check my lotto programs

Discussion in 'Java' started by Argi, Jan 11, 2008.

  1. Argi

    Argi Guest

    Hello, anyone wants to try my program.
    It generates on every run 8 rows of six numbers.
    So, you play almost all the numbers, (except one - never mind ;-)) )
    It is difficult to play all the numbers only with the pen, difficult to find
    what numbers you didn't play. So this program makes easy to do it.

    I have more programs to upload in the future, stay tuned.

    Good luck

    Argi
    http://lotto-free.blogspot.com/
    Argi, Jan 11, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Argi

    Lew Guest

    Argi wrote:
    > Hello, anyone wants to try my program.
    > It generates on every run 8 rows of six numbers.
    > So, you play almost all the numbers, (except one - never mind ;-)) )
    > It is difficult to play all the numbers only with the pen, difficult to find
    > what numbers you didn't play. So this program makes easy to do it.
    >
    > I have more programs to upload in the future, stay tuned.
    >
    > Good luck
    >
    > Argi
    > http://lotto-free.blogspasm.spam/


    Argi, you pathetic scammer, people in technical newsgroups tend to be aware
    that "lotto" programs are useless, and that a number previously chosen is just
    as likely to come up as any number not already chosen.

    Why don't you just quit, Argi?

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Jan 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Argi

    Argi Guest

    Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    Lew wrote:
    >Argi, you pathetic scammer, people in technical newsgroups tend to be aware
    >that "lotto" programs are useless, and that a number previously chosen is
    >just as likely to come up as any number not already chosen.


    >Why don't you just quit, Argi?



    >--
    >Lew


    Hello,

    Sorry if I was not clear...

    I try to make programs to help me predict numbers.
    I know as everyone, that we need only good luck.
    It is possible the winning numbers to be: 1,2,3,4,5,6
    It is the same possibillity like every other random pattern of six numbers.
    We all know that.
    But ...
    We can make some thoughts...
    Yes ... 1,2,3,4,5,6 is possible but we never going to play these numbers
    together, why? ... i don't know ... we don't believe that are going to win.
    So ... we play other ... random numbers ... "most" possible (?) ...we think.
    Yes ... none knows ... either the balls don't know what numbers won last
    time ... the balls don't know ... it is possible every time to win the same
    numbers ... again and again ... no law of the universe prohibits that ...
    but ... never happened ... and 99.9999999999% never will happen.
    So ... concluding ... I believe that we can make programs to produce "lucky"
    rows of six numbers that do have really "random" patterns...
    For say, if you look the tables in newspapers with statistics about lotto or
    joker which are won already, you will see for example that 50%, three
    numbers are odds and three even. Or three of them are "small" and three are
    "big" numbers. You will see that only 2 or 3 per cent for example was 1
    number odd and 5 numbers even and never all together odd or even, since now
    of course, after thousand of draws.
    So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?
    huh? ... or maybe is it better to play the most possible combinations ?
    It is my opinion ... I believe this and only anyone who believes the same is
    welcome to try my programs ... :)

    Thank you
    Argi
    (p.s. I don't ask for email address or registration in my blog ... my
    programs are free for download and I include rapidshare links too)
    http://lotto-free.blogspot.com/






    Ï "Argi" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:fm870m$20v$...
    > Hello, anyone wants to try my program.
    > It generates on every run 8 rows of six numbers.
    > So, you play almost all the numbers, (except one - never mind ;-)) )
    > It is difficult to play all the numbers only with the pen, difficult to
    > find
    > what numbers you didn't play. So this program makes easy to do it.
    >
    > I have more programs to upload in the future, stay tuned.
    >
    > Good luck
    >
    > Argi
    > http://lotto-free.blogspot.com/
    >
    >
    Argi, Jan 18, 2008
    #3
  4. Argi

    Lew Guest

    Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    Argi wrote:
    > I try to make programs to help me predict numbers.

    ....
    > So ... concluding ... I believe that we can make programs to produce "lucky"
    > rows of six numbers that do have really "random" patterns...


    Your belief is at odds with the laws of the universe. (Pun intended.)

    > For say, if you look the tables in newspapers with statistics about lotto or
    > joker which are won already, you will see for example that 50%, three
    > numbers are odds and three even. Or three of them are "small" and three are
    > "big" numbers. You will see that only 2 or 3 per cent for example was 1
    > number odd and 5 numbers even and never all together odd or even, since now
    > of course, after thousand of draws.


    Past performance is no guarantee of future success. Read the prospectus
    carefully before investing.

    > So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?
    > huh? ... or maybe is it better to play the most possible combinations ?
    > It is my opinion ... I believe this and only anyone who believes the same is
    > welcome to try my programs ... :)


    I hate to burst your bubble [1], but Lotto and the like exhibit the Markov
    property. Your programs are useless.

    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_property>

    People who believe your software will help will find that it makes no
    difference either way. And if you do win, don't fall prey to /post hoc,
    propter ergo hoc/. (Of course, you won't care then, either. Winning has a
    way of justifying itself.)

    Besides, everyone knows that software is useless for predicting Lotto. You're
    much better off to use Tarot cards, although a few people prefer boar entrails.

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Jan 19, 2008
    #4
  5. Argi

    Argi Guest

    Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    Ok, thank you for your opinion

    Argi


    Ï "Lew" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:...
    > Argi wrote:
    >> I try to make programs to help me predict numbers.

    > ...
    >> So ... concluding ... I believe that we can make programs to produce
    >> "lucky"
    >> rows of six numbers that do have really "random" patterns...

    >
    > Your belief is at odds with the laws of the universe. (Pun intended.)
    >
    >> For say, if you look the tables in newspapers with statistics about lotto
    >> or
    >> joker which are won already, you will see for example that 50%, three
    >> numbers are odds and three even. Or three of them are "small" and three
    >> are
    >> "big" numbers. You will see that only 2 or 3 per cent for example was 1
    >> number odd and 5 numbers even and never all together odd or even, since
    >> now
    >> of course, after thousand of draws.

    >
    > Past performance is no guarantee of future success. Read the prospectus
    > carefully before investing.
    >
    >> So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?
    >> huh? ... or maybe is it better to play the most possible combinations ?
    >> It is my opinion ... I believe this and only anyone who believes the same
    >> is
    >> welcome to try my programs ... :)

    >
    > I hate to burst your bubble [1], but Lotto and the like exhibit the Markov
    > property. Your programs are useless.
    >
    > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_property>
    >
    > People who believe your software will help will find that it makes no
    > difference either way. And if you do win, don't fall prey to /post hoc,
    > propter ergo hoc/. (Of course, you won't care then, either. Winning has
    > a way of justifying itself.)
    >
    > Besides, everyone knows that software is useless for predicting Lotto.
    > You're much better off to use Tarot cards, although a few people prefer
    > boar entrails.
    >
    > --
    > Lew
    Argi, Jan 19, 2008
    #5
  6. Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    "Argi" <> writes:

    > Yes ... 1,2,3,4,5,6 is possible but we never going to play these numbers
    > together, why? ... i don't know ... we don't believe that are going to win.


    Actually, the reason I won't play these numbers (if I played the lotto)
    is that so many other people *do* play them. That means the payoff will
    be much smaller than for a sequence that few or no other people play.
    And the odds are the same.

    > So ... we play other ... random numbers ... "most" possible (?) ...we think.


    There is a lot of blindness to probability "out there". Since most
    combinations look random, it is more likely that a random looking
    sequence comes out, and then people invert the implication and assume
    that a specific looking random sequence has a higher odds of winning.

    The winning combination is picked randomly among all combinations
    => It is very likely to "look random"

    But
    A combination looks random =/=> it is more likely to win.

    > So ... concluding ... I believe that we can make programs to produce "lucky"
    > rows of six numbers that do have really "random" patterns...


    It seems you make the same mistake, if by "lucky" you mean that it has
    a greater chance of being the winning combination than 1,2,3,4,5,6.

    > For say, if you look the tables in newspapers with statistics about lotto or
    > joker which are won already, you will see for example that 50%, three
    > numbers are odds and three even. Or three of them are "small" and three are
    > "big" numbers. You will see that only 2 or 3 per cent for example was 1
    > number odd and 5 numbers even and never all together odd or even, since now
    > of course, after thousand of draws.


    If you know statistics, you would not be surprised.

    Pick any separation of the possible 36 numbers (or however many your
    local lotto uses) into two equally sized groups.
    Then pick six (or similarly for eight) numbers at random.
    The probabilities of their distribution into those groups are:
    group A group B probability
    0 6 ~1%
    1 5 ~8%
    2 4 ~24%
    3 3 ~34%
    4 2 ~24%
    5 1 ~8%
    6 0 ~1%
    (this is also the size relative sizes of the set of combinations with
    that

    I.e., if picking is completely random, you will expect 34% of outcomes
    to have three low and three high values, or three odd and three even
    values.

    So it's more likely that the result will have three high and three low
    numbers than that it will have only low numbers.
    Not because a specific combination of three low and three high numbers
    is more likely to be hit, but because the group of all such combinations
    is a bigger target.

    Picking one combination in that group will not give any higher chance
    of winning, because you are again inverting the implication.

    An element belonging to a larger group is not more likely to be hit,
    just because the larger group is easier to hit.

    > So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?
    > huh? ... or maybe is it better to play the most possible combinations ?


    If by "most possible" you mean "more probable", then there are none.
    All outcomes are equally probable. Some characteristics of outcomes
    are more likely, because there are more combintaions that satisfy them
    than there are that doesn't, but that doesn't matter. You don't pick a
    characterstic to play. You just pick one combination.

    > It is my opinion ... I believe this and only anyone who believes the
    > same is welcome to try my programs ... :)


    And in the interest of public education on probability: Anyone who
    believes that there are specific combinations more likely to win
    than other specific combinations, are believing that the lottery
    is rigged and unfair (and that they know which combinations are
    favored). If the picking of winning numbers is actually random,
    no single combination is more likely than any other.

    But don't play 1,2,3,4,5,6 - if you play, you are better off picking
    a combination that nobody else has, as you won't have to share the
    prospective winnings with anybody :)

    (And if you consider 1,2,3,4,5,6 as bad to play, because you can see
    how unlikely it is as an outcome ... remember that whatever combination
    you play instead is just as unlikely, you just can't see it :)

    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
    DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
    'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Jan 19, 2008
    #6
  7. Argi

    Lew Guest

    Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    Argi wrote:
    > Ok, thank you for your opinion


    Please do not top-post.

    "Lew" wrote:
    >> I hate to burst your bubble [1], but Lotto and the like exhibit the Markov
    >> property. Your programs are useless.
    >>
    >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_property>


    I'm afraid it's math, not opinion.

    Reality isn't a matter of opinion.

    Lasse Reichstein Neilsen gave a good summary explanation.

    So let's review - the program rests on the incorrect assumption that sequences
    like "1,2,3,4,5,6" are somehow less likely than any other sequence. It rests
    on the assumption that any pseudorandom (or otherwise arbitrary) sequence
    generated by the program has any different probability of outcome than any
    other outcome.

    These are false assumptions, therefore the program will not help anyone win
    the lottery.

    This is fact, not opinion.

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Jan 19, 2008
    #7
  8. Argi

    David Segall Guest

    Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    "Argi" <> wrote:

    >So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?

    I do, for two reasons. First, I think that many people share your
    superstition so if it wins there will be fewer people who have chosen
    it. Second, I don't need to check the results of the draw because I'm
    sure the local paper will report the "amazing coincidence" that this
    sequence won.
    David Segall, Jan 19, 2008
    #8
  9. Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    David Segall wrote:
    > "Argi" <> wrote:
    >
    >> So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?

    > I do, for two reasons. First, I think that many people share your
    > superstition so if it wins there will be fewer people who have chosen
    > it. Second, I don't need to check the results of the draw because I'm
    > sure the local paper will report the "amazing coincidence" that this
    > sequence won.


    I recall that in the early years of NJ Lotto, the first couple of times
    000 came up, the winners won big. But the punters may have grown more
    sophisticated since then.

    --
    John W. Kennedy
    "The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
    their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
    suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
    become full of /Pooh./"
    -- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
    John W. Kennedy, Jan 20, 2008
    #9
  10. Argi

    Tim Smith Guest

    Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    In article <fmr3at$2qa$>, "Argi" <>
    wrote:
    > I try to make programs to help me predict numbers.
    > I know as everyone, that we need only good luck.
    > It is possible the winning numbers to be: 1,2,3,4,5,6
    > It is the same possibillity like every other random pattern of six numbers.
    > We all know that.
    > But ...
    > We can make some thoughts...
    > Yes ... 1,2,3,4,5,6 is possible but we never going to play these numbers
    > together, why? ... i don't know ... we don't believe that are going to win.


    Actually, a lot of people do play 1,2,3,4,5,6. I remember one state
    released stats after their lottery had a particularly large prize that
    attracted an unusually large number of players, and 1,2,3,4,5,6 was the
    most common pick. Something like 2000 people picked it for that drawing.

    Apparently a lot of people reasoned that people would avoid 1,2,3,4,5,6,
    so if they won with it, they would not have to share the prize with
    anyone! In addition, many people just pick simple patterns from the
    number matrix, such as rows or columns, which makes various arithmetic
    sequences, including 1,2,3,4,5,6 show up more than you would expect.

    For those who only play the lottery occasionally, either just for fun
    (e.g., I knew several people at Caltech, who fully knew the odds, who
    would buy one ticket a year, at their first dinner out together of the
    new year, kind of as a tradition), or when it is theoretically
    profitable (occasionally, a prize rolls over enough times that the
    prize, divided by the number of tickets that will be sold, is greater
    than the cost of a ticket), picking at random is the only way to go.

    If you have any kind of pattern (e.g., pick numbers based on your
    birthday, or something like that), and aren't playing every time, you
    face the really annoying possibility of your pattern winning on a week
    you don't play. That would be infinitely annoying, so best to avoid it
    by not having a pattern!

    (When picking at random, it might slightly improve your expected return
    to avoid numbers below 13. It won't improve your odds of winning, but
    it could reduce the chances of having to split the prize if you do win).

    The lottery case where the expected return on a ticker is more than the
    cost of the ticket (which happens on occasion due to rollover when a
    drawing goes without a winner) is interesting. Your odds of winning
    remain very very very low, but the prize is very very very large, so the
    expected value is in your favor--but of course the vastly most common
    output is that you simply lose the cost of the ticket. It reminds me of
    this interesting question:

    You are given a choice to pick one of the following 33 games to play:

    0. You automatically win $1.

    1. A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
    in [0,1/2), you win 2 dollars.

    2. A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
    in [0,1/4), you win 4 dollars.

    ...

    i. A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
    in [0,1/2^i), you win 2^i dollars.

    ...

    32. A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
    in [0,1/4294967296), you win 4294967296 dollars.

    All 33 of these games have the same expected result for you: $1. Which
    would you play? You only get one try.

    --
    --Tim Smith
    Tim Smith, Jan 22, 2008
    #10
  11. Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    Tim Smith <> wrote:
    > You are given a choice to pick one of the following 33 games to play:
    > for n=0..32: A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
    > in [0,1/(2^n)), you win 2^n dollars.
    > All 33 of these games have the same expected result for you: $1. Which
    > would you play? You only get one try.


    I would play the one, whose win would enable me to do more than waste it
    for fun on a single day ...

    PS: I do play lottery (almost) regularly, but with minimum bets. That costs
    me abit less than 90Eur per year - a cost which I can bear to lose - for the
    gain of a little dose of hope twice a week. :) If there was a lottery
    system (that's still anonymous) with smaller prices, (half bet and half win,
    or same bet, half win at double likelyhood), I'd prefer that.
    Andreas Leitgeb, Jan 22, 2008
    #11
  12. Argi

    Lew Guest

    Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
    > Tim Smith <> wrote:
    >> You are given a choice to pick one of the following 33 games to play:
    >> for n=0..32: A random number generator generates a number in [0,1]. If it is
    >> in [0,1/(2^n)), you win 2^n dollars.
    >> All 33 of these games have the same expected result for you: $1. Which
    >> would you play? You only get one try.

    >
    > I would play the one, whose win would enable me to do more than waste it
    > for fun on a single day ...
    >
    > PS: I do play lottery (almost) regularly, but with minimum bets. That costs
    > me abit less than 90Eur per year - a cost which I can bear to lose - for the
    > gain of a little dose of hope twice a week. :) If there was a lottery
    > system (that's still anonymous) with smaller prices, (half bet and half win,
    > or same bet, half win at double likelyhood), I'd prefer that.


    I would go for the maximum prize. My reasoning is that my odds of winning are
    only negligibly larger than if I don't play, regardless of the scenario. So
    if I win at all, I prefer to win in a way that obviates the need to play again.

    I agree that the "little dose of hope" is the actual payoff.

    The odds of getting hit by a car are greater than those of winning the
    lottery, but people still cross the street to buy a ticket.

    --
    Lew
    I am honored that Argi saw fit to enshrine my name in the subject of this
    thread. I take it as a testament to my truth-telling, and an alert to others
    to consider the facts before using up time on his software.
    Lew, Jan 22, 2008
    #12
  13. Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    Lew <> wrote:
    > The odds of getting hit by a car are greater than those of winning the
    > lottery, but people still cross the street to buy a ticket.


    In my case, I do not need to cross any extra road to buy a lottery
    ticket, that I wouldn't still have to cross to get to work.
    So, it's actually "work", which puts my life at risk :)

    Anyway, the statistics about road-accidents includes also those,
    who do not take care when crossing on red ..., so it's a different
    bias.

    Btw., was the original spam-vertised program of this thread at least
    written in Java?
    Andreas Leitgeb, Jan 22, 2008
    #13
  14. Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    Andreas Leitgeb wrote:

    > Btw., was the original spam-vertised program of this thread at least
    > written in Java?


    The file is an exe. the file command gives:
    file JOKE2NET.EXE
    JOKE2NET.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS

    Running strings on it does not hint at any java, so I doubt it.

    //Roger Lindsjö
    Roger Lindsjö, Jan 22, 2008
    #14
  15. Argi

    Lew Guest

    Re: check my lotto programs - Lew

    Roger Lindsjö wrote:
    > Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
    >
    >> Btw., was the original spam-vertised program of this thread at least
    >> written in Java?

    >
    > The file is an exe. the file command gives:
    > file JOKE2NET.EXE
    > JOKE2NET.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS
    >
    > Running strings on it does not hint at any java, so I doubt it.


    What does a virus scanner say about it?

    With a name like that, with it advertised on the 'net, I wonder if it's
    intended as a "Joke 2 Net" denizens, i.e., malware.

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Jan 23, 2008
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,635
    Dave Thompson
    Jan 10, 2005
  2. Coca
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    733
    Aidan Grey
    Aug 24, 2004
  3. Replies:
    18
    Views:
    618
    Dave Thompson
    Jan 10, 2005
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    366
    fred5152
    Dec 18, 2007
  5. Ben Bacarisse

    Re: Lotto 7/45

    Ben Bacarisse, Aug 7, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    318
    Ben Bacarisse
    Aug 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page