Blisterman wrote: » The odds of a given ball coming out are the same regardless of how long it's been since that number has come out.
Iwannahurl wrote: » P=SFA? Somehow the drip-drip of not very useful information in this long thread brings to mind this joke. A mathematician organises a raffle in which the prize is an infinite amount of money paid over an infinite amount of time. People are so impressed by this amazing prize that the mathematician has no trouble selling a large number of tickets. He holds the draw in due course, the winning ticket is drawn, and the excited winner shows up to claim the prize. Then the mathematician explains the payout method: "One Euro now, half a Euro next week, one third the week after that..."
whysomoody wrote: » No, you are ignoring the theory of mean reversion, so they are in fact increased.
go on....
Pherekydes wrote: » Yes. You have to know that the series mentioned sums to infinity, otherwise it's meaningless.
robbie7730 wrote: » No that is not right, 1 draw previous or 100 draws previous without a given number appearing will not change its chances of coming out in any single draw subsequent. All that is happening is that the more draws there are, the more likely it will be to appear, and people will be thinking it must appear soon as we have not seen it in a while. But on each individual draw, it is no more likely to appear than any other number no matter what happened in previous draws.
whysomoody wrote: » The theory of large number disagrees with you, that mean reversion is a valid concept. excuse me Law of ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
whysomoody wrote: » The theory of large number disagrees with you
Mellor wrote: » That wouldn't be an infinite amount of money. It would end up being only 2 euro at infinity
Rabble Rabble wrote: » Did keane2097 get super-rich yet with his novel approach to the lottery which has been scientifically disproven?
Rabble Rabble wrote: » As an aside I tried this in Vegas once. I am not a gambler, and was in Vegas under duress. I understood the logic of losing on this system, but I reckoned may have paid out in a short time and there is a bit of ability in blackjack. So I played a blackjack machine - you played against the computer as "house" - and doubled my bet every time I lost. The machine took bets of $2 to $1000. I was up $100, or so, in about 2 days. That last day I had a run of 7 losses, and then I packed it in. A few more losses would have killed me. I was also only three losses away from having to make the maximum bet. I suspect this will happen to Keane. Still it keeps libraries open.
keane2097 wrote: » Won another couple of hundred over the last week between the UK lotto and a few others. Lol at "scientifically disproven". You obv play blackjack badly.
Rabble Rabble wrote: » Seriously mate. This is simple statistics. You - a gambler - are arguing with people with degrees in the subject. That makes you look very very stupid. And you are going to lose all your money some day. But it's good for the libraries.
keane2097 wrote: » I doubt anybody with a degree worth its salt spends their time posting links to wikipedia on After Hours on boards.ie, making irrational claims about their point being proven by completely unrelated data. Like I said, these theories are all well and good, but they're pretty well exposed as woo-woo by the reality of the history of lottery draws.
keane2097 wrote: » I doubt anybody with a degree worth its salt spends their time posting links to wikipedia on After Hours on boards.ie, making irrational claims about their point being proven by completely unrelated data.
28064212 wrote: » The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 1,000 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 1,000 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 1,000 single events. True or false? Can you give your definition of "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance"?
keane2097 wrote: » Won another couple of hundred over the last week between the UK lotto and a few others
keane2097 wrote: » Like I said, these theories are all well and good, but they're pretty well exposed as woo-woo by the reality of the history of lottery draws.
Rabble Rabble wrote: » Lol.You seem to think the "history of lottery draws" is your evidence. Look, I'll try to be as remedial as I can to someone who thinks that if 4 hasnt come up for the last 5 draws it is likely to come up this draw. Doubling your bet if you lose will win you money if you have infinite resources. If you dont sometime - and it might be a year or so - you will lose 6,7, or 8 - times in a row. You have to double each time. Eventually you wont have the money to continue and that will wipe out your previous wins. By the way, this idea is utterly simple. It's occurred to everybody. If it worked then gamblers would be rich, and bookies poor. The lottery would make a loss. Everybody would do this. So some day , as theory predicts, you will lose your gains. Be sure to post here.
28064212 wrote: » Given you don't understand what an axiom is, linking you to complex proofs requiring a knowledge of mathematical syntaxes would seem pretty pointless. Wikipedia is as good a source as anything else, unless you're going to actually point out where it's wrong. And I never claimed to have a degree related to maths, this is all pretty basic stuff. But since you came back, any chance of answering your fundamental questions?
robbie7730 wrote: » Well with 2 main draws a week (was only one draw originally), back 24 years, thats about 2500 draws, out of 8 million combinations, its hardly a history that can be analysed in any way at all, which i mentioned something about already here.
lugha wrote: » I fear you are making another oft made mistake here. Assuming that a bet where you usually win cannot be a bad bet. It is easy to devise a bet where the punter will almost certainly win but is still a bad bet. Ie Were you to bet that the first number drawn in the lotto was NOT a 5 (say, or any specified number) at odds of 1/50 you would almost always win. But it is still a bad bet.
28064212 wrote: » Nope, you're thinking of the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... which is equal to one, so 1+1=2. The series 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + ... (the harmonic series) is equal to infinity
keane2097 wrote: » You say trends don't exist and expect it to be proven over a suitably large data sample. I say trends do exist and expect it to be proven over a suitably large data sample.
