An odd sight at lunch

[Drakkon]

I go to this subway for lunch an its near the IBM plant so pratcially every IBM engineer walks into the place. Well there at a table with about 20 tickets and a printouts from:
http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_frequency.asp?graph=1
2 guys were there trying to rationalize powerball frquency, picking numbers, and how its not that random. Now according to their IBM badges they were engineers of some sort, which i would assume a pretty decent mathematical background. It amazes me how people are suckered into the powerball like this.

 

[PastaPete]

nerrrrds

 

[mpitts]

<homersimpson>Hey buddy, did you get a load of the nerd?</homersimpson>

 

[acemcmac]

:laugh: morons

 

[cKGunslinger]

Nothing in nature is truly random. I've done more futile and useless stuff when bored.

 

[Kwaipie]

a tax on people that are bad at math. Although, I bought my $5 tix today.

 

[Born2bwire]

Nothing in nature is truly random. I've done more futile and useless stuff when bored.

Reminds me about how one guy got the better of the roulette tables. He visited the casino for a long time recording the numbers that would come up on each spin on each table. He then wrote a simple program to take in the data and see what was the actual probability of the numbers for each table and found out that there was indeed slight preferences at each table. Ended up having a good run at it until the casino finally banned him. They would even rearrange the tables to trick him up but he was still able to watch and pick out which one was which.

So if the lottery commission continually uses the same batch of balls and the same apparatus each time, it maybe possible to see if there is a preference towards some numbers in a pick. But I would error on the side of caution and think that it is not going to be enough to bank on.

 

[kranky]

The amount of time and effort spent might yield an infinitesimal increase in their chances of winning, but it's not enough to make it worthwhile.

The only lottery tip I've ever heard that makes sense is to choose numbers beyond 31. Since many people pick birthdays, that would lessen your chance of having to share the jackpot with others. But it doesn't do anything to improve your chances of winning.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kranky
The amount of time and effort spent might yield an infinitesimal increase in their chances of winning, but it's not enough to make it worthwhile.

The only lottery tip I've ever heard that makes sense is to choose numbers beyond 31. Since many people pick birthdays, that would lessen your chance of having to share the jackpot with others. But it doesn't do anything to improve your chances of winning.

right, but it would increase your expected value, and could push it over $1 if the prize were large enough.

i play when the prize is equal to or greater than the odds of winning. then it's close enough to an even bet, and the upside is so large compared to the downside, that you might as well play it.

 

[Drakkon]

the more "random" your picks the more likely you are to win actually. if you read the powerbal FAQs:
WHICH HAS THE BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING: COMPUTER PICKS OR PLAYER PICKS?
About 70% to 80% of purchases are computer picks. About 70% to 80% of winners are computer picks.

and if you think about it mathematically it kinda works out, as the lottery is a random number generator and two random number generators operating independently on the same set of numbers have a better chance of hitting than you picking the same set of numbers every time.

I too have been known to play once it goes above $140mill but only with coworkers/friends and even then we go in on 20+ tickets (all computer generted btw )

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
the more "random" your picks the more likely you are to win actually. if you read the powerbal FAQs:
WHICH HAS THE BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING: COMPUTER PICKS OR PLAYER PICKS?
About 70% to 80% of purchases are computer picks. About 70% to 80% of winners are computer picks.

and if you think about it mathematically it kinda works out, as the lottery is a random number generator and two random number generators operating independently on the same set of numbers have a better chance of hitting than you picking the same set of numbers every time.

I too have been known to play once it goes above $140mill but only with coworkers/friends and even then we go in on 20+ tickets (all computer generted btw )

Unless I am missing something you should read that FAQ again.

All I see is that the percentage of winners is the same percentage of computer picked.

You want that percent of winners to be larger then the percent of computer picked winners.

And due to randomness, picking the same number is the same as picking a random number each time. This is why a card game that sets the deck at the begining of the game has the same randomness as one that randomizes the next draw just before drawing it.

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Drakkon
the more "random" your picks the more likely you are to win actually. if you read the powerbal FAQs:
WHICH HAS THE BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING: COMPUTER PICKS OR PLAYER PICKS?
About 70% to 80% of purchases are computer picks. About 70% to 80% of winners are computer picks.

and if you think about it mathematically it kinda works out, as the lottery is a random number generator and two random number generators operating independently on the same set of numbers have a better chance of hitting than you picking the same set of numbers every time.

I too have been known to play once it goes above $140mill but only with coworkers/friends and even then we go in on 20+ tickets (all computer generted btw )

Unless I am missing something you should read that FAQ again.

All I see is that the percentage of winners is the same percentage of computer picked.

You want that percent of winners to be larger then the percent of computer picked winners.

Also, computers can't truly generate "random" numbers.

 

[postmortemIA]

Taken out of context, I don't think IBM hires just anybody.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Drakkon
the more "random" your picks the more likely you are to win actually. if you read the powerbal FAQs:
WHICH HAS THE BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING: COMPUTER PICKS OR PLAYER PICKS?
About 70% to 80% of purchases are computer picks. About 70% to 80% of winners are computer picks.

and if you think about it mathematically it kinda works out, as the lottery is a random number generator and two random number generators operating independently on the same set of numbers have a better chance of hitting than you picking the same set of numbers every time.

I too have been known to play once it goes above $140mill but only with coworkers/friends and even then we go in on 20+ tickets (all computer generted btw )

Unless I am missing something you should read that FAQ again.

All I see is that the percentage of winners is the same percentage of computer picked.

You want that percent of winners to be larger then the percent of computer picked winners.

Also, computers can't truly generate "random" numbers.

1. A random set of numbers has no better chance of winning than a "non-random" set of numbers.

1 2 3 4 5 6
has as good a chance as
1 24 54 17 38 42

"But wait!" you say, why don't I ever see 1 2 3 4 5 6 winning the powerball? For the same reason you don't see millions of other combinations winning.

2. A computer can give you a truly random number, but it needs input from the outside world. Someone designed a random number generator that generated a number based on a picture of a lava lamp, for example. Computers don't generate random numbers because pseudorandom numbers are good enough, and a lot easier than truly random numbers. (That's not to say that Aflac was wrong in what he said, I just thought that was an interesting tidbit of useless information)

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Drakkon
the more "random" your picks the more likely you are to win actually. if you read the powerbal FAQs:
WHICH HAS THE BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING: COMPUTER PICKS OR PLAYER PICKS?
About 70% to 80% of purchases are computer picks. About 70% to 80% of winners are computer picks.

and if you think about it mathematically it kinda works out, as the lottery is a random number generator and two random number generators operating independently on the same set of numbers have a better chance of hitting than you picking the same set of numbers every time.

I too have been known to play once it goes above $140mill but only with coworkers/friends and even then we go in on 20+ tickets (all computer generted btw )

Unless I am missing something you should read that FAQ again.

All I see is that the percentage of winners is the same percentage of computer picked.

You want that percent of winners to be larger then the percent of computer picked winners.

Also, computers can't truly generate "random" numbers.

1. A random set of numbers has no better chance of winning than a "non-random" set of numbers.

1 2 3 4 5 6
has as good a chance as
1 24 54 17 38 42

"But wait!" you say, why don't I ever see 1 2 3 4 5 6 winning the powerball? For the same reason you don't see millions of other combinations winning.

2. A computer can give you a truly random number, but it needs input from the outside world. Someone designed a random number generator that generated a number based on a picture of a lava lamp, for example. Computers don't generate random numbers because pseudorandom numbers are good enough, and a lot easier than truly random numbers. (That's not to say that Aflac was wrong in what he said, I just thought that was an interesting tidbit of useless information)

Any number generated based on input is not random, its psuedorandom.

 

[Oblivionaire]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Nothing in nature is truly random. I've done more futile and useless stuff when bored.

Reminds me about how one guy got the better of the roulette tables. He visited the casino for a long time recording the numbers that would come up on each spin on each table. He then wrote a simple program to take in the data and see what was the actual probability of the numbers for each table and found out that there was indeed slight preferences at each table. Ended up having a good run at it until the casino finally banned him. They would even rearrange the tables to trick him up but he was still able to watch and pick out which one was which.

So if the lottery commission continually uses the same batch of balls and the same apparatus each time, it maybe possible to see if there is a preference towards some numbers in a pick. But I would error on the side of caution and think that it is not going to be enough to bank on.

Right around the time lottery tracking programs started showing up on the PC, the NYS lottery started rotating their machines and balls around to trip them up. So there must have been, if even just slightly, an advantage to tracking the numbers. Of course now they have been rendered pretty much useless.

 

[Drakkon]

"About 70% to 80% of winners are computer picks." I read that as of ALL tickets played (both by computer and not) on any given drawing between 70-80% of the winners of that drawing have tickets that were generated by a computer. The first part of that is jsut to give you an idea of how many people on each drawing use the computer for picks and how they justify their data that a computer pick is a better bet.

The computer may not be "truely" random but its close enough when you have a system of 53 + 42 balls of which your picking 6. The only time i've seen a computer fail (starts generating with a skewed/normal distribution) is when you delve into the extremely large (ie x10^100) or extremely small.

now were all sounding like those IBM guys yay!

 

[AnthraX101]

Originally posted by: sao123

Any number generated based on input is not random, its psuedorandom.

This is not correct. A computer can output as many bits of true randomness as it gets on the input.

If you get 32 bits of true randomness in, you can output 32 bits of true ranomness.

AnthraX101

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: sao123

Any number generated based on input is not random, its psuedorandom.

Not if the input is random...

The lava lamp example probably isn't truly random, but there are other random number generators that work on the same concept. I seem to recall hearing about one that generates a number based on the black and white "fuzz" you get on TVs.

 

[NissanGurl]

Just let your fortune cookie pick your lucky numbers and you should be fine

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: NissanGurl
Just let your fortune cookie pick your lucky numbers and you should be fine

Wow, just craziness!