6/49 Discussion For April 17, 2004
- Thread starter gsobier
- Start date
George, I just had a brain storm, at least I think I do.gsobier said:
For the last 1000 draws, we had the following results:
[4 and 2]: 340
[3 and 3]: 265
[5 and 1]: 235
[2 and 4]: 086
[6 and 0]: 049
[1 and 5]: 022
[0 and 6]: 003
Good luck to all players!
Regards,
George
If you could report on the above chart , and tell us how many 5&1,2&4,6&0 etc, we had in draws that end in a zero, a one,a two etc, this would narrow down the field.
If I knew we would see 3 and 3 more in draws that end in a two, I would focus more on this.... what are your thoughts on this?
Beaker
Member
Re: Re: Re: 6/49 Discussion For April 17, 2004
We look for trends - lists of numbers which 'appear', empirically, to have numbers which hit. Peter's strategy of looking at previous draw numbers has been very successful for him.
Sit on the sidelines and watch, you'll see fireworks here shortly.
Influence is not the right word.powerball said:
We look for trends - lists of numbers which 'appear', empirically, to have numbers which hit. Peter's strategy of looking at previous draw numbers has been very successful for him.
Sit on the sidelines and watch, you'll see fireworks here shortly.
Re: Re: Re: 6/49 Discussion For April 17, 2004
Powerball, if that were indeed true, then all gambling as we now know it would cease to exist. There exists a bias in every long term event. Card counters count on that bias when they wait for the best time to double down at the poker table. If you stay at a roulette table long enough, you will catch a bias in favour of the red or the black or the even or odd or high or low or even in favour of a specific single number.
I'll put it in much more simple terms. If we had just witnessed 100 high-sum draws, then everyone (including you) would be betting high on the next draw being a low-sum. That low sum would definitely come, be it in the next draw or ten draws down the road. What would happen then is everyone would declare that there is a bias in favour of the next draw being low, provided the previous 100+ draws were high. Hence a statistic is born.
Statistics are man made. Most players base their "research" on ready-made statistics developed by other players or software developers. Therefore there is this assumed conformity to a statistical bias based on those popularized statistics. If, however, each of us developed our own statistic, then each one would have a very different perspective on the same sequence of events. That is exactly what is happening here. We each are looking at historical data through a different pair of glasses and are each seeing a slightly different numbers-world. And not a single one view is more correct than any other.
There is definitely some kind of bias based on Peter's new theory of draw number. There are so many other biases that have been unexplored yet. We are just getting started, Powerball, so the best thing is not to dismiss someone's views as polluting the formula, but develop your own views to enrich the formula.
Enjoy the game
powerball said:
Powerball, if that were indeed true, then all gambling as we now know it would cease to exist. There exists a bias in every long term event. Card counters count on that bias when they wait for the best time to double down at the poker table. If you stay at a roulette table long enough, you will catch a bias in favour of the red or the black or the even or odd or high or low or even in favour of a specific single number.
I'll put it in much more simple terms. If we had just witnessed 100 high-sum draws, then everyone (including you) would be betting high on the next draw being a low-sum. That low sum would definitely come, be it in the next draw or ten draws down the road. What would happen then is everyone would declare that there is a bias in favour of the next draw being low, provided the previous 100+ draws were high. Hence a statistic is born.
Statistics are man made. Most players base their "research" on ready-made statistics developed by other players or software developers. Therefore there is this assumed conformity to a statistical bias based on those popularized statistics. If, however, each of us developed our own statistic, then each one would have a very different perspective on the same sequence of events. That is exactly what is happening here. We each are looking at historical data through a different pair of glasses and are each seeing a slightly different numbers-world. And not a single one view is more correct than any other.
There is definitely some kind of bias based on Peter's new theory of draw number. There are so many other biases that have been unexplored yet. We are just getting started, Powerball, so the best thing is not to dismiss someone's views as polluting the formula, but develop your own views to enrich the formula.
Enjoy the game
Beaker
Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: 6/49 Discussion For April 17, 2004
well said
Now, let's hit those biases
well said
Now, let's hit those biases
shirazbai said:Powerball, if that were indeed true, then all gambling as we now know it would cease to exist. There exists a bias in every long term event. Card counters count on that bias when they wait for the best time to double down at the poker table. If you stay at a roulette table long enough, you will catch a bias in favour of the red or the black or the even or odd or high or low or even in favour of a specific single number.
I'll put it in much more simple terms. If we had just witnessed 100 high-sum draws, then everyone (including you) would be betting high on the next draw being a low-sum. That low sum would definitely come, be it in the next draw or ten draws down the road. What would happen then is everyone would declare that there is a bias in favour of the next draw being low, provided the previous 100+ draws were high. Hence a statistic is born.
Statistics are man made. Most players base their "research" on ready-made statistics developed by other players or software developers. Therefore there is this assumed conformity to a statistical bias based on those popularized statistics. If, however, each of us developed our own statistic, then each one would have a very different perspective on the same sequence of events. That is exactly what is happening here. We each are looking at historical data through a different pair of glasses and are each seeing a slightly different numbers-world. And not a single one view is more correct than any other.
There is definitely some kind of bias based on Peter's new theory of draw number. There are so many other biases that have been unexplored yet. We are just getting started, Powerball, so the best thing is not to dismiss someone's views as polluting the formula, but develop your own views to enrich the formula.
Enjoy the game
Thx all for your support, all I can say is, i come to the table with a thought or a viewpoint to be discussed.
I don't recall Powerball that you have offered up anything of signifigance, other than to provide statistics on the percentages of the number of people winning on a draw.
I don't give a rats ass if the odds of one White guy, verses say a French guy , or what ever is 2%, I'm more interested in discussing thoughts or ideas, about trends.
I don't recall Powerball that you have offered up anything of signifigance, other than to provide statistics on the percentages of the number of people winning on a draw.
I don't give a rats ass if the odds of one White guy, verses say a French guy , or what ever is 2%, I'm more interested in discussing thoughts or ideas, about trends.
Re: Re: Re: Re: 6/49 Discussion For April 17, 2004
You are a victim of Gambler's Fallacy again. After 100 high-sum draws, people that understand randomness (like GillesD and me) will never bet a lot that the next draw would be low-sum. One rational view is that past random draws have no effect on the next random draw. Another rational view is that this specifc lottery may have a possible bias toward the high-numbered balls, so that you should bet that the next draw will continue to be high-sum. The worst option is to bet all on low-sum, based on a misunderstanding of the Law of Averages.
It should be common sense that using the last digit of the draw number is useless in finding biases or predicting the next draw. If you number-crunch the past draws enough, you can find random "patterns" based on an infinite number of factors, such as which day of the month (1-31) the draw was held, which day of the year (1-365); the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or last digit of the draw number; about Wednesday vs. Saturday draws, "correlations" between 6/49 and Super 7 or any other lottery in the world, etc, etc. But all these "empirical trends" (i.e., random coincidences) are useless in predicting the next draw.
Anyway, good LUCK to all in this week's $40 million+ draws. Peace!
You are a victim of Gambler's Fallacy again. After 100 high-sum draws, people that understand randomness (like GillesD and me) will never bet a lot that the next draw would be low-sum. One rational view is that past random draws have no effect on the next random draw. Another rational view is that this specifc lottery may have a possible bias toward the high-numbered balls, so that you should bet that the next draw will continue to be high-sum. The worst option is to bet all on low-sum, based on a misunderstanding of the Law of Averages.
It should be common sense that using the last digit of the draw number is useless in finding biases or predicting the next draw. If you number-crunch the past draws enough, you can find random "patterns" based on an infinite number of factors, such as which day of the month (1-31) the draw was held, which day of the year (1-365); the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or last digit of the draw number; about Wednesday vs. Saturday draws, "correlations" between 6/49 and Super 7 or any other lottery in the world, etc, etc. But all these "empirical trends" (i.e., random coincidences) are useless in predicting the next draw.
Anyway, good LUCK to all in this week's $40 million+ draws. Peace!
shirazbai said:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 6/49 Discussion For April 17, 2004
That was precisely my point, Powerball. I have no idea why you wasted the rest of the page telling me what is "common sense" and what is "Gambler's fallacy", since I also pointed out that everyone makes up their own common sense in gambling and no one single individual is 100% right, not even you.
May the luck be randomly in your favour tonight.
powerball said:
That was precisely my point, Powerball. I have no idea why you wasted the rest of the page telling me what is "common sense" and what is "Gambler's fallacy", since I also pointed out that everyone makes up their own common sense in gambling and no one single individual is 100% right, not even you.
May the luck be randomly in your favour tonight.
musclepower77
Member
Winning Numbers
LOTTO 6/49
11-13-18-20-24-29 Bonus 8
Congats to all the winners!
LOTTO 6/49
11-13-18-20-24-29 Bonus 8
Congats to all the winners!
[COLOR=red]musclepower77[/COLOR] said:
I knew mine were no good as soon as I saw the decades.
Two inner decades. Like I said earlier, EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED!
Maggie, this gives you an example of what I meant. If, for my other set, I had gone with the decades I had left out in my first set (i.e. 2nd set would be the "least due" decades), then you can see how nice a chance that second set would have. My first set was the first and the last two decades (or the outer decades), so my second set would have been the remaining inner decade coupled with some others. I make a point and not a day later my proof arrives courtesy of the Lottery Corporation themselves.
Sheba said:Finally got my 12 Number set.. Went with some different ones that I had planned on..
05-13-18-20-27-29-31-34-36-39-46-47
Will be playing a small wheel with those as well
Sheba__
~~~
Everybody's got a dream....GO! LEAFS! GO!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice pickin' Sheba....hope you cashed in.
Dennis Bassboss
Member
Just Hope you played it...with that 29....Dennis Bassboss said:You should play that number 24 that you have in mind shirazbai...
Dennis Bassboss said:It is the 29 that bothers me.....not the 48....For some reasons------->
I just put 2 dandies in there this week....I don't talk very much anymore in these discussions...Because at the present time I don't have that much time to study my numbers...But I do have a question for you...Why are you here if you don't believe in finding the correct numbers???powerball said:
I have proven to everyone without any kind of doubts that you can predict numbers...not only by luck...
If not I'm a psychic!! But I think it is something else....I really wonder about your behavior here...I don't want to start a war here with you...But you always say the same erronnous thing over and over again...I respect and the other players here respect your opinion...Respect our opinion too please...You want to play quick pick only?? Go ahead and do it...post them if you want...
If you start winning more often than the expected value here I will seriously start to doubt that you only play quick picks...I think that even if you do not admit it you are here to get good numbers ..When I think about it this is the only way that could explain your presence here logically...We know your lines by hart now...You will never convince me because I have predicted numbers here more often than your imagination can produce them...
You reminds me of of man not believing in god that would go inside a church to tell everyone there that what they think is not correct...
When people are witnessing something that they can't explain usually they'll rationalize their views with extraordinaries stories...Just think of U.F.O.,miracles,Ghosts etc...
More down to earth people like yourself or mathematicians and physicist invented another word to try to explain what they don't understand----> luck
You disagree with me???
Then...Why are you here..What do you want to achieve??
Last edited: