An Observation

[ChiefWiggum]

Invariably when discussing the Lotto, the branch of mathematics related to Probability crops up.

I would like to point out that Probability is not the same as Predictability.

I would like this site to focus on Predictability, not Probability.

One may argue that Probability is the nearest theory in mathematics to Predictability and that is why it dominates the forum.

I don't subscribe to that argument, and that is why I return to this forum increasingly infrequently.

True, it is near. But not near enough.

It would be nice to see some contributors re-evaluate their probability-centric views and examine some more promising areas of mathematics to secure multiple jackpots.

Probability lacks the required "granularity" to be sufficiently useful for Lotto predictions.

It is time for some new ideas.

Good Luck to everyone.

 

[tomtom]

It would be nice to see some contibrutors re-evaluate their probability-centric views and examine some more promising areas of mathematics to secure multiple jackpots.

Is this a joke or what? ...

 

[CMF]

Predictability and Probability.

The expectation from a Probability Calculation equates sometimes amazingly close to what Random Selections from the full pool of numbers give.

I have shown this probably hundreds of times.


Whatever you do and whatever you call it for it to have any merit whatsoever it must equal or surpass Random Selections. From the time that I posted on another Forum that is what I pushed and it was considered novel at the time. Now the stalwarts on that site push the idea too - but my name is never mentioned - I don't exist as far as that forum is concerned - mention Colin - immediately exorcised. Yer, I know childish.

Anyway Chief Wiggum I seem to remember you from that site - I think you are the one that states all randomness can be understood and unravelled - to the extent that is possible the complexity of doing so is what defines randomness. You can crack codes - but if it takes you a hundred years and the code is changed every 6 months - why bother.

So Chief, while I wish for you that the clouds of misfortune never cross your path and the prairie once again rumbles to the sound of 10,000 Buffalo not too mention all your daughters marrying sqillionares (as I hope mine do - but it doesn't matter if they don't) and your sons being brave and true (unfortunately, I can't share with you there - my Father had 7 sons and 1 daughter - so I guess it was my turn to have 3 daughters - I'm happy!) - I'm afraid that prediction results must be measured against what Random Selections or Probability delivers.

I pass the peace pipe to you even though I don't smoke.

Colin

 

[ChiefWiggum]

Colin

I agree absolutely that for a methodology to have any merit it must SURPASS Random Selections. No argument there.
That is indeed the ONLY benchmark that means anything in the Lotto world.

That criterion, however , does not restrict your options to Probability. That is the point I was making.

It must be evident to everyone involved that Probability by itself does not produce the precision required to obtain the elusive 6/6 within a reasonable budget.

As for a prior contact on another site, I don't make contributions to other sites. It is unlikely that it was I.

The Simpsons is quite popular, so it likely that the moniker is used by others.

As for randomness, I don't smoke enough to make any wild claims about it.

What I do say, however, is that it is possible for an observer to organise "random" events in an order that makes more sense to the observer.

Once ordered, predictions can be attempted within a limited budget, provided that they meet the criterion above.

The observer does not need to understand the nature of randomness in order to to this.

The player merely organises the cards that are dealt to him, then
makes choices.

 

[ChiefWiggum]

Colin

I re-read your posting.

You said

"The expectation from a Probability Calculation equates sometimes amazingly close to what Random Selections from the full pool of numbers give."

It sounds like you are saying that the results of Probability do not exceed that of Random Selections.

It sounds like you agree with me.