How quik piks are generated.
- Thread starter Poorboy
- Start date
Dennis Bassboss
Member
Yes thanks...Very interesting story indeed...peter said:
johnph77
Member
In all likelihood, different random number generators (RNGs) were used to generate those tickets, but used the same operating system. One thing about them is that these RNGs were not used to generate individual numbers, but draw numbers (based on 13,983,816 draws) that would generate the individual numbers necessary to produce that draw.
It is a known fact that any RNG will produce the same string of numbers each and every startup and will start over (generating the same strings of random numbers) when the capabilities of that RNG are reached. A 32-bit processor can generate 2 to the 32nd power different random numbers (or, in this case, strings of random numbers), a 64-bit processor 2 to the 64th power different random numbers and a 128-bit processor 2 to the 128th power different random numbers. The possibilities of getting two identical tickets are that remote, far more than any lottery jackpot odds, but, as you can see, not impossible. Maybe you're special?
gl
john
It is a known fact that any RNG will produce the same string of numbers each and every startup and will start over (generating the same strings of random numbers) when the capabilities of that RNG are reached. A 32-bit processor can generate 2 to the 32nd power different random numbers (or, in this case, strings of random numbers), a 64-bit processor 2 to the 64th power different random numbers and a 128-bit processor 2 to the 128th power different random numbers. The possibilities of getting two identical tickets are that remote, far more than any lottery jackpot odds, but, as you can see, not impossible. Maybe you're special?
gl
john
Beaker, yes I thought about that too. My nine line constant set is what I have more hopes on though. As I mentioned, I don't wheel that set, they are just nine lines of personally chosen numbers. Interestingly enough, I get $10 back from that set usually every other draw, so it sort of half-pays for itself. I really don't want another constant set of ten lines, so with the balance of the budget I do a little wheel, which I will post here now. I should check the ten lines against history though, I never dared to do that yet.
Anyhow ........ This next draw is really sitting on the line in my opinion. It will either be a low sum draw or a really high sum draw. I can't see it being in the middle. My best bet will be 10, will post it later.
Anyhow ........ This next draw is really sitting on the line in my opinion. It will either be a low sum draw or a really high sum draw. I can't see it being in the middle. My best bet will be 10, will post it later.
shirazbai said:I just realized too, if it was a slip involved, then both lotteries would be on the same ticket. So no, wasn't a slip as you see.
we can play both our western 649 lottery and canada 649 with a quick pick and we get both the same numbers. the retailer just pushes a button that says both plays.. it sometimes takes a few seconds between the two tickets being printed. and yes the retails that I go to on a regular basis have all made mistakes on my requests in the past.
I wonder if you run that bar code through their machines it would tell you the exact time the tickets were printed. would be interesting to know.
I would definitely follow up if you are sure they were not printed out as a both draw.
I wouldn't let them originals out of my hands without some good copies to back them up.
I would that there is a problem on the way the seed of the RNG of the terminals are being generated!
They probably used exactly the same seed for both RNGs and hence got exactly the same sequence.
Usually one seed the RNG, based on the clock step of the computer! Maybe they are using something that doesn't change that fast!
Or like Sheba said the guy just made a mistake, he is only human!
They probably used exactly the same seed for both RNGs and hence got exactly the same sequence.
Usually one seed the RNG, based on the clock step of the computer! Maybe they are using something that doesn't change that fast!
Or like Sheba said the guy just made a mistake, he is only human!
Millionaire2004
Member
the question as to how Quick Pick numbers are generated , see http://members.shaw.ca/dtoljaga (random computer generation of numbers)
What 30 millions winner?And ya Shiraz thatwas the same point that i was trying to make...I know computers and i know programmers and given the algirythms involved having a ticket with numbers 1 to 6 in succession just should not happen.As in your case too kinda makes you go hmmmm..
ladiluck is correct in that the retailer simply pushed a button to give you the exact same numbers for the other lottery, e.g., Ontario 49. After you asked for 10 Lotto 6/49 QuickPicks, you asked for 10 QuickPicks of the other lottery. Many players like to have the same numbers for national 6/49 and the provincial 49, so the retailer chose this option for you. There is no big mystery here. Ontario and other players can verify this next time you buy your tickets.
By the way, 21-22-23-24-25-26 has the same chances of being drawn as any other combination, just like 1-2-3-4-5-6. Research stuidies have proven that gamblers don't understand randomness and mistakenly believe that sequential numbers are "less random" and less likely to come up.
By the way, 21-22-23-24-25-26 has the same chances of being drawn as any other combination, just like 1-2-3-4-5-6. Research stuidies have proven that gamblers don't understand randomness and mistakenly believe that sequential numbers are "less random" and less likely to come up.
ladiluck said:
We don't have that option here in Atlantic Canada...But I do remember that when I was in Toronto and bought a ticket for wednesday and saturdays draw .. They were the same numbers but just different dates...
Sheba__
~~~
Everybody's got a dream....GO! LEAFS! GO!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheba__
~~~ Everybody's got a dream....GO! LEAFS! GO!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
One specific combination
powerball, you are quite right in stating that combination 21-22-23-24-25-26 has as many chance of coming out as 1-2-3-4-5-6.
To me, these have an identical pattern. A first number (either 21 or 1) and the same difference between each other number (here 1 in both cases but it may be any number lower than 10). Not very often it will happen, I agree.
But can somebody go check the results of draw #670 of Lotto 6/49 on June 23, 1990? Isn't that the same pattern except fo a different first number and a difference other than 1?
Actually, if I counted well, there are 216 possible combinations with this pattern (same difference between all numbers and a first number that may vary).
powerball, you are quite right in stating that combination 21-22-23-24-25-26 has as many chance of coming out as 1-2-3-4-5-6.
To me, these have an identical pattern. A first number (either 21 or 1) and the same difference between each other number (here 1 in both cases but it may be any number lower than 10). Not very often it will happen, I agree.
But can somebody go check the results of draw #670 of Lotto 6/49 on June 23, 1990? Isn't that the same pattern except fo a different first number and a difference other than 1?
Actually, if I counted well, there are 216 possible combinations with this pattern (same difference between all numbers and a first number that may vary).
powerball said:
Powerball,
It is true that combination 1-2-3-4-5-6 has theorically the same chances as 21-22-23-24-25-26 has to come out, nevertheless
in the "real world" things seem to happen differently. As if there is a "Murphy's Law" that dictates the Ryo-Catteau machines
that the easiest combination to think of (1-2-3-4-5-6) must be the rarest of all to come out.
A while back, I created a random number generator that takes into account many of the lotto 6/49 datas and statistics.
I don't use RND
(right-out-of-the-box pseudo random number generator) found in other programming languages, spreadsheets, and other wares.
The results have a 6/49 DNA or flavour so to speak. And although it is not perfect randomness, in these billions of
combinations generated, in which all the combinations have the same chances to come out,
I never came across 1-2-3-4-5-6 itself.
I came across many sequencial combinations, but never that one.
Bab
Babarlish
You are right in some things but wrong in many others.
Just in Lotto 6/49 I have yet to see 13,981,707 combinations with one on them being 1-2-3-4-5-6 but also 10-12-23-37-41-45 and a few other that I will not list (you can understand that).
Lotto 6/49 with more than 2100 draws is one of the oldest one and if you multiple that by 1000 lotteries (that you can check if you want), that will give you about 2,000,000 combinations or about 1/6 of all possibilities.
So you created a random-number generator and generated billions (???) of combinations and never found 1-2-3-4-5-6. Must have taken you a lot of time and if you did not get any 6 consecutive numbers, I would think your method for verifyting numbers is inadequate or (most likely) your random-number generator has a certain bias.
Based on a very rough guess (a statistician could provided more precise data), I would say that after 20 millions combinations, it is most likely that 75% of the combinations would have come out, and over 95% of them, if you go to 50 millions (not billions) combinations. 1-2-3-4-5-6 may in there or not. And while I making guesses, I would say that within the first 10 millions combinations, at least one combination (I do no know which one) will have come out once.
Have you checked draw #670 of Lotto 6/49? Any comments on the numbers? It should not have happened.
Sheba,
You are right. Once saw an article where it was mentionned that the 1-2-3-4-5-6 combination is one bet of the most often. I once did it for the fun of it but no I did not win.
You are right in some things but wrong in many others.
Just in Lotto 6/49 I have yet to see 13,981,707 combinations with one on them being 1-2-3-4-5-6 but also 10-12-23-37-41-45 and a few other that I will not list (you can understand that).
Lotto 6/49 with more than 2100 draws is one of the oldest one and if you multiple that by 1000 lotteries (that you can check if you want), that will give you about 2,000,000 combinations or about 1/6 of all possibilities.
So you created a random-number generator and generated billions (???) of combinations and never found 1-2-3-4-5-6. Must have taken you a lot of time and if you did not get any 6 consecutive numbers, I would think your method for verifyting numbers is inadequate or (most likely) your random-number generator has a certain bias.
Based on a very rough guess (a statistician could provided more precise data), I would say that after 20 millions combinations, it is most likely that 75% of the combinations would have come out, and over 95% of them, if you go to 50 millions (not billions) combinations. 1-2-3-4-5-6 may in there or not. And while I making guesses, I would say that within the first 10 millions combinations, at least one combination (I do no know which one) will have come out once.
Have you checked draw #670 of Lotto 6/49? Any comments on the numbers? It should not have happened.
Sheba,
You are right. Once saw an article where it was mentionned that the 1-2-3-4-5-6 combination is one bet of the most often. I once did it for the fun of it but no I did not win.
Re: Babarlish
Hi Gilles,
Of course I am right in some things but wrong in many others.
When I say billions, I mean billions. When you look at files for so long that contains many millions of
combinations, after a while you can certainly can say billions, but I didn't say billions of unique combinations.
That wouldn't be very intelligent.
My program does generate a lot of duplicates. That is part of its 6/49 fingerprint or flavour I wanted,
if I may say. For an average request of 14 millions combinations, after the duplicates are taken out of the way,
I usually end with 4-5 million unique combinations. So, not even 50%.
"(most likely) your random-number generator has a certain bias."
Of course it is biased Gilles, I just wrote it above "I created a random number generator that takes into account
many of the lotto 6/49 datas and statistics (snip) The results have a 6/49 DNA or flavour so to speak."
After my last message, I ran my program once again, and guess what?
Not only it generated 1-2-3-4-5-6 which I see here for the very 1st time, but also 44-45-46-47-48-49.
Now lest's see. Ah! Murphy.dll, That explains it
Bab
Hi Gilles,
Of course I am right in some things but wrong in many others.
When I say billions, I mean billions. When you look at files for so long that contains many millions of
combinations, after a while you can certainly can say billions, but I didn't say billions of unique combinations.
That wouldn't be very intelligent.
My program does generate a lot of duplicates. That is part of its 6/49 fingerprint or flavour I wanted,
if I may say. For an average request of 14 millions combinations, after the duplicates are taken out of the way,
I usually end with 4-5 million unique combinations. So, not even 50%.
"(most likely) your random-number generator has a certain bias."
Of course it is biased Gilles, I just wrote it above "I created a random number generator that takes into account
many of the lotto 6/49 datas and statistics (snip) The results have a 6/49 DNA or flavour so to speak."
After my last message, I ran my program once again, and guess what?
Not only it generated 1-2-3-4-5-6 which I see here for the very 1st time, but also 44-45-46-47-48-49.
Now lest's see. Ah! Murphy.dll, That explains it
Bab