Need Help!! With the final module of a program I'm working on.
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Larry Serflaten on 18 Jul 2010 09:50 "Michael Cole" <noone(a)invalid.com> wrote > OK. This I have to respond to first, even though it is nothing to do > with coding. My area of study is statistics, and as it looks as if you > are trying to create a lotto-winning scheme, let me tell you that there > is no such thing. There is _no_ winning system, and no amount of > random number generation will ever change that. ....even though they keep trying some new scheme ... He'd have better luck handicapping the horse races! <g> LFS
From: mbyerley on 18 Jul 2010 10:01 "Larry Serflaten" <serflaten(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:i1v0qa$24p$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Michael Cole" <noone(a)invalid.com> wrote > >> OK. This I have to respond to first, even though it is nothing to do >> with coding. My area of study is statistics, and as it looks as if you >> are trying to create a lotto-winning scheme, let me tell you that there >> is no such thing. There is _no_ winning system, and no amount of >> random number generation will ever change that. > > ...even though they keep trying some new scheme ... > > He'd have better luck handicapping the horse races! Roulette: Red vs Black is about as good as it gets. > <g> > LFS > > >
From: DanS on 18 Jul 2010 10:35 > I can tell this from your statement that, "Of course I > would never use the numbers I am showing here because they > are not practical..." Sorry to disappoint you, but the > numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are _exactly_ as practical as > 7, 14, 17, 23, 32 and 36. There is _absolutely no > difference between the two sets_, and no system for picking > individual combinations will ever increase your chance of > winning. But there is a difference. While the mathematical odds of any one single number combination is exactly as the same as the next, probability says that 1,2,3,4,5,6 most likely will never be chosen, just as 2,3,4,5,6,7 or 3,4,5,6,7,8, etc.....or 2,4,6,8,10,12...or 3,6,9,12,15,18.....or 1,2,3,52,53,54....or 1,2,3,10,20,30.....or any of thousands of number patterns are much less likely to be picked. With a standard 54 number lottery, I think there's like 27 million'ish number combinations. I believe that through pattern elimination, that can be whittled down to somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 that have the highest probability to come in....... (I had already started on this exercise with a Access table and wrote maybe 50 queries with patterns just off the top of my head and had already eliminated nearly 7 million combinations, and then suffered catastrophic HD failure and subsequently lost that project as well as several other VB projects.....and then I never picked it back up.) .........of course, this is a far cry from a computer program picking 10 combinations of which you expect to win something each time.
From: dpb on 18 Jul 2010 11:07 DanS wrote: >> I can tell this from your statement that, "Of course I >> would never use the numbers I am showing here because they >> are not practical..." Sorry to disappoint you, but the >> numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are _exactly_ as practical as >> 7, 14, 17, 23, 32 and 36. There is _absolutely no >> difference between the two sets_, and no system for picking >> individual combinations will ever increase your chance of >> winning. > > But there is a difference. While the mathematical odds of any one > single number combination is exactly as the same as the next, > probability says that 1,2,3,4,5,6 most likely will never be chosen, > just as 2,3,4,5,6,7 or 3,4,5,6,7,8, etc.....or 2,4,6,8,10,12...or > 3,6,9,12,15,18.....or 1,2,3,52,53,54....or 1,2,3,10,20,30.....or any > of thousands of number patterns are much less likely to be picked. no, No, NO, _NO_!!! :( The first phrase of the second sentence completely negates the following assertion. If "any one single number combination is exactly as the same as the next" (which it is in a fair drawing) then that is what it means and the subsequent is simply nonsense as it says that the first isn't true because there's something that makes some combinations more likely than others. --
From: NeatBoxx via VBMonster.com on 18 Jul 2010 11:38
Michael Cole wrote: >NeatBoxx via VBMonster.com explained on 18/07/2010 : > >> Michael >> >> The algorithm is supposed to generate lotto combinations in sets of >> 4,8,12, 16,20,24,28 there are only 7 unique ways ... > >[SNIP] > >> The example above if the lotto numbers drawn were 1-2-3-4-5-6 I would win at >> least 1 5 of 6 prize which is $600.00 in my state game. Of course I would >[quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> I hope this clears up to what I am trying to accomplish...Thank you so much >> for your input > >OK. This I have to respond to first, even though it is nothing to do >with coding. My area of study is statistics, and as it looks as if you >are trying to create a lotto-winning scheme, let me tell you that there >is no such thing. There is _no_ winning system, and no amount of >random number generation will ever change that. > >Lotto is not about random numbers, it is about statistics. If you can >tell me what you want, then a calculation can be written which will >give the numbers you want without any need for any random number >generation. > >Sorry to be so harsh, but what you are working on is pointless. > >I can tell this from your statement that, "Of course I would never use >the numbers I am showing here because they are not practical..." Sorry >to disappoint you, but the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are _exactly_ as >practical as 7, 14, 17, 23, 32 and 36. There is _absolutely no >difference between the two sets_, and no system for picking individual >combinations will ever increase your chance of winning. > >Apologies for the harshness. If you want, I can post back completed >code regarding the arrays simply so that you can see what I was doing - >let me know if you would like this done - but I will not be doing any >more work on the actual code. > >If you can state what you are wanting to accomplish at the end, then I >could provide calculations as to your chance of winning, but nothing as >to what numbers to try - any combination is the same as any other. ******************************************************************************************* Thank you for your comments, Michael I never take criticism as harshness....I am a retired musican and that is one game where criticism is of the utmost importance if you can't take it then you get out before you kill somebody because your playing sucks!!! Yes I am aware of the probabilty laws and the bell curve; the combination 1-2-3-4-5-6 is at the beginning of the curve in a system of 42 numbers taken 6 at a time. My program is not about a winning scheme...it merely calculates all your winnings if you are fortunate enough to have any. The module I am working on creates abbreivated subsets of 42 numbers taken 6 at a time. These subsets are called lotto wheels and this one is based on the number 8. If I were to generate all possible sets of 8 numbers taken 6 at a time I would have exactly 28 combinations. Futhermore, if I picked 8 numbers out of the universal set...in this case 42 numbers taken 6 at a time and substituted them in my subset of 8 numbers taken 6 at a time these numbers would wheeled into 28 combinations. If 6 of the drawn numbers were to fall into my subset of 8 numbers then I will win a jackpot!!! If I only got 3 right I would win 10... 3 number wins!! We both know that I would have a snowball's chance of getting the 6 numbers to fall in my subset!! The module calculates all possible variations that maintain balance...equal play for each number. This saves the lotto player money...Like in my example of P = (3,4) .... 4 combinations with each number appearing exactly 3 times. will produce one 5 out of 6 win if the 6 numbers fall in the example. My math is pretty good it's my computer programming that sucks. I hope this explains to you what I am trying to do...it's not about decieving people to think it's magical win system for lotteries...it's merely a tool... Yes I would like to see what you have done!! I thank you again for all your work and input Ken -- Message posted via http://www.vbmonster.com |