Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > check my lotto programs

Reply
Thread Tools

check my lotto programs

 
 
Argi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2008
Hello, anyone wants to try my program.
It generates on every run 8 rows of six numbers.
So, you play almost all the numbers, (except one - never mind ) )
It is difficult to play all the numbers only with the pen, difficult to find
what numbers you didn't play. So this program makes easy to do it.

I have more programs to upload in the future, stay tuned.

Good luck

Argi
http://lotto-free.blogspot.com/


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-12-2008
Argi wrote:
> Hello, anyone wants to try my program.
> It generates on every run 8 rows of six numbers.
> So, you play almost all the numbers, (except one - never mind ) )
> It is difficult to play all the numbers only with the pen, difficult to find
> what numbers you didn't play. So this program makes easy to do it.
>
> I have more programs to upload in the future, stay tuned.
>
> Good luck
>
> Argi
> http://lotto-free.blogspasm.spam/


Argi, you pathetic scammer, people in technical newsgroups tend to be aware
that "lotto" programs are useless, and that a number previously chosen is just
as likely to come up as any number not already chosen.

Why don't you just quit, Argi?

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Argi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2008
Lew wrote:
>Argi, you pathetic scammer, people in technical newsgroups tend to be aware
>that "lotto" programs are useless, and that a number previously chosen is
>just as likely to come up as any number not already chosen.


>Why don't you just quit, Argi?



>--
>Lew


Hello,

Sorry if I was not clear...

I try to make programs to help me predict numbers.
I know as everyone, that we need only good luck.
It is possible the winning numbers to be: 1,2,3,4,5,6
It is the same possibillity like every other random pattern of six numbers.
We all know that.
But ...
We can make some thoughts...
Yes ... 1,2,3,4,5,6 is possible but we never going to play these numbers
together, why? ... i don't know ... we don't believe that are going to win.
So ... we play other ... random numbers ... "most" possible (?) ...we think.
Yes ... none knows ... either the balls don't know what numbers won last
time ... the balls don't know ... it is possible every time to win the same
numbers ... again and again ... no law of the universe prohibits that ...
but ... never happened ... and 99.9999999999% never will happen.
So ... concluding ... I believe that we can make programs to produce "lucky"
rows of six numbers that do have really "random" patterns...
For say, if you look the tables in newspapers with statistics about lotto or
joker which are won already, you will see for example that 50%, three
numbers are odds and three even. Or three of them are "small" and three are
"big" numbers. You will see that only 2 or 3 per cent for example was 1
number odd and 5 numbers even and never all together odd or even, since now
of course, after thousand of draws.
So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?
huh? ... or maybe is it better to play the most possible combinations ?
It is my opinion ... I believe this and only anyone who believes the same is
welcome to try my programs ...

Thank you
Argi
(p.s. I don't ask for email address or registration in my blog ... my
programs are free for download and I include rapidshare links too)
http://lotto-free.blogspot.com/






Ο "Argi" <(E-Mail Removed)> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:fm870m$20v$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello, anyone wants to try my program.
> It generates on every run 8 rows of six numbers.
> So, you play almost all the numbers, (except one - never mind ) )
> It is difficult to play all the numbers only with the pen, difficult to
> find
> what numbers you didn't play. So this program makes easy to do it.
>
> I have more programs to upload in the future, stay tuned.
>
> Good luck
>
> Argi
> http://lotto-free.blogspot.com/
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2008
Argi wrote:
> I try to make programs to help me predict numbers.

....
> So ... concluding ... I believe that we can make programs to produce "lucky"
> rows of six numbers that do have really "random" patterns...


Your belief is at odds with the laws of the universe. (Pun intended.)

> For say, if you look the tables in newspapers with statistics about lotto or
> joker which are won already, you will see for example that 50%, three
> numbers are odds and three even. Or three of them are "small" and three are
> "big" numbers. You will see that only 2 or 3 per cent for example was 1
> number odd and 5 numbers even and never all together odd or even, since now
> of course, after thousand of draws.


Past performance is no guarantee of future success. Read the prospectus
carefully before investing.

> So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?
> huh? ... or maybe is it better to play the most possible combinations ?
> It is my opinion ... I believe this and only anyone who believes the same is
> welcome to try my programs ...


I hate to burst your bubble [1], but Lotto and the like exhibit the Markov
property. Your programs are useless.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_property>

People who believe your software will help will find that it makes no
difference either way. And if you do win, don't fall prey to /post hoc,
propter ergo hoc/. (Of course, you won't care then, either. Winning has a
way of justifying itself.)

Besides, everyone knows that software is useless for predicting Lotto. You're
much better off to use Tarot cards, although a few people prefer boar entrails.

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
Argi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2008
Ok, thank you for your opinion

Argi


Ο "Lew" <(E-Mail Removed)> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> Argi wrote:
>> I try to make programs to help me predict numbers.

> ...
>> So ... concluding ... I believe that we can make programs to produce
>> "lucky"
>> rows of six numbers that do have really "random" patterns...

>
> Your belief is at odds with the laws of the universe. (Pun intended.)
>
>> For say, if you look the tables in newspapers with statistics about lotto
>> or
>> joker which are won already, you will see for example that 50%, three
>> numbers are odds and three even. Or three of them are "small" and three
>> are
>> "big" numbers. You will see that only 2 or 3 per cent for example was 1
>> number odd and 5 numbers even and never all together odd or even, since
>> now
>> of course, after thousand of draws.

>
> Past performance is no guarantee of future success. Read the prospectus
> carefully before investing.
>
>> So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?
>> huh? ... or maybe is it better to play the most possible combinations ?
>> It is my opinion ... I believe this and only anyone who believes the same
>> is
>> welcome to try my programs ...

>
> I hate to burst your bubble [1], but Lotto and the like exhibit the Markov
> property. Your programs are useless.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_property>
>
> People who believe your software will help will find that it makes no
> difference either way. And if you do win, don't fall prey to /post hoc,
> propter ergo hoc/. (Of course, you won't care then, either. Winning has
> a way of justifying itself.)
>
> Besides, everyone knows that software is useless for predicting Lotto.
> You're much better off to use Tarot cards, although a few people prefer
> boar entrails.
>
> --
> Lew



 
Reply With Quote
 
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2008
"Argi" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Yes ... 1,2,3,4,5,6 is possible but we never going to play these numbers
> together, why? ... i don't know ... we don't believe that are going to win.


Actually, the reason I won't play these numbers (if I played the lotto)
is that so many other people *do* play them. That means the payoff will
be much smaller than for a sequence that few or no other people play.
And the odds are the same.

> So ... we play other ... random numbers ... "most" possible (?) ...we think.


There is a lot of blindness to probability "out there". Since most
combinations look random, it is more likely that a random looking
sequence comes out, and then people invert the implication and assume
that a specific looking random sequence has a higher odds of winning.

The winning combination is picked randomly among all combinations
=> It is very likely to "look random"

But
A combination looks random =/=> it is more likely to win.

> So ... concluding ... I believe that we can make programs to produce "lucky"
> rows of six numbers that do have really "random" patterns...


It seems you make the same mistake, if by "lucky" you mean that it has
a greater chance of being the winning combination than 1,2,3,4,5,6.

> For say, if you look the tables in newspapers with statistics about lotto or
> joker which are won already, you will see for example that 50%, three
> numbers are odds and three even. Or three of them are "small" and three are
> "big" numbers. You will see that only 2 or 3 per cent for example was 1
> number odd and 5 numbers even and never all together odd or even, since now
> of course, after thousand of draws.


If you know statistics, you would not be surprised.

Pick any separation of the possible 36 numbers (or however many your
local lotto uses) into two equally sized groups.
Then pick six (or similarly for eight) numbers at random.
The probabilities of their distribution into those groups are:
group A group B probability
0 6 ~1%
1 5 ~8%
2 4 ~24%
3 3 ~34%
4 2 ~24%
5 1 ~8%
6 0 ~1%
(this is also the size relative sizes of the set of combinations with
that

I.e., if picking is completely random, you will expect 34% of outcomes
to have three low and three high values, or three odd and three even
values.

So it's more likely that the result will have three high and three low
numbers than that it will have only low numbers.
Not because a specific combination of three low and three high numbers
is more likely to be hit, but because the group of all such combinations
is a bigger target.

Picking one combination in that group will not give any higher chance
of winning, because you are again inverting the implication.

An element belonging to a larger group is not more likely to be hit,
just because the larger group is easier to hit.

> So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?
> huh? ... or maybe is it better to play the most possible combinations ?


If by "most possible" you mean "more probable", then there are none.
All outcomes are equally probable. Some characteristics of outcomes
are more likely, because there are more combintaions that satisfy them
than there are that doesn't, but that doesn't matter. You don't pick a
characterstic to play. You just pick one combination.

> It is my opinion ... I believe this and only anyone who believes the
> same is welcome to try my programs ...


And in the interest of public education on probability: Anyone who
believes that there are specific combinations more likely to win
than other specific combinations, are believing that the lottery
is rigged and unfair (and that they know which combinations are
favored). If the picking of winning numbers is actually random,
no single combination is more likely than any other.

But don't play 1,2,3,4,5,6 - if you play, you are better off picking
a combination that nobody else has, as you won't have to share the
prospective winnings with anybody

(And if you consider 1,2,3,4,5,6 as bad to play, because you can see
how unlikely it is as an outcome ... remember that whatever combination
you play instead is just as unlikely, you just can't see it

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2008
Argi wrote:
> Ok, thank you for your opinion


Please do not top-post.

"Lew" wrote:
>> I hate to burst your bubble [1], but Lotto and the like exhibit the Markov
>> property. Your programs are useless.
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_property>


I'm afraid it's math, not opinion.

Reality isn't a matter of opinion.

Lasse Reichstein Neilsen gave a good summary explanation.

So let's review - the program rests on the incorrect assumption that sequences
like "1,2,3,4,5,6" are somehow less likely than any other sequence. It rests
on the assumption that any pseudorandom (or otherwise arbitrary) sequence
generated by the program has any different probability of outcome than any
other outcome.

These are false assumptions, therefore the program will not help anyone win
the lottery.

This is fact, not opinion.

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Segall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2008
"Argi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?

I do, for two reasons. First, I think that many people share your
superstition so if it wins there will be fewer people who have chosen
it. Second, I don't need to check the results of the draw because I'm
sure the local paper will report the "amazing coincidence" that this
sequence won.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John W. Kennedy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2008
David Segall wrote:
> "Argi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?

> I do, for two reasons. First, I think that many people share your
> superstition so if it wins there will be fewer people who have chosen
> it. Second, I don't need to check the results of the draw because I'm
> sure the local paper will report the "amazing coincidence" that this
> sequence won.


I recall that in the early years of NJ Lotto, the first couple of times
000 came up, the winners won big. But the punters may have grown more
sophisticated since then.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
In article <fmr3at$2qa$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Argi" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> I try to make programs to help me predict numbers.
> I know as everyone, that we need only good luck.
> It is possible the winning numbers to be: 1,2,3,4,5,6
> It is the same possibillity like every other random pattern of six numbers.
> We all know that.
> But ...
> We can make some thoughts...
> Yes ... 1,2,3,4,5,6 is possible but we never going to play these numbers
> together, why? ... i don't know ... we don't believe that are going to win.


Actually, a lot of people do play 1,2,3,4,5,6. I remember one state
released stats after their lottery had a particularly large prize that
attracted an unusually large number of players, and 1,2,3,4,5,6 was the
most common pick. Something like 2000 people picked it for that drawing.

Apparently a lot of people reasoned that people would avoid 1,2,3,4,5,6,
so if they won with it, they would not have to share the prize with
anyone! In addition, many people just pick simple patterns from the
number matrix, such as rows or columns, which makes various arithmetic
sequences, including 1,2,3,4,5,6 show up more than you would expect.

For those who only play the lottery occasionally, either just for fun
(e.g., I knew several people at Caltech, who fully knew the odds, who
would buy one ticket a year, at their first dinner out together of the
new year, kind of as a tradition), or when it is theoretically
profitable (occasionally, a prize rolls over enough times that the
prize, divided by the number of tickets that will be sold, is greater
than the cost of a ticket), picking at random is the only way to go.

If you have any kind of pattern (e.g., pick numbers based on your
birthday, or something like that), and aren't playing every time, you
face the really annoying possibility of your pattern winning on a week
you don't play. That would be infinitely annoying, so best to avoid it
by not having a pattern!

(When picking at random, it might slightly improve your expected return
to avoid numbers below 13. It won't improve your odds of winning, but
it could reduce the chances of having to split the prize if you do win).

The lottery case where the expected return on a ticker is more than the
cost of the ticket (which happens on occasion due to rollover when a
drawing goes without a winner) is interesting. Your odds of winning
remain very very very low, but the prize is very very very large, so the
expected value is in your favor--but of course the vastly most common
output is that you simply lose the cost of the ticket. It reminds me of
this interesting question:

You are given a choice to pick one of the following 33 games to play:

0. You automatically win $1.

1. A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
in [0,1/2), you win 2 dollars.

2. A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
in [0,1/4), you win 4 dollars.

...

i. A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
in [0,1/2^i), you win 2^i dollars.

...

32. A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
in [0,1/4294967296), you win 4294967296 dollars.

All 33 of these games have the same expected result for you: $1. Which
would you play? You only get one try.

--
--Tim Smith
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do You Wonder Why You Can't Win Lotto? ajithpanassery@gmail.com ASP .Net 1 12-18-2007 09:27 PM
If you play the lotto, or have ever played any lotto, dekydo NZ Computing 2 03-15-2006 02:54 AM
uk national lotto anthonyberet Computer Support 3 08-02-2005 02:18 PM
Flash Lotto ChristopherBunting Computer Support 4 07-07-2003 06:39 PM



Advertisments