On Monday June 30 2003 04:10 pm, Richard Urwin wrote:
> On Monday 30 Jun 2003 8:13 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote:
> > On Monday June 30 2003 11:04 am, Ronald J. Hall wrote:
> > Well, I saw you got an answer, now don't bet on it like I
> > infer you're fixin too ;) A knowledge, even intuitively, of
> > random mathematics, theory of chaos, would suggest that past
> > numbers would be more unlikely to turn up than those in future
> > sets?
> Actually if it is purely random then past behavior has no effect
> on future performance. All numbers are always just as likely to
> occur, no matter how often they have occured in the past.
My statement (partial) was phrased as a question...
you speak to soon, read on as I then countered with ..
....
> > More likely
> > to be included? Answer is No to both, but what t'hey, try usin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So I said it both ways, ie, 'All numbers, or sets of numbers, are
always just as likely OR unlikely to occur, no matter how often
they have, or haven't occurred in the past.' I just said it in
Texan, you misspelled 'occured' ;pppp
> > Tickets don't cost
> > much, but buyin multiple tickets only increases your losses,
> > not your chances in any appreciable sense. Worst way to
> > decrease chances is usin the same number set all the time.
> > Specially if they would'a won the one time you forgot to play
> > 'em ;>
> No, because we can assume that the numbers are almost, but not
> quite random. If they were random then any more frequent numbers
> would be due to pure chance, but if we assume that there is some
> other factor, say a fault in the manufacture of a single ball,
> then that ball might come up more frequently.
Well, the weight of the ink used to print double digit numbers
has to be greater than just printin single digits on the balls, no?
Has to make a difference if the machine pops 'em out of the top, or
collects 'em on the bottom ;)
> Here in the UK the chances of winning the jackpot is 14 million
> to one.
In Texas it use to be about 1:16million. Lately they've changed
the lotto from pick 6 out of 50, match all 6 ... to pick 5 out'a
50, match all, plus pick the right bonus ball pic (another 1 of the
same 50 possibles). To most (probability math challenged) it
appeared they were makin it easier to win, when it fact, the odds
against got much worse. Made a good cover for lowerin payout
percentages tho. What'a hell, 80% of the proceeds go to school
funding statewide. I still buy a ticket, we have no income tax ;)
> The only way to win at games of pure chance is to run the game.
> A strange game; the only winning move is not to play.
Time is a factor. On a weekly basis, if you don't play you can't
win. On a lifetime basis, if you don't play, you do probly come out
ahead money wise. Psychology plays a part too, just depends on
whether you want to have some fun and spend a buck an take chances,
or sit around countin your saved pennies all your life. Hope plays
in too, not for winning the jackpot so much, but so many others
will play an we won't need an income tax to pay for education ;)
> Ronald, I suggest you generate the list of numbers, and then
> check them against your big file and see how much money you would
> have won in the last ten years. Then calculate how much you would
> have spent.
Richard if you re-read what I said you'll find we're in complete
agreement about past number occurrences, ie, they have no merit as
a predictor future of occurrence. Like everybody else who spent
some time teaching themselves C (++) programming, I wrote an app
usin functions to generate random numbers, 1 thru 50. I was amazed,
even tho I used least root mean square probability math at work, to
see the often occurrence in pairs of the same number, or sets with
numbers in sequence (eg, 6,7,8). Adding functions later to
eliminate already selected numbers, didn't change the frequency of
sequential numbers.
--
Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
