Raider5678

I can agree with that. A draft is highly unlikely. We're not currently stressed on the number of troops we have. Now the idea that this may happen isn't impossible. Just saying that it doesn't seem likely. We bombed them for using chemical weapons on what would be considered syrian refugees if they left the country. So if we see them all as terrorists, we just intervened on the side of terrorists. Which I, nor most people, don't think of it that way. And, if you say that this would have been approved by the UN and Congress anyways, why does being drafted play into what Trump did? The end result would have been the same just 3-4 days later. Also, delta, I still see Syria as no threat to the United States. Perhaps it has the ability to resist the United States and make it hard to invade/immobilize/stop them, but they pose no to little of an actual threat to the US. Is this thinking flawed?

Desert storm? I know for a fact I probably don't have all the details there, so could someone fill me in slightly more on this before I say something stupid?

It has my support morally. Trump decided to bomb the military airbase(not just some airport) that held planes that had launched chemical attacks upon citizens and may have been getting ready to launch more. Deciding to immediately destroy those assets may or may not have helped stop any further chemical attacks from happening. While I can't confirm he stopped further chemical attacks, waiting for congressional support and UN approval might have been too long. And while I agree he should get go ahead by both groups before doing military action, I can't say I'm terribly against him doing this. It wouldn't so much be a war as a matter of how long it would take us to completely annihilate the Syrian government. We could go in full guns blazing and have the place cleared in 2 months with minimal casualties on our side, but the collateral damage as well as all the innocent lives lost would make that a bad idea. And you say a non-credible president. He has military advisers. I'm positive some of them support him declaring this attack.

Picked Numbers, in order Recent to Oldest 42-17-69-22-10-69-45-93-22-15-08-17-29-71-21-19-16-74-31-28-44-62-39-02-15-55-32-50-79-48-44-50-31-24-05-34-00-91-50-39-07-92-43-49-30 31-82-52-87-54-22-97-08-92-93-68-09-58-72-67-36-97-46-48-19-57-29-00-89-55-28-04-46-54-81-15-05-91-13-84-74-86-18-90-60-07-62-91-22-57-47-93-24-13-20 Number Set Numbers Picked 0s 08-02-05-00-07-08-09-00-04-05-07 10s 17-10-15-17-19-16-15-19-15-13-18-13 20s 22-22-29-21-28-24-22-29-28-22-24-20 30s 31-39-32-31-34-39-30-31-36 40s 42-45-44-48-44-43-49-46-48-46-47 50s 55-50-50-50-52-54-58-57-55-57 60s 69-69-62-68-67-60-62 70s 71-74-79-72-74 80s 82-87-89-81-84-86 90s 91-92-97-92-93-90-91-93 Number Set Numbers picked Ending in 0 10-50-50-00-50-30-00-90-60-20 Ending in 1 71-21-31-31-91-31-81-91-91 Ending in 2 42-22-22-62-02-32-92-82-52-22-92-72-62-22 Ending in 3 93-43-93-13-93-13 Ending in 4 74-44-44-24-34-54-04-54-84-74-24 Ending in 5 45-15-15-55-05-55-15-05 Ending in 6 16-36-46-46-86 Ending in 7 17-17-07-87-97-67-97-57-07-57-47 Ending in 8 08-28-48-08-68-58-48-28-18 Ending in 9 69-69-29-19-39-79-39-49-09-19-29-89 Number Set Frequency 0s Since: 11,13,11,2,4,12,4,11,4,5,9 10s Since: 2,3,5,2,4,1,8,40,11,3,4,11 20s Since: 4,5,4,2,5,14,17,16,4,18,4,2 30s Since: 19,4,4,6,3,4,5,1,15 40s Since: 1,6,14,9,1,12,1,19,1,9,18 50s Since: 25,2,4,7,9,2,8,8,4,4,16 60s Since: 3,3,16,34,4,25,2 70s Since: 14,4,11,30,22 80s Since: 47,2,20,6,5,2 90s Since: 8,30,4,10,2,1,7,16,6,4,4 Number Set Frequency Ending in 0 Since: 5,23,4,5,2,6,23,16,1,10 Ending in 1 Since: 14,1,4,14,5,8,29,3,10 Ending in 2 Since: 1,3,5,13,2,3,15,5,1,3,3,5,28,2 Ending in 3 Since: 8,35,12,24,13,2 Ending in 4 Since: 18,3,10,3,2,14,22,2,6,1,12 Ending in 5 Since: 7,3,15,1,9,35,6,1 Ending in 6 Since: 17,44,2,10,9 Ending in 7 Since: 2,10,29,8,3,8,2,4,20,4,1 Ending in 8 Since: 11,9,10,23,3,2,6,7,12 Ending in 9 Since: 3,3,7,3,7,6,11,4,13,10,2 Sorry. Originally these had all been nice little organized colored tables, but at least its the data. For the first data set, it lists all the numbers that were picked in the groups of 0s, 10s, 20s, 30s, etc. Data set 1: Underlined In the second data set it lists all the numbers that end in 0,1,2,3, etc. Data set 2: Bold The thirds shows frequency between the times the numbers were picked based up the number set. Data set 3: Slanted The fourth shows the frequency between the times the numbers were picked based upon what they ended in. Data set 4: Regular. If you compile all the frequencies, certain numbers seem to show up on a regular basis. Such as 20s.

No, of all the numbers ending in 5, certain ones repeatedly showed up. Like 85, 25, 35, etc, never showed up while 15,55,05 showed up numerous times in a row.

Phi for all.

What program did you use to make that graph? I'm using Microsoft and Excel and that's killer.

I understand the ghost patterns already, that the human brain finds patterns that aren't patterns at all. Multiple people have pointed this out already, but thank you for your input.

Here's the last 93 numbers in a bulk data set. Frequency of them showing up, total times they started with a particular number, and total times they ended with a particular number. Ignore this. The charts won't load and it won't let me upload screen shots of them.

I collected the records for the last 3 years, but have only tested the most recent 93 into trying to see a pattern. https://www.palottery.state.pa.us/Draw-Games/Winning-Numbers-History.aspx Select "pick 2 day" and hit search. If you hit sort by numbers, you can see that in just 93 picks, a large portion of numbers show up 2-5 times. And even I believe this is the most likely scenario. But I didn't immediately invest money to buy tickets. We simply wrote on a piece of paper what our different methods were predicting, and when a particular method consistently became correct at a much higher rate then the others we built off of that to make a effective one. It seems to be a pattern. Not a perfect pattern. We still lost. But in over all profit, we could make money.

I believe that the computer system used to pick the numbers is flawed. Getting 100% true randomness from a computer is extremely hard, and I dare say impossible. Every tiny manifestation of a pattern can be exploited. I'm not sure quite why it's biased, but the distribution of numbers is way to clustered to be truly random. I mean, one to ten coincidences is probably just a coincidence. But when the numbers follow a pattern based off of the said coincidences, I come to believe it's a pattern. Now maybe I'm flawed, and this lottery actually is random. In which case, it's safe to say one day my method will simply come crashing down around me. But at this point I've made a massive surplus, that will take weeks to lose. And I'll stop to reconsider the method long before I lose all the money I made. Besides, i haven't saved 100% of the money, so no matter what I've made a profit already off of what should be a non profitable source. Also, I would like to point out something with the fallacy described above. More of a question. If I have 3 dice. There are 216 possible combinations. Of all those combinations, there are only 6 that are 3 consecutive numbers.(lets pick 5) 1/216 chance to get 5 three times consecutively. While, a combination containing 2 of the same number and then a random number (lets pick 3) would have a chance 3 times higher. Because there are 3 combinations that will result in two (2s) and one (3). 2-2-3, 2-3-2, 3-2-2. Meaning the chances of getting 2-2-3, in any order, is three times higher then the chances to get 3 in a row. Meaning, 1/72 chance.

I don't think it's rigged so much as not truly random. Besides, betting on numbers that haven't been picked in a long time is a bad strategy because it usually takes 10-15 days before it will pay off.......long after you lost a lot of money.

100 different numbers ranging from 00-99. 1 number per ticket. What I do was buy 25 tickets with what I "calculated"(apparently mistaken in someway according to gamblers fallacy) would be the most likely numbers. Increasing my win rate from what should be 25% to 90.90%(10/11 times I win.) Maybe I am just really lucky. But if I win far more often then I should be, I'm going to assume I'm doing something right. And I don't think they can be gamed for too large sums of money. The larger lotteries really are too random to analyze. Analyzing a two digit lottery is easier then analyzing one with millions of outcomes.

You're still in the tens of billions for just production costs, let alone the research, design, and testing phase. You're easily looking at 100 billion here. And that's theoretical. We could put a a hundred thousand people on mars in 10 years with 100 billion. We have better things to spend money on.

Money's not an issue? What job do you have?

I'll look into it further. For now I made enough.

Computer generated random I believe. So it's not perfectly random. Considering 22 was picked 5 times in the last 100 drawings.

Eh, I was just trying to say arguing with a creationist is hard if they simply deny deny deny. Guess they disagree. That's fine.

But if I have my parents buy the tickets it's fine right?

To me particularly no. I did not come up with this system on my own, I had help. But the other guy got in legal trouble of some sort, and I figured I should definitely stop before the same happened to me. So I'm treading careful ground at the moment. I'm not really sure what he's in trouble for, but I know it had to do with the lottery.

Technically. But it still scares the shit out of you.

Yeah well when two police officers and someone from the pa lottery knocks on your door inquiring about how often you win the lottery and saying you may have to pay back the money, your parents don't pat you on the back.

Yeah, I understand. In mathematics, the probabilities are never dependent upon the previous draw unless the previous draw reduces the number of possible outcomes.

Well mine is more on percentages. If such and such number hasn't been picked for N amount of draws, it's probability to be picked is P. For example, numbers in the 40s have a 21% chance to be picked 4 draws after the last 4 has been picked. If it isn't picked then, then the probability goes down to 6% chance to be picked. But once you get 11 draws after a 40s number has been picked, the chances of a 40s number being picked is 85%. The whole system is based off of stuff like this, and it works. So the lottery isn't random.

Oh. 1/ 6. Got it. What's the chances or rolling a 6 11 times in a row? 1/362,797,056 And if the order of the numbers picked doesn't matter, then for numbers 1-5 you have a 1/60,466,176 So I'd still not go with 6.