|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Statisticians should have a field day with this site.
http://www.pickwinningnumbers.org/california-lottery It presents several flawed statistical claims. See if you can spot them. |
|||||||||
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts |
See if I can spot the flawed statistical claims? Might be easier to focus on the non-flawed ones. Or, non-flawed one:
"Taking these probabilities into account, it would seem that winning the jackpot would be close to impossible." And above, they say that the odds of winning the jackpot are about one in 18 million. I don't know one way or another, but that sounds plausible. The rest of the article... not so much. |
|||||||||
Salguod Nairb Room 101 0 Posts |
I always considered it a 50 - 50 chance. Either you will win or you will not.
We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness...
|
|||||||||
Michael Baker Eternal Order Near a river in the Midwest 11172 Posts |
The only flaw to me is that I haven't won. Other statistics are moot.
~michael baker
The Magic Company |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Yes, lots of ridiculous advice, but the advice about not picking "popular" groups of numbers is valid in terms of not wanting to share a payout with others.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2885 Posts |
Not being a mathmatician, most of the information seemed valid to me; don't play the numbers that just won, don't play the same family of numbers, don't play sequential numbers.
Back in my 8-bit days. I wrote a program that would calculate how often the numbers came up. But the computer (a CoCo-3) bombed out before I cold enter enough data to make any significant pattens emerge. I imagine, given long enough, the numbers would have all evened out, but you never know. (I don't know how to make percentages on the data entry program that's on this computer.
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-02-21 11:23, ed rhodes wrote: This one makes no sense, unless loads of folks will play the numbers that just won, diluting the payoff should they come up again. |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
Sounds like Ed is ready for the blackjack table.
|
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
OK, here you go:
Here are some of the things to look out for and avoid: Previously drawn combinations Unless the ping pong balls remember which numbers have been chosen, this is senseless. Five consecutive numbers Unless the ping pong balls know which numbers they have written on them, this is senseless. Never from the same number group Unless the ping pong balls know which numbers they have written on them, this is senseless. (Are you detecting a pattern yet?) Don’t go for one through five Unless . . . well, you get the idea. Pattern betting Need I say it? Number multiples Again . . . . Same last digits One more time . . . . Calendar combinations And . . . . There is a legitimate reason to avoid combinations that are likely to be chosen by lots of other people: your winnings will be diluted by having to share them with the others. But each combination should be as likely (or nearly so) as any other combination, so most of this advice is stupid. |
|||||||||
abc Inner circle South African in Taiwan 1081 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-02-21 11:54, S2000magician wrote: I don't get it. Are you trying to say those little ping pong balls know which numbers are on them? How about the weight of the ink it takes to write those little numbers on them. All right I'm done being silly. Of to the lotto store to buy a ticket. My numbers are 11 25 23 6 41 10 33 and 3. I will choose many combinations of those numbers because those were the number of registered members, people browsing the Café and how many messages has been posted. gotta be something in there. |
|||||||||
Jon_Thompson Inner circle Darkest Cheshire 2404 Posts |
Oh boy, where do I start with what's wrong with that site!
|
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-02-21 12:50, Jon_Thompson wrote: I found it easiest to start at the top and work steadily down; fortunately, there's enough stupidity there that even a casual browsing will give you enough to write several paragraphs. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-02-21 11:54, S2000magician wrote: I think that many of the excerpts you dismiss as senseless do, in fact, bear on the probability that they'll be chosen by lots of other people. If someone wins the next Lotto with the numbers 3, 11, 32, 39, 43, 48, I don't know whether he'll share it or not, but I'm just about positive that if someone wins it with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, it'll be shared quite a few ways.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
If people got the sense of the logic in it, the world wouldn't be what it is today...
Common sense is just NOT common. But hey, try telling that to the guy who actually wins...
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-02-21 14:29, LobowolfXXX wrote: I agree, and if the author's analysis were that these combinations are poor because of the likelihood of having to share the winnings, it would be valid. Alas, her analysis was that these combinations are unlikely to win - presumably more unlikely to win than many other combinations. That's the senselessness to which I was referring. Did you read the article? (I hope not: it could take a few days to regain sensible brain function if you had.) |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-02-21 15:06, S2000magician wrote: lol I confess, I didn't read the article. And now, I'm more glad than ever.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
The article is a perfect example of non-critical thinking in action.
The only balls that have memory aren't used for ping-pong or lotteries. (And, in my case, they don't usually remember where they've been either.):eek: |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-02-21 15:09, LobowolfXXX wrote: The older I get, the wiser you become. |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-02-21 15:09, LobowolfXXX wrote: So you missed the paragraph she began with that immortal opening, "Almost as worse as . . . ." |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Actually, in a casual game, if I saw that a combination seemed to come up more often than it statistically should, rather than stay away from that combination ( because of some notion that other combinations should now come up) I would be tempted to play it again. Reason: in the real world, roulette wheels and ping pong balls are likely to be biased in ways that we haven't predicted. The results could be an indication of the direction the bias. I would suppose in situations like professional casinos and govt lotteries, the apparatus is tested and recalibrated often for possible bias . . . still I wonder about that. Without actually testing the apparatus tens of thousands of times, how can you be sure you've eliminated all bias? (I understand there are various statistical tests that can be performed with a smaller sample, but even those only determine non-randomness within a given confidence interval.) Perhaps someone with more knowledge about this would be able to give more info.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Lottery statistical bs (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |