Is there a way to find out for sure whether lotto is fixed or not?

[W Kaenzig]

gone

Kosteczki, you are a fine young man. Having dropped-out of high school at age 16, joining the Marines at 18, and staying for 6 years, I was just drifting at your age. I can only imagine how sharp you'll be in later years. Later, after getting discharged, I went to Business College for a year, and immediately got a job as a Junior Accountant for a local commercial/industrial construction company. They opened my eyes about not being so cynical and trusting others. This bunch that I worked for, for about 19 years, were the most honest and sharpest individuals I've ever met.
But, I got burned-out and went into business with 2 nephews, (don't ever go into business with relatives, as individual stubborness prevails).
After struggling for 5 years, we sold, and I worked for the Post Office for 7 years before retiring.
I know you are handicapped, but look at it with a positive attitude, --- it allowed you to study more. Perhaps, it's a blessing rather than a curse. W

 

[W Kaenzig]

continued

I came on this board hoping to see if some looked at this phenomenal game of lotto the same way that I do. But, no one does. I take it back that tracking history of drawings is a waste of time and effort. Without your efforts I probably wouldn't convince anyone of my theories.
In any case, I've been down the same roads everyone else has, and quite a number of dead-ends. But, I firmly believe all attempts at filtering, and data history, leads to this point. Most filtering tries to analyze the cart, but one needs to understand first the horse. Then filtering can occur.
I shall not say anymore except, ---auf Wiedersehen! W

 

[tomtom]

Re: continued

I take it back that tracking history of drawings is a waste of time and effort.

History and numbers were always helpful in receiving a global picture and getting the missing part. For example, two posts above you are missing 6+ years…

 

[W Kaenzig]

Okay. After getting discharged, I worked for Square D, an electrical box mfgr, for 1 year prior to going to Morgan City, LA to work on an oil rig for one Spring. Came back to the electrical box mfgr for a year while going to school. Before going to the Post Office I worked at Lexmark for 4 years operating an automatic soldering machine, which solders all of the components on a "Mother Board" for computer printers. In between all of that, I went in bits and pieces not working for about 1 year. You have a sharp eye, TomTom. Adios. W

 

[Bertil]

lotto frequencies

I have the database on a memory key and I forgot the memory key at work. I will post the frequencies on Tuesday (holiday monday)

Thx

Hi again,
Did you forget to post the data?
I'm looking for the mean and its variance from which I can
calculate the chi-squared-goodness-of-fit value. It will tell
if there is a bias. A set of 17511 draws has yielded a most
unlikely value of 3073.6 as variance, when the expected value
would be 1881.6. Thus there is some doubt about the
randomness of the draws.

Bertil

 

[mirage]

Re: lotto frequencies

Hi again,
Did you forget to post the data?
I'm looking for the mean and its variance from which I can
calculate the chi-squared-goodness-of-fit value. It will tell
if there is a bias. A set of 17511 draws has yielded a most
unlikely value of 3073.6 as variance, when the expected value
would be 1881.6. Thus there is some doubt about the
randomness of the draws.

Bertil

(Oh kosteczki? Where for art thou?)

 

[W Kaenzig]

Mirage, you are on your toes, and one smart cookie. I think Kosteczki may be ill. However, I feel sure that his data will corrobate what I said.
Also, the concept of "randomness" doesn't exist. If one can measure randomness, then one can predict it. Hence, it's not random. No one, to my knowledge has ever proved it's existence. Even programs that generate "random generators" require some imput to start. They can only get close. I merely stated that the drawings were "fair", not random.
Stats can only measure variances of the mean, at any time, based upon historical data.
No one to my knowledge can confirm "randomness". Even those who study "Quantum Mechanics" agree. The sheer act of trying to measure randomness renders it not random. Too many repeats and/or patterns can occur. That's all. Keep up the good work. W

 

[mirage]

Mirage, you are on your toes, and one smart cookie. I think Kosteczki may be ill. However, I feel sure that his data will corrobate what I said.
Also, the concept of "randomness" doesn't exist. If one can measure randomness, then one can predict it. Hence, it's not random. No one, to my knowledge has ever proved it's existence. Even programs that generate "random generators" require some imput to start. They can only get close. I merely stated that the drawings were "fair", not random.
Stats can only measure variances of the mean, at any time, based upon historical data.
No one to my knowledge can confirm "randomness". Even those who study "Quantum Mechanics" agree. The sheer act of trying to measure randomness renders it not random. Too many repeats and/or patterns can occur. That's all. Keep up the good work. W

W,

Your points are well taken. Thanks!

 

[Bertil]

Randomness

Mirage, you are on your toes, and one smart cookie. I think Kosteczki may be ill. However, I feel sure that his data will corrobate what I said.
Also, the concept of "randomness" doesn't exist. If one can measure randomness, then one can predict it. Hence, it's not random. No one, to my knowledge has ever proved it's existence. Even programs that generate "random generators" require some imput to start. They can only get close. I merely stated that the drawings were "fair", not random.
Stats can only measure variances of the mean, at any time, based upon historical data.
No one to my knowledge can confirm "randomness". Even those who study "Quantum Mechanics" agree. The sheer act of trying to measure randomness renders it not random. Too many repeats and/or patterns can occur. That's all. Keep up the good work. W

W seems to lack any background in mathematics and thus is unable to understand the meaning of random numbers.
By definition it refers to the situation where it is impossible
to predict the next number or comination of numbers based
on past numbers drawn.
When using a computer program for the draw it is most
likely to be done with a pseudo random number generator,
and if one knew the program and the seed used one could
in theory predict the next set of numbers. But since the
lottery carries out test runs between selecting the winning
numbers one can never predict what will come up next
especially when the seed number is unknown to the public.
All this pontificating by W about randomness is giberish.

Bertl

 

[Brad]

Random shrandom ... wake us up when there's something fresh being discussed here ......

 

[W Kaenzig]

Ah! A response! First I didn't denouce you. I was merely trying to get you to look at the situation differently. And, I don't have to have a background in mathematics to have an open mind about it.
You didn't disprove anything I said. However, you did affirm a couple of things. (1) I was aware that practice runs are made. (2) You admitted that a "seed" was required to start the program. And, that is exactly what I said. All "so called" random generating programs requires input. This act, in itself, rendors it not random.
And I stated that stats can only measure variances of the mean at a given point in time. No comment was made about that. And, everything that I've mentioned in the mathematical sense, I can prove. I feel that Kosteczki has made his calculations and is keeping it to himself.

 

[Bertil]

Randomness

Random shrandom ... wake us up when there's something fresh being discussed here ......

Brad,
Did you just wake up or why did you not advise Kaenzig long ago to post something new and interesting that would help us win
a jack pot? His personal background does not interest me.

BTW, statistics covering the history of a game tells us nothing
about what goes on now. Only short term stats can do that.
You can go back to sleep now having learnt nothing new.

Bertil

 

[Brad]

Re: Randomness

Brad, <<snip>> You can go back to sleep now having learnt nothing new.

Bertil

Good advice, lol.

Nothing personal guys, but this random vs. not-random vs. pseudo random quibble feels like a nuisance pop-up now ...

And it almost invariably seems to lead into analysis of personal backgrounds (like: my grand-dad was a Nobel prize mathematician so you with your gardener ancestry should stick to cross-breeding daisies), which makes the discussion amuzing but unlikely to end in a satisfactory resolution.

But hey ... have at it if you think you'll be able to convince the other guy

 

[mirage]

Re: Re: Randomness

Good advice, lol.

Nothing personal guys, but this random vs. not-random vs. pseudo random quibble feels like a nuisance pop-up now ...

And it almost invariably seems to lead into analysis of personal backgrounds (like: my grand-dad was a Nobel prize mathematician so you with your gardener ancestry should stick to cross-breeding daisies), which makes the discussion amuzing but unlikely to end in a satisfactory resolution.

But hey ... have at it if you think you'll be able to convince the other guy

Well Brad you seemed to have stopped any postings in this thread (killed the thread)- nothing personal since I like you anyway - but my original question was (still is), is there a way to find out for sure if the lotto is fixed or not? No one wants to believe it is 'specially not on this board... but I can practically be certain that there's no point in playing certain lotteries or certain lottos at certain times in Canada because no one's going to win them anyway until the jackpot rolls over-in some cases rolls over lots and lots of times, or isn't won. These lotteries should win more often at least occasionally... So there's something going on. Or the winner almost always seems to be some naive bunch of schmucks who just happened to get lucky. I wonder how often people who run syndicates in Canada plus programming and systems on their side who are able to get the odds reduced to where sense would seem to suggest that they really ought to be winning more often than they are, but this is not the case. Or is it? Doesn't seem to be- if some of these groups are "getting away with it" they are knowing that it's best to keep a low, profile... You never hear about those types of winners.
If every other major monetary entity, you name it, major bunch of people with hands on lots of money: political institutions, agencies, religious groups, & especially corporations, etc. of which lotto would fall into that latter cat., etc., has an attitude of we are going to do what suits us best and to hell with fairness then why would the lotto be any different? Auditors notwithstanding.
And so the bottom line is, is there really a Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy & so why go on believing?
Apologies for the rant.

 

[mirage]

(Timed out again for editing.)

Top of the list of unfair corrupt bodies should have been governments, and lotto corps are pseudo-government-agency-corps.

OK, nufced for now.

 

[Brad]

Ooops, sorry Mirage ... I had no intent of killing this thread that you started. My commets were only regarding this seemingly never-ending random vs. not-random argument that keeps re-surfacing, esp. of late. No one has been able to put it to bed yet, IMO, although it's been discussed many many times. So when I see it I get this uncontrollable urge to snicker or roll my eyes.

Besides, I thought it was really off topic ... but maybe I was wrong this time and possibly 'randomness' does fit in here

So by way of contributing to the original topic I offer this link on Checking the Randomness of the UK National Lottery by the Royal Statistical Society. It's kind of 'dry' reading but it provides a bit of insight into the controls that are in place, at least in the UK.
If I find similar reports on Canadian or other lottos I'll post the links.

Cheers

 

[Bertil]

Randomness

Ooops, sorry Mirage ... I had no intent of killing this thread that you started. My commets were only regarding this seemingly never-ending random vs. not-random argument that keeps re-surfacing, esp. of late. No one has been able to put it to bed yet, IMO, although it's been discussed many many times. So when I see it I get this uncontrollable urge to snicker or roll my eyes.

Besides, I thought it was really off topic ... but maybe I was wrong this time and possibly 'randomness' does fit in here

Brad,
At the risk of putting you to sleep or worse yet boring you to death, let me mention two Canadien papers on the subject:
"Test of uniformity for sets of lotto numbers" by Harry Joe in
Statistics &Probability Letters 16(1993)p.181-188 and
"Chi-square and the lottery" by Ch.Genest et al in The
Statistician 51(202)p.243-257. Each paper has many references.

Your sudden interest in randomness is commendable.

Bertil

So by way of contributing to the original topic I offer this link on Checking the Randomness of the UK National Lottery by the Royal Statistical Society. It's kind of 'dry' reading but it provides a bit of insight into the controls that are in place, at least in the UK.
If I find similar reports on Canadian or other lottos I'll post the links.

Cheers

 

[Brad]

Re: Randomness

Brad,
At the risk of putting you to sleep or worse yet boring you to death, let me mention two Canadien papers on the subject:
"Test of uniformity for sets of lotto numbers" by Harry Joe in
Statistics &Probability Letters 16(1993)p.181-188 and
"Chi-square and the lottery" by Ch.Genest et al in The
Statistician 51(202)p.243-257. Each paper has many references.

Your sudden interest in randomness is commendable.

Bertil

Thanks for the pointers but since my tongue is still stuck to the roof of my mouth from reading the RSS report I choose to skip more stat papers for now .


For the record, I've said this a few times already, I don't think Lottos are rigged even though I do agree that politicians (governments and their arms) are not above deceiving and manipulating the public.

When it comes to fixing lotteries they don't need to do that, the odds are largely in their favour already. I'm not saying that if they thought they could get away with cheating they wouldn't, but in order for them to continue with their advantage, in keeping the cash-cows healthy, the ball-draws really need to be seen as fair.

They simply can't gamble to be found cheating because even one such occurence would put a large dent, if not a complete stop, to their perpetual money machine. Even a whiff of a scandal could seriously affect their profits. Now maybe they're not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier but surely even they are wise enough not to tamper with lottos.

There will always be some that suggest draws are rigged, offering theories or anecdotal 'evidence' to that end ... we've yet to see anyone here offer real proof that is the case though.

As I've said to ShytKicker in another thread, if someone can come up with proof of foul play then formally accusing a Lotto Corporation could win more money in a settlement than by winning a JackPot.

I have one final thought before I get off my opinionated soap-box. Which would be easier, beating the lotto-odds or proving a court case against the Lotto-Corp?

Cheers

 

[ifoundyou]

Fixed or not Fixed

The Mega Million Lottery I believe is fixed. I have come up with a formula
to predict 97% of the time 1 0ut of 4 numbers that will ocme up on the
Mega Million Lottery evertime so I believe it is fixed.

Just curious but you base this opinion on what?

I think some lottos are reasonably clean some of the time but not always.

There is one lotto here where I live which has a rollover jackpot, jackpot starts out at 250,000 but it's practically a guarrantee that the jackpot won't be won until it's over a million$. Then bingo, as often as not, someone wins it pretty quick. Sometimes it goes to $1.3 or more mil though. I've been watching it for deviations from this trend but it's been proving me right for the last bunch of years. (OLGC I double dare ya to prove me wrong about this!)

Then there's this other lotto with odds close to 1 in 63,000,000 (mind you, you get a line of choice plus 2 quik piks, 3 lines in total for $2 canuck bucks but how many lines (unless you are in an office pool) do you think you can afford at $2 a shot? (& almost all the office pools that I've ever head of only do quik piks because they are easy and no one has to take responsibility for the choice of numbers.) This lotto with odds of 1 in 63 mil. is odds 3 times the population of all of Canada but this lotto is won pretty consistently. How can this be? They got every man, woman and child playing this lottery every draw???

For what it's worth, currently, imo, the Canada 6/49 is clean right now, but who can afford it?

It it may also depend on where you live, which lotto and who's running it.

 

[solomon]

Gentlemen, very interesting thread! My 2 cents
In the age of electronic voting machines and super computers one really must ask these questions of possible corruption. In my opinion almost every part of our society is observed and controlled and has been for a very long time. So one may ask why would the lotto get a green light for fair play? Someone said previously why taint a cash cow with the risk of being caught. But in this sophisticated technotronic era the lotto could still be rigged falling in the parameters of what may seem to be mathmatically legitamate giving all stats the apperance of legitamacy. For example, Location is one possible method of choosing the winners and is quite suspect my mind.