Iamswamee is correct and makes very good points. It would stand to reason that protocols for lottery drawings exist and are in usage everywhere including some pre or post testing being routine practice for established lotteries. All in aid of ensuring randomness, and so? However, I'm a bit puzzled by certain comments by Shirazbai, ie.:
(Originally quoted by Shirazbai)
.. The only protocol I am aware of though is two sets of balls and a random choice (at draw time) of which set gets used. That protocol alone is bad enough to mess up the data. Adding "phantom" draws would be .... well, let's just say I would then rather just buy scratch tickets.
What have the laws that would apply to physical balls rotating in a physical hopper used in a lottery drawing, no matter however many multiple draws that are done, have to do with (purely?) mathmatical laws? Logically, statistical realities applied to the lotto, would not be affected by balls bouncing in a machine. Lotto is part science, part art (and if you have the stomach for it, I would like to add, part intuition). None of these are clearly understood, of course, but that's what makes it fascinating. Clearly and occasionally a few small crumbs are to be had which somehow seem defy the superficial odds. I would like to believe that slowly ground is being gained. Lotto is a game after all. It is the approach to the game that requires adjustment.
(Originally quoted by Shirazbai)
.. The only protocol I am aware of though is two sets of balls and a random choice (at draw time) of which set gets used. That protocol alone is bad enough to mess up the data. Adding "phantom" draws would be .... well, let's just say I would then rather just buy scratch tickets.
What have the laws that would apply to physical balls rotating in a physical hopper used in a lottery drawing, no matter however many multiple draws that are done, have to do with (purely?) mathmatical laws? Logically, statistical realities applied to the lotto, would not be affected by balls bouncing in a machine. Lotto is part science, part art (and if you have the stomach for it, I would like to add, part intuition). None of these are clearly understood, of course, but that's what makes it fascinating. Clearly and occasionally a few small crumbs are to be had which somehow seem defy the superficial odds. I would like to believe that slowly ground is being gained. Lotto is a game after all. It is the approach to the game that requires adjustment.
Jennifer
=broken rules=reported