Nothing strange about consecutive Lotto numbers

[Barbarian Conan]

I will admit that I haven't read everything in this thread, but isn't 5,6,7,8,9,10 just as likely as any other combination?

Isn't the probe about what happens with the lottery ticket money? That which is supposed to go to charities?

 

[The_Librarian]

I will admit that I haven't read everything in this thread, but isn't 5,6,7,8,9,10 just as likely as any other combination?

Isn't the probe about what happens with the lottery ticket money? That which is supposed to go to charities?

I have programmed a little RNG in Pascal, and nowhere was I able to get straight consecutive numbers.

The closest I was able to get was something like 16, 17 or 34, 35... or even 26, 29,30

 

[cguy]

I have programmed a little RNG in Pascal, and nowhere was I able to get straight consecutive numbers.

The closest I was able to get was something like 16, 17 or 34, 35... or even 26, 29,30

Then it probably wasn’t a very good RNG.

 

[Barbarian Conan]

I have programmed a little RNG in Pascal, and nowhere was I able to get straight consecutive numbers.

The closest I was able to get was something like 16, 17 or 34, 35... or even 26, 29,30

Is it your opinion that some combinations are less likely than others in a truly random number generator?

 

[The_Librarian]

Is it your opinion that some combinations are less likely than others in a truly random number generator?

In an ideal world RNGs will not display the same set of numbers when compared to each other.

 

[Barbarian Conan]

In an ideal world RNGs will not display the same set of numbers when compared to each other.

I agree it is very unlikely. But do you think that any set of numbers is less likely than any other?

 

[The_Librarian]

I agree it is very unlikely. But do you think that any set of numbers is less likely than any other?

I cannot answer that

 

[FaSMaN]

In 2010, a U.S. lottery draw was rigged by the information security director of the Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL), who surreptitiously installed backdoor malware on the MUSL's secure RNG computer during routine maintenance. During the hacks the man won a total amount of $16,500,000 by predicting the numbers correctly a few times in year. Source: Wikipedia

Honestly why is it on a computer in the first place, you can easily design and build a pure analogue circuit that will push out random lotto numbers and this will be way more secure and not "hackable" if that is too much a FPGA will work with the correct blown efuses to prevent reprogramming or tampering.

For instance https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator

 

[The_Librarian]

Honestly why is it on a computer in the first place, you can easily design and build a pure analogue circuit that will push out random lotto numbers and this will be way more secure and not "hackable" if that is too much a FPGA will work with the correct blown efuses to prevent reprogramming or tampering.

Agreed. No backdoors, no funny stuff.

With a computer (and any OS) you're guaranteed a backdoor somehow.

With any OS I mean no matter what or which OS you install, if you can install a backdoor on it by fair means or foul, then it's game over anyway.

 

[Geoff.D]

I will admit that I haven't read everything in this thread, but isn't 5,6,7,8,9,10 just as likely as any other combination?

Isn't the probe about what happens with the lottery ticket money? That which is supposed to go to charities?

The traditional wisdom is that every combination is equally likely to occur. Yet, there are many examples from all over the World, where lotteries are not showing this to be true.

Over time (probably, millions of draws), the above may one day be true, but so far, not enough draws that have been collected and documented support the above assertion.

In a 6-draw lottery, the combinations with the "best" odds, is 3 even, 3 odd. Even the addition a bonus ball does not change this mathematically correct fact.
The combinations with the lowest probability of success are 6 even and 6 odd.

In the 5-draw versions ( the Powerball in SA is an example), the "best" combinations are 2-odd, 3-even and 3 odd, 2 even. The least likely again are all odds or all evens.

Any "sequence" by default will always be made up of odds and evens - there are NO sequences possible that will not be based on a more or less balanced number of odds and evens.
In fact, in a 6-draw lottery, ALL sequences are made up 3-odds and 3-evens!

In a 5-draw lottery, it is slightly different because you can't get the same number of odds and evens, but ALL the sequences WILL be 3-odd, 2-even; or 2-odd, 3-even.

So sequences are not all that strange and if they come up, they have every good chance of winning something.

Now add in the bonus ball (from the same pool) in a 6-draw lottery and the sequence is only slightly disrupted. It becomes 4-odd, 3-even or 3-odd, 4-even!
In a 5-draw (even out of a separate bin), the sequence becomes 3-odd, 3-even!

Mystery all gone! The driving force behind all of this is not a conspiracy, but just plain and simple statistical mathematics. (Lottery Mathematics). And that is the calculation of the probabilities of odds and evens, NOT the actual numbers!

The exact probabilities and odds are slightly different that is all.

And while we are at it, mathematically speaking "probabilities" and "odds" while similar, are NOT the same thing!

 

[Swa]

I have programmed a little RNG in Pascal, and nowhere was I able to get straight consecutive numbers.

The closest I was able to get was something like 16, 17 or 34, 35... or even 26, 29,30

Proves that RNGs are biased. If it's not towards patterns it's towards avoiding them.

 

[Swa]

The traditional wisdom is that every combination is equally likely to occur. Yet, there are many examples from all over the World, where lotteries are not showing this to be true.

Over time (probably, millions of draws), the above may one day be true, but so far, not enough draws that have been collected and documented support the above assertion.

In a 6-draw lottery, the combinations with the "best" odds, is 3 even, 3 odd. Even the addition a bonus ball does not change this mathematically correct fact.
The combinations with the lowest probability of success are 6 even and 6 odd.

In the 5-draw versions ( the Powerball in SA is an example), the "best" combinations are 2-odd, 3-even and 3 odd, 2 even. The least likely again are all odds or all evens.

Any "sequence" by default will always be made up of odds and evens - there are NO sequences possible that will not be based on a more or less balanced number of odds and evens.
In fact, in a 6-draw lottery, ALL sequences are made up 3-odds and 3-evens!

In a 5-draw lottery, it is slightly different because you can't get the same number of odds and evens, but ALL the sequences WILL be 3-odd, 2-even; or 2-odd, 3-even.

So sequences are not all that strange and if they come up, they have every good chance of winning something.

Now add in the bonus ball (from the same pool) in a 6-draw lottery and the sequence is only slightly disrupted. It becomes 4-odd, 3-even or 3-odd, 4-even!
In a 5-draw (even out of a separate bin), the sequence becomes 3-odd, 3-even!

Mystery all gone! The driving force behind all of this is not a conspiracy, but just plain and simple statistical mathematics. (Lottery Mathematics). And that is the calculation of the probabilities of odds and evens, NOT the actual numbers!

The exact probabilities and odds are slightly different that is all.

And while we are at it, mathematically speaking "probabilities" and "odds" while similar, are NOT the same thing!

Is that not the gamblers fallacy?

 

[cguy]

Proves that RNGs are biased. If it's not towards patterns it's towards avoiding them.

It proves that his RNG is significantly biased, not the general case, and certainly not for a sophisticated one.

 

[Cage Rattler]

Back in 2013 I was involved in creating a few online gaming system algos ... some of the U.S. regulator's questions were: Mathematical details of the RNG’s period; Mathematical details of the RNG’s range (e.g., minimum value, maximum value); Mathematical details of the methods for seeding and reseeding (e.g., seed entropy source, frequency of reseeding, size of seed, etc.); Details of the methods for background cycling / activity; Details of all RNG / game implementation, including methods of scaling and mapping from raw RNG output to game outcome, etc.

 

[Cage Rattler]

Re the SIU raids, look at the info that the sports journalist Graeme Joffe has been putting out for ages .. he is/was detailing the corruption for a long time...

 

[The_Librarian]

The traditional wisdom is that every combination is equally likely to occur. Yet, there are many examples from all over the World, where lotteries are not showing this to be true.

Over time (probably, millions of draws), the above may one day be true, but so far, not enough draws that have been collected and documented support the above assertion.

In a 6-draw lottery, the combinations with the "best" odds, is 3 even, 3 odd. Even the addition a bonus ball does not change this mathematically correct fact.
The combinations with the lowest probability of success are 6 even and 6 odd.

In the 5-draw versions ( the Powerball in SA is an example), the "best" combinations are 2-odd, 3-even and 3 odd, 2 even. The least likely again are all odds or all evens.

Any "sequence" by default will always be made up of odds and evens - there are NO sequences possible that will not be based on a more or less balanced number of odds and evens.
In fact, in a 6-draw lottery, ALL sequences are made up 3-odds and 3-evens!

In a 5-draw lottery, it is slightly different because you can't get the same number of odds and evens, but ALL the sequences WILL be 3-odd, 2-even; or 2-odd, 3-even.

So sequences are not all that strange and if they come up, they have every good chance of winning something.

Now add in the bonus ball (from the same pool) in a 6-draw lottery and the sequence is only slightly disrupted. It becomes 4-odd, 3-even or 3-odd, 4-even!
In a 5-draw (even out of a separate bin), the sequence becomes 3-odd, 3-even!

Mystery all gone! The driving force behind all of this is not a conspiracy, but just plain and simple statistical mathematics. (Lottery Mathematics). And that is the calculation of the probabilities of odds and evens, NOT the actual numbers!

The exact probabilities and odds are slightly different that is all.

And while we are at it, mathematically speaking "probabilities" and "odds" while similar, are NOT the same thing!

Given me much to think about.

Thanx!

 

[RonSwanson]

I wonder how much this incident of a consecutive sequence of numbers played in pushing the SIU into action over the issue under investigation?

Maybe an offshoot will be the evaluation of the RNG used as well as the one used for the quickpick will also be undertaken?

I doubt it, but its a good conspiracy theory

 

[RonSwanson]

Currently, all our theory is based on the "assumption" that the lottery draws are driven by a near-random process --- There is however no truly random process available just RNGs that pass randomness tests.

It should be pretty easy to subject the RNG and the Quickpick RNG to these tests?

The RNG generators should meet certain criteria. Does anyone know what the SA Lottery is supposed to guarantee in this regard?

Next, the system needs to be free of malware and backdoors - in SA I would think this is a real risk.

TRNG vs PRNG. Huge topic.

Edit: considering the Lotto's expenses, if they use anything other than an auditable TRNG it would be a travesty.

But as I have stated before, there are many many millions being siphoned off via far more unsophisticated methods.

 

[Geoff.D]

Is that not the gamblers fallacy?

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been less than the usual number of sixes. Source: Wikipedia

No, the maths does not support the above. Those that try and analyse past draws and use that information in the belief that it will somehow influence future draws are the ones that fall into that trap. Hence why all the nonsense about so-called hot and cold numbers, seeking patterns and sequences and numbers that have not come up before, and belief in the dozens of "calculators" available on the Internet are just fooling themselves.

Each "draw" (assuming, of course, there is no tampering with the draw system, and that the RNG is truly random) is completely independent of what came before and the past does NOT predict the future.
The maths highlights that clearly if you take the trouble to work through it all.

Any number in the pool is equally likely to be drawn, (following the draw rules) and it is well within reality that a "draw" can repeat itself. The mathematics can be used to determine how many draws would be required for a specific set of numbers to be drawn and repeated.

The maths of Combinatorics does NOT predict actual numbers drawn or their order. Instead, it just shows up the probabilities of odds and evens and that some "patterns and sequences are more likely to occur.

 

[Geoff.D]

TRNG vs PRNG. Huge topic.

Edit: considering the Lotto's expenses, if they use anything other than an auditable TRNG it would be a travesty.

But as I have stated before, there are many many millions being siphoned off via far more unsophisticated methods.

TRNG or HRNG versus PRNG is a huge debate.
My own view is the currently there are NO PRNGs that are NOT deterministic and therefore are open to manipulations and fraud. I don't care what the programmers do to try and disguise the deterministic nature of the algorithms. Humans are NOT random animals, we all think in very well defined ways and therefore nothing we programme can ever be truly random. Or best bet is a purely natural method to generate randomness.

HRNGs and TRNGs are the only ones that stand a chance of being free of manipulation. The move in SA to make use of PRNGs was a move backwards.
And it is also at the basis of why the "Quick picks" available should not be used at all by anyone wanting to play the games. They are too easily manipulated to favour the "house" and are not the player's friend at all.