Missing digits in Lotto

[PAB]

Hi Icewynd,

FYI --- I had planned to entitle the post "Lottery 101 - Importing Data Into Your Spreadsheet".

That's a good idea .

What I will do is expand slightly on the full method and try and include the situations that it is best used for.
I like the title you were going to use so I might adapt it slightly and use that if you don't mind!
I might even ask LT if he could include it as a "Sticky".

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

 

[Icewynd]

I might even ask LT if he could include it as a "Sticky".

Very good idea

 

[jack]

Hello, pab, very good job, you can do so tembem =
* Separate the initial digits and last digits, and make this analysis ie analysis are two
* Separated from the initial digits 0 to 4or 5 as last digit lottery and 0-9
Namely view distinct digit and other statistics

 

[Bertil]

Hi Bertil,


Here is the full list for the C(59,5) which = 5,006,386 combinations.

3 Seperate Digits = 580 Combinations Which = 0.01159 Percent.
4 Seperate Digits = 45,080 Combinations Which = 0.90045 Percent.
5 Seperate Digits = 517,620 Combinations Which = 10.33919 Percent.
6 Seperate Digits = 1,683,902 Combinations Which = 33.63508 Percent.
7 Seperate Digits = 1,895,804 Combinations Which = 37.86772 Percent.
8 Seperate Digits = 762,480 Combinations Which = 15.23015 Percent.
9 Seperate Digits = 98,160 Combinations Which = 1.96070 Percent.
10 Seperate Digits = 2,760 Combinations Which = 0.05513 Percent.
Total = 5,006,386 Combinations Which = 100.00000 Percent.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore,
there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

I've just got an e-mail proposing these frequencies: 3-2080, 4-91460,
5-761315, 6-1913011, 7-1674200, 8-512400, 9-46200, 10-720.
This set has an identical shape as yours with a slightly lower mean=6.37.
Note that the 3 and 10 are reversed.
This new set must be based on a different method of calculation.

Bertil

 

[PAB]

Hi Bertil,

I've just got an e-mail proposing these frequencies: 3-2080, 4-91460, 5-761315, 6-1913011, 7-1674200, 8-512400, 9-46200, 10-720.
This set has an identical shape as yours with a slightly lower mean = 6.37.
Note that the 3 and 10 are reversed.
This new set must be based on a different method of calculation.

Well, I don't know how they calculated their combination statistics, but the total combinations that they have given are WRONG. Their total equates to 5,001,386 combinations which is 5,000 LESS than the combinations produced from C(59, 5).

Here is the comparison between their statistics and mine...

Digit 3 - Mine = 580 And Theirs = 2,080 Making A Difference Of -1,500 Combinations.
Digit 4 - Mine = 45,080 And Theirs = 91,460 Making A Difference Of -46,380 Combinations.
Digit 5 - Mine = 517,620 And Theirs = 761,315 Making A Difference Of -243,695 Combinations.
Digit 6 - Mine = 1,683,902 And Theirs = 1,913,011 Making A Difference Of -229,109 Combinations.
Digit 7 - Mine = 1,895,804 And Theirs = 1,674,200 Making A Difference Of 221,604 Combinations.
Digit 8 - Mine = 762,480 And Theirs = 512,400 Making A Difference Of 250,080 Combinations.
Digit 9 - Mine = 98,160 And Theirs = 46,200 Making A Difference Of 51,960 Combinations.
Digit 10 - Mine = 2,760 And Theirs = 720 Making A Difference Of 2,040 Combinations.
Total - Mine = 5,006,386 And Theirs = 5,001,386 Making A Difference Of 5,000 Combinations.

I hope this helps!

BTW, What did you think of the file I uploaded for you???

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

 

[Bertil]

Missing Digits in Powerball

When my son comes back from India in mid July I'll ask him to look at
your list. My rudimentary knowhow keep me from trying it out.

I used my hand held TI30XA and added up the new frequencies and got
5006386 and thus no missing 5000.

Thus we are faced with a problem of testing a limited number of randomly
generated draws to try to determine which set is correct. How many should
we test? 500,5K,50K,500K? Would the mean be sufficient or should one
count the frequency of draws with all ten digits?

Bertil

 

[Bertil]

Missing Digits in Lotto

Sorry, I made a typo. I misread my handwritten numbers for 7 digits and
typed 1674200 instead of 1679200, which accounts for the missing 5000.

As for testing for all ten digits, your frequency of 2760 out of 5006386
means 1 per about 1800. Thus testing 5K draws should be enough.

Bertil

 

[PAB]

Hi Bertil,

I used my hand held TI30XA and added up the new frequencies and got 5,006,386 and thus no missing 5,000.

These are the actual figures you posted...

I've just got an e-mail proposing these frequencies: 3-2080, 4-91460, 5-761315, 6-1913011, 7-1674200, 8-512400, 9-46200, 10-720.

...and if you add them up they come to 5,001,386 and NOT 5,006,386, a difference of 5,000.

Thus we are faced with a problem of testing a limited number of randomly generated draws to try to determine which set is correct.

No we don't! Based on my comments above, the set you posted are Wrong!, but if you want to do the testing then by all means go ahead and then post the results please.

You still didn't answer my question...

BTW, What did you think of the file I uploaded for you???

...and whether the time and effort I took to put it together for you provided the information you were after?

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

 

[PAB]

Hi Bertil,

I have just re-addressed this topic after looking at the total combinations produced for each digit. I looked at my figures and they didn't seem quite right, so I went back to my program and realised that I had run the wrong program that I wrote to Count Unique Digits, I had in fact run the program that I wrote to Count ALL Digits.

Anyway, the correct figures for Count Unique Digits are as follows...

2 Unique Digits = 60 Combinations Which = 0.00120 Percent.
3 Unique Digits = 13,240 Combinations Which = 0.26446 Percent.
4 Unique Digits = 255,660 Combinations Which = 5.10668 Percent.
5 Unique Digits = 1,241,646 Combinations Which = 24.80124 Percent.
6 Unique Digits = 2,026,760 Combinations Which = 40.48349 Percent.
7 Unique Digits = 1,205,500 Combinations Which = 24.07925 Percent.
8 Unique Digits = 249,000 Combinations Which = 4.97365 Percent.
9 Unique Digits = 14,400 Combinations Which = 0.28763 Percent.
10 Unique Digits = 120 Combinations Which = 0.00240 Percent.
Total = 5,006,386 Combinations Which = 100.00000 Percent.

The figures you have are still Wrong!

So you have actually got now two different analysis, one for Count Unique Digits and the other for Count Of ALL Digits, both from the total combinations of a C(59, 5) Lotto.

You STILL haven't answered my question...

Originally Posted by PAB
BTW, What did you think of the file I uploaded for you???

...and whether the time and effort I took to put it together for you provided the information you were after?

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

 

[Bertil]

The file you sent me is too technical for my very limited skills. So I must
wait till my son comes back from India to evaluate it. But thanks for you
great efforts.
The new set of frequencies need to be compared with analysis of 10K
random lines of 5/59 draws.
The hugh difference between 3 and 10 digits looks unrealistic.


Bertil

 

[PAB]

Hi Bertil,

The file you sent me is too technical for my very limited skills. So I must wait till my son comes back from India to evaluate it. But thanks for you great efforts.

With respect to the file that I uploaded for you, all you need to do is to enter the new draw numbers into cells F:K and it will give you the Total Unique Digits for the current draw.
OR, you could copy the Total Unique Digits formula into your own DataBase and just adjust the formula accordingly to reference the cells where you draw numbers are input.

The new set of frequencies need to be compared with analysis of 10K random lines of 5/59 draws.
The hugh difference between 3 and 10 digits looks unrealistic.

NO they don't, why would you think this???
BTW, it is actually 2-10 digits.
If you think about this logically, there has to be a very small amount of combinations with 2 and 10 digits, thats's obvious!

Why do I get the feeling that you are questioning my figures???
I have actually gone one step further with this and RUN ALL 5,006,386 Combinations to a SpreadSheet and calculated the Total Unique Digits from there, and they AGREE with the figures in my last post.

Who was it that gave you the initial figures that you quoted???
It seems that you have more creedence in the data that they gave you than what I have given you.
May I suggest that you go back and ask them to check their figures!!!

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

 

[Bertil]

Missing Digits in Lotto

I'm corresponding with the person, who proposed a different set and might
be able to post actual frequencies for 10K random draws.

In the meantime I wonder what a 2 unique digit line would look like.
I can only see 01-10-11 up to 05-50-55 but there can be no 00 draw and
I'm unable to imagine 5 numbers with only 2 unique digits.
Can you please suggest one or more?

Bertil

 

[PAB]

Hi Bertil,

I'm corresponding with the person who proposed a different set and might be able to post actual frequencies for 10K random draws.

I could easily run 10K random draws but that will have no use whatsoever.
Excuse me asking, but what advantage would this be???
I say this because the data I have given you includes ALL C(59, 5) combinations, you can't get more complete than that. Whatever data he provides WILL INCLUDE COMBINATIONS WITHIN THE COMPLETE C(59, 5) SET.
I don't understand your logic here!

In the meantime I wonder what a 2 unique digit line would look like.
I can only see 01-10-11 up to 05-50-55 but there can be no 00 draw and I'm unable to imagine 5 numbers with only 2 unique digits.
Can you please suggest one or more?

Off the top of my head here are TEN...

1, 2, 11, 12, 21
3, 4, 33, 34, 43
2, 4, 22, 24, 42
1, 2, 11, 12, 22
3, 4, 33, 34, 44
2, 4, 22, 24, 44
1, 2, 11, 12, 22
3, 4, 33, 34, 44
2, 4, 22, 24, 44
1, 11, 12, 21, 22
3, 33, 34, 43, 44
2, 22, 24, 42, 44
1, 4, 14, 41, 44

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

 

[Bertil]

Missing Digits in Lotto

Yes, by excluding OD numbers, you can get five drawn. But at the MUSL
website you can download all draws since 6/25/13 and it will show two OD
numbers drawn in April on 4/20 and three on 4/6 and on 4/3.
Thus there is a problem of definition of a drawn number.

Bertil

 

[PAB]

Hi Bertil,

Yes, by excluding OD numbers, you can get five drawn. But at the MUSL website you can download all draws since 6/25/13 and it will show two OD numbers drawn in April on 4/20 and three on 4/6 and on 4/3.
Thus there is a problem of definition of a drawn number.

Yes, I think this is the case unfortunately, but as I said in a previous post...

As you know, I live in the UK so I don't actually do the Powerball Lotto.

...so I will drop out of this thread and leave it upto members that know exactly what you are talking about.

Good luck Bertil .

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

 

[Bertil]

Missing Digits in Lotto

Hi Bertil,

I have just re-addressed this topic after looking at the total combinations produced for each digit. I looked at my figures and they didn't seem quite right, so I went back to my program and realised that I had run the wrong program that I wrote to Count Unique Digits, I had in fact run the program that I wrote to Count ALL Digits.

Anyway, the correct figures for Count Unique Digits are as follows...

2 Unique Digits = 60 Combinations Which = 0.00120 Percent.
3 Unique Digits = 13,240 Combinations Which = 0.26446 Percent.
4 Unique Digits = 255,660 Combinations Which = 5.10668 Percent.
5 Unique Digits = 1,241,646 Combinations Which = 24.80124 Percent.
6 Unique Digits = 2,026,760 Combinations Which = 40.48349 Percent.
7 Unique Digits = 1,205,500 Combinations Which = 24.07925 Percent.
8 Unique Digits = 249,000 Combinations Which = 4.97365 Percent.
9 Unique Digits = 14,400 Combinations Which = 0.28763 Percent.
10 Unique Digits = 120 Combinations Which = 0.00240 Percent.
Total = 5,006,386 Combinations Which = 100.00000 Percent.

The figures you have are still Wrong!

So you have actually got now two different analysis, one for Count Unique Digits and the other for Count Of ALL Digits, both from the total combinations of a C(59, 5) Lotto.

You STILL haven't answered my question...


...and whether the time and effort I took to put it together for you provided the information you were after?

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

An alternative method yields
2-60
3-132401
4-255660
5-1241646
6-2026760
7-1205500
8-249000
9-144000
10-120

Which method is correct can only be answered with an actual count of
each frequency in at least 100K randomly drawn numbers with a computer.

Bertil

 

[PAB]

OK Bertil,

I will have ONE more go at this!

An alternative method yields:

2-60
3-132401
4-255660
5-1241646
6-2026760
7-1205500
8-249000
9-144000
10-120

Which method is correct can only be answered with an actual count of each frequency in at least 100K randomly drawn numbers with a computer.

ONE

Where did you get these alternative method figures from???

TWO

The total combinations of those alternative method figures you have listed is 5,255,147, which is 248,761 MORE combinations than C(59, 5) produces, which is totally ridiculous and can NEVER happen.

THREE

When you say that which method is correct can only be answered with an actual count of each frequency in at least 100K randomly drawn numbers with a computer, the answer is NO, NO & NO again, because the data I have given you includes ALL C(59, 5) combinations, you can't get more complete than that. Whatever data you will arrive at by running 100K randomly generated combinations is totally irrelevant, because those 100K randomly generated combinations WILL INCLUDE COMBINATIONS WITHIN THE COMPLETE C(59, 5) SET, there is NO getting away from this FACT.

FOUR

What are the OD numbers, because I have looked at the site and section you mentioned and can't see anything that explains or even relates to this???

I would appreciate you addressing each of the FOUR items above please.

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

 

[PAB]

Hi Bertil,

I would just like to reiterate what I said in post #31 to justify the figures that I gave you.

I have actually gone one step further with this and RUN ALL 5,006,386 Combinations to a SpreadSheet and calculated the Total Unique Digits from there, and they AGREE with the figures in my post.

I await you response to my FOUR observations and questions!

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

 

[Bertil]

Missing Digits

OK Bertil,

I will have ONE more go at this!


ONE

Where did you get these alternative method figures from???

TWO

The total combinations of those alternative method figures you have listed is 5,255,147, which is 248,761 MORE combinations than C(59, 5) produces, which is totally ridiculous and can NEVER happen.

THREE

When you say that which method is correct can only be answered with an actual count of each frequency in at least 100K randomly drawn numbers with a computer, the answer is NO, NO & NO again, because the data I have given you includes ALL C(59, 5) combinations, you can't get more complete than that. Whatever data you will arrive at by running 100K randomly generated combinations is totally irrelevant, because those 100K randomly generated combinations WILL INCLUDE COMBINATIONS WITHIN THE COMPLETE C(59, 5) SET, there is NO getting away from this FACT.


I thought your numbers were calculated with a formula, not actual counts.
So I proposed testing just 100K random draws.
FOUR

What are the OD numbers, because I have looked at the site and section you mentioned and can't see anything that explains or even relates to this???

The OD expression is meant to stand for each of the single numbers 1-9
with a zero in front, as is reported at MUSL for historical draws.

I would appreciate you addressing each of the FOUR items above please.

Regards,
PAB


I'm unable to respond by clicking on a respond button, so I' using the
quote button.
If I missed anything essential,let me know.
The definition of missing digits depends on the leading Zero.
My original post was based on using zero for single digit numbers,
as was my example of just three digits, 01-10-11-02-12.

Bertil



-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.

1) The new set has at least two typos and I thought I had erased them, but
now I see I made another computer mistake.
My e-mail 'partner' had recalculated his data based on no leading 0, and his data were identical to yours.

2)

 

[PAB]

Hi Bertil,

1) The new set has at least two typos and I thought I had erased them, but now I see I made another computer mistake.
My e-mail 'partner' had recalculated his data based on no leading 0, and his data were identical to yours.

2) Not commented on!

3) I thought your numbers were calculated with a formula, not actual counts. So I proposed testing just 100K random draws.

4) The OD expression is meant to stand for each of the single numbers 1-9 with a zero in front, as is reported at MUSL for historical draws.

Thanks for the reply .

With respect to item (1), thanks for clarifying the results I posted were CORRECT.
With respect to item (2), I hope you can see the reasoning and logic behind my statements.
With respect to item (3), in post #29, I actually posted...

I have just re-addressed this topic after looking at the total combinations produced for each digit. I looked at my figures and they didn't seem quite right, so I went back to my program and realised that I had run the wrong program that I wrote to Count Unique Digits, I had in fact run the program that I wrote to Count ALL Digits.

With respect to item (4), that explains what the OD expression is because as I said, there was nothing on the particular part of the site that you directed me to.

With reference to item (4), YES, the data could be calculated with a leading ZERO, BUT, unless ALL your other Lotto data analysis is calculated this way it will give you FALSE results. I think the reason they use leading ZERO's on their results is for formatting purposes ONLY, it just makes it neat and tidy by having all the draws exactly under each other, which is a very good way visually to view the results.

I'm unable to respond by clicking on a respond button, so I'm using the quote button.

That's very strange, perhaps it will correct itself next time you try and post, well, let's hope so.

The definition of missing digits depends on the leading Zero.
My original post was based on using zero for single digit numbers, as was my example of just three digits, 01-10-11-02-12.

You did not make the fact clear that you required the data results based on Double Digit numbers in your original post!!!!!!!!!
The fact that you used Double Digits in your post did not quantify this.

If you look at many posts on this board you will see that most people put a leading ZERO in front of SINGLE DIGIT numbers for neatness and structure, I do it myself.

The fact that you want to use Double Digits means that you could probably go with the results that your e-mail 'partner' initially gave you, if as you say, he calculated the results on Double Digits initially!!!

Regards,
PAB


-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-∏-
12:45, restate my assumptions.
(1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
(2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
(3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature.