5:58=A0am, Stig Holmquist
<stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Mensanator
>
> >> >> >> >> >> <mensana...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Mar 9, 2:39?pm, Stig Holmquist
<stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you add up the numbers ein each position after they
h=
ave been
> >> >> >> >> >> >> sorted in ascending order
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Why would you do a silly thing like that?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Wouldn't doing stats on which ball is drawn first
> >> >> >> >> >> >be more meaningful?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> If you think stats based on order of draw are more
meaningf=
ul
>
> >> >> >> >> >It could be. Suppose the two most frequently occuring balls
> >> >> >> >> >drawn are 17 & 18. But they always come up as the first
ball
> >> >> >> >> >drawn and almost never in the same drawing. Thus, it may be
> >> >> >> >> >that 17 & 18 are competing for the same bucket (which could
> >> >> >> >> >happen if the balls are loaded into the drum in numerical
ord=
er
> >> >> >> >> >and not stirred properly as was the case in Illinois in
1984)=
..
>
> >> >> >> >> >> feel free to calculate them
>
> >> >> >> >> >Already have.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> and tell us what is so interesting about them.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Such as actually coming up with winning numbers?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> .Order of draw can be found at various sites. Go ahead.
>
> >> >> >> >> >I won the Illinois Lotto twice. Only match 4's however,
> >> >> >> >> >so I only got about $1000. And shortly thereafter they
> >> >> >> >> >modified the Lotto machines to make them much more random
> >> >> >> >> >and render such statistics meaningless.
>
> >> >> >> >> >>I specifically asked about the PB game, not some state
game.=
>
> >> >> >> >> What is the significance of deviations from 28 for any of
the =
five
> >> >> >> >> positions of PB?
>
> >> >> >> >**** if I know. The point I'm making is you are assuming
without=
> >> >> >> >proof that there is none. If you're wrong, then your stats are
> >> >> >> >worthless.
>
> >> >> >> >>The PB numbers are tested rigorously for randomness by MUSL
>
> >> >> >> so if you have any evidence that they are not random
>
> >> >> >I just said, in the 1984 Illinois Lotto they weren't random.
>
> >> >> >> please post it or else STFU.
>
> >> >> >I just did.
>
> >> >> >> You are making an ass of yourself.
>
> >> >> >I'm not the ass who's going to lose money playing lotteries.
>
> >> >> >> So far you have made no
> >> >> >> positive contribution to the subject matter.
>
> >> >> >Except to point out the fallacy of your plan.
>
> >> >> >> Your comments are not
> >> >> >> only silly, they are outright stupid.
>
> >> >> >Sounds like jealousy.
>
> >> >> >> Good luck with your tests.
>
> >> >> >Are you crying?
>
> >> >> >>You should join the Lottery Post bang. They welcoma inane
comments=
like you make.
>
> >> >> You would be very popular there. Here we deal in strict
mathematical=
> >> >> problems.
>
> >> >How many mathematicians do you know who've won the lottery?
>
> >> >>No mathematician in is right mind would suggest that you can win a
lo=
ttery with a mathematical formula.
>
> >> Just read the book" The Lottery Book" by Don Catlin.
>
> >Never heard of him or his book.
>
> >> You seem to be
> >> another victim of the con man Prof.Jones and his books such as
> >> 'Winning lotto/lottery for everyday players'. =A0
>
> >Not hardly.
>
> >> It is based on the
> >> false and fraudulent idea that there is significant bias in most
> >> drawings.
>
> >Emphasis on "significant". Obviously there was bias on
> >the Illinois machines in 1984 or they wouldn't have had
> >to change them. Whether it was significant or my wins
> >were purely coincidence is open to debate, but not the
> >issue of whether bias manifests itself in statistics.
>
> There was a more recent case of faulty programming with the Tennessy,
> new computer generated numbers,if I remember correctly, The problem
> was a failure to generate doubles, so anybody betting on such numbers
> was unable to win. It was soon discivered and corrected. As for the
> rest of lotto or lottery games there is no evidence of bias.Your
> experience is about 25 years old. Nothing like it has been re****ted
> since.
And 25 years ago was the last time I won. Coincidence?
>
> There is an additional problem with stats for PB. Between each winning
> draw there are five test draws, which can be downloaded
That wouldn't be a problem with PB, would it?
> in contrast to
> most if not all other games, which do not tell you what test numbers
> were drawn. Also, they change the equipment every so often.
I've seen Lottery stats from the UK where the individual
machines have names, the sets of balls used are named,
and the drawing lists not only the outcome, but what
machine and ball set were used.
If PB (or any other lottery) was smart, they would make
that info available also as it's only effect would be to
increase sales.
> So it is
> futile to try =A0predict next numbers based on stats.
Well, hasn't that been my objection from the start?
By sorting the numbers before calculating your means,
you are taking incomplete knowledge and making it less
complete.
So what, exactly, is it you're trying to accomplish with
this meaningless claim the means have decreased over
time?
>
> Stig
|
