Nothing strange about consecutive Lotto numbers

[kolaval]

In SA it's suspect

 

[mercurial]

.

 

[Pineapple Smurf]

Google the number of people choosing 1,2,3,4,5,6 every lotto draw. Thousands, iirc. They all figure its the same odds as any other sequence. Which is true. So its the same sort of thing here, just to a lesser extent.

Yes i know about the 1,2,3,4,5,6 but the odds of 5,6,7,8,9,10? Just seems very weird

 

[Totempole]

Yes i know about the 1,2,3,4,5,6 but the odds of 5,6,7,8,9,10? Just seems very weird

If they used real machines as opposed to an algorithm, I doubt we would have ever seen this in our lifetimes. Especially given that the Powerball is drawn by a different ball set.

 

[Pineapple Smurf]

If they used real machines as opposed to an algorithm, I doubt we would have ever seen this in our lifetimes. Especially given that the Powerball is drawn by a different ball set.

im gonna agree with that

 

[saor]

BS explanation.

The numbers weren't drawn sequentially as 6,7,8,9 etc.
As per the article:

The numbers were also not drawn from smallest to largest. Instead, 8 was drawn first, 5 next, then 9, 7, 6, and 10.

Humans imposing their particular patterns on a set doesn't change the probabilities.

 

[Swa]

Mission on a phone

Basically the first paragraph.
Any set of numbers has exactly the same chance as any other set of numbers.

There are far fewer sequential sets than random sets in the population though, so yes there is much smaller chance of any sequential set than any random set, but the chance of a particular set coming up is exactly the same as any other set, regardless of random or sequential.

Which is what I said?
But to add the chances of a sequential numbering coming up is like 1 in a million. And remember that the powerball is a separate draw so that decreases the chances to about 1 in 20 million. It would be like the lottery itself winning the lottery.

The numbers weren't drawn sequentially. They were drawn 8, 5, 9, 7, 6.

With a pseudo random number generator each number is dependent on the other so it doesn't really matter. With C there is a function where if you give it the same seed it will give you the same sequence of "random" numbers as the previous time.

 

[Swa]

The numbers weren't drawn sequentially as 6,7,8,9 etc.
As per the article:

Humans imposing their particular patterns on a set doesn't change the probabilities.

Humans imposing their particular beliefs about a system doesn't change the underlying working of an algorithm.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Yes i know about the 1,2,3,4,5,6 but the odds of 5,6,7,8,9,10? Just seems very weird

It is odd that is all, but people need to remember that it isn't a straight numbers sequence, neither the same grouping. The powerball is in its own set.

The standard lotto is one grouping.

All I can see here are 20 disappointed people, even that they have won they must still share the pot. Shame.

Corruption is a possibility knowing that the lotto grant system is corrupt, and once auditors are bought, it is a cycle, because the truth will really ****ing hurt. Just ask those Bosasa peeps.

 

[MrGray]

If it was a mechanical draw then I agree that the odds are the same as any other set of numbers. But since the numbers are apparently generated programmatically, the odds of a bug (or some other factor related to the algorithm) causing this are orders of magnitude greater.

 

[saor]

Humans imposing their particular beliefs about a system doesn't change the underlying working of an algorithm.

Ok but what's your point? I thought we were discussing probability. You said the explanation was bs. I pointed out why it's not. And now you're just talking about algorithms in the abstract?

Are you saying the algo is weighted?

 

[zophas]

I did not even know that the Lotto was now computer generated. I am highly suspicious of such a system. Even if they showed me the code I still would not trust it. Code can be changed in a few seconds.

 

[Rickster]

I did not even know that the Lotto was now computer generated. I am highly suspicious of such a system. Even if they showed me the code I still would not trust it. Code can be changed in a few seconds.

Yeah I dont know why they scrapped the mechanical draw in favor for RNG.

Wonder how many winners have ties to the National Lottery Commission.

 

[Swa]

Ok but what's your point? I thought we were discussing probability. You said the explanation was bs. I pointed out why it's not. And now you're just talking about algorithms in the abstract?

Are you saying the algo is weighted?

They are all "weighted". No RNG gives a truly random result. Some are just more random than others.

All RNGs produce patterns. It's merely a case of if it's noticeable or not. My Capitec token regularly produces patterns. I've notices patterns of outcomes when playing some games. Others I haven't been able to. It's rather an insult to human intelligence to claim we are programmed to recognise patterns that don't exist when there are real patterns.

 

[saor]

They are all "weighted". No RNG gives a truly random result. Some are just more random than others.

All RNGs produce patterns. It's merely a case of if it's noticeable or not. My Capitec token regularly produces patterns. I've notices patterns of outcomes when playing some games. Others I haven't been able to. It's rather an insult to human intelligence to claim we are programmed to recognise patterns that don't exist when there are real patterns.

Let me help you out here. This was your original assertion:

BS explanation. The chances of getting a sequential number is far smaller than getting a random number. It isn't merely that the chances of getting one number is the same as getting another number. That's the point not addressed. The "expert" is also not addressing the issue. There isn't merely an apparent pattern here but a real one.

You were making a point about the chances of a particular string of numbers. Now instead of either admitting you were wrong or clarrifying what exactly you meant, you're instead waffling on about algorithms. Ja, I agree with you about algorithms and their pseudo-randomness and propensity for pattern. But that's not what started this discussion.

In a random draw is any one set of numbers more or less likely than any other set?

 

[Swa]

Let me help you out here. This was your original assertion:



You were making a point about the chances of a particular string of numbers. Now instead of either admitting you were wrong or clarrifying what exactly you meant, you're instead waffling on about algorithms. Ja, I agree with you about algorithms and their pseudo-randomness and propensity for pattern. But that's not what started this discussion.

Because it's all related. There are far less patterns than none patterns. The chance of getting patterns is thus not the same as getting none patterns. RNGs are prone to produce patterns so when you start noticing them you start suspecting it to be a side effect of the algorithm.

 

[saor]

Because it's all related. There are far less patterns than none patterns. The chance of getting patterns is thus not the same as getting none patterns. RNGs are prone to produce patterns so when you start noticing them you start suspecting it to be a side effect of the algorithm.

If we imagine a thousand alien species in the universe each with their own important patterns, between us we might all see a random draw and shout Aha! Pattern! In a universe full of pattern seeking creatures, every number might be pattern to someone. I'm still not convinced that the emergence of a (human?) pattern is a sign of algorithmic coercion rather than just another string of numbers.

 

[saor]

@Swa If a mechanical draw produced patterned results, would you also claim something about the system is off-balance so as to produce such results? Are you only satisfied with results that appear to you as random?

 

[Splinter]

Yes i know about the 1,2,3,4,5,6 but the odds of 5,6,7,8,9,10? Just seems very weird

Same human behaviour; just shifting it a bit.

 

[Splinter]

Yeah I dont know why they scrapped the mechanical draw in favor for RNG.

Wonder how many winners have ties to the National Lottery Commission.

I didn't know this either. RNG is a strange thing; even in games.