Kedas Posted December 27, 2003 Posted December 27, 2003 I just realized that you will probably have about 5 (I think) people that also think about those numbers but don't know anything about your test. logical/less-random patterns always have more winners.
YT2095 Posted December 27, 2003 Author Posted December 27, 2003 well I chose those numbers based on psychology and few questions I`de asked my friends, most seem to think that 1 2 3 4 5 6 or 2 4 6 8 10 12 or any patern stands less chance of winning. we all know that`s not true, it stands as much chance as any other sequence, but for some reason, many people think it would be impossible to get based on that, I`m assuming here that not many other people would chose those numbers I selected, meaning that we would have less others to share it with if we won also coupled with the fact that it`s a really easy sequence to remember
Kedas Posted December 27, 2003 Posted December 27, 2003 you say most but that isn't really relevant here if the numbers can easy be generated. Even if only 0.0001% of the people has such a thought like lets do crazy this week you will still end up with many.
YT2095 Posted December 27, 2003 Author Posted December 27, 2003 I agree, however there are many weeks where there is only 1 winner or NON at all, and the money is added to the next week. the payout amount isn`t really the issue here as far as the experiment goes, infact if there were no payout the experiment would still be valid. and if others here have bought tickets with the same number then shame on you, where`s your Scientific integrity! this does entirely depend on Honesty and trust, as I`ve heard a rumor that they already know who`s going to win before the balls are even picked, so if there`s 10 people with 1 2 3 4 5 6 it will look a bit strange if that runor is true. I want as little outside influence to affect this experiment as possible, other than that stated in the above posts.
Kedas Posted December 27, 2003 Posted December 27, 2003 If you want to look for history chances you can find that here: http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/files/Lotto.csv If someone is willing to select the easypatterns (if any) in those then we can check the amount of winners. 2000-02-26,45,8,6,5,3,16,1,2,MERLIN This one is very close, although what is Ball Set? Yeah I know this isn't really of any influance on your experiment. It's fun to play with this lottery result checker: http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/results/winCheck/winCheckerStart.do (select max day's,180)
YT2095 Posted December 27, 2003 Author Posted December 27, 2003 ball set is the set of 1 to 49 balls, there are several sets and several machines (merlin was the machine used in your last post). it`s just a way of trying to keep it random really. the probability, is identical each time it`s played tho, so if 1 to 6 came up 1 week, the odds are the same it will come up the next week. though there are 2 theories out there (both are utter lameness) called the Hot and the Cold number systems, basicly one revolves around picking numbers that haven`t been picked that often in hope that the odds are that they will, the other is about picking the numbers that come up the most often, in hope that they will again Mankinds methods of deluding himself never cease to amaze me your post in #13 is quite an interesting idea! (at this stage in time, I`m going to make no guesses as to what mechanism is at play, if indeed there is even a mechanism).
YT2095 Posted December 27, 2003 Author Posted December 27, 2003 I`ll consider the ones in the SFN chat room equaly as valid as anyone that emails, in fact more so as we can do it LIVE there! but for this week, I`ll accept emails, not a prob IRC would be better though as we can properly coordinate our efforts. does everyone agree that this would be a more appropriate way to conduct this experiment? a coordinated effort as opposed to a 40 minute margin, it makes better sense to me, and it`s something we can all do! click on Chat in the main SFN index
YT2095 Posted December 27, 2003 Author Posted December 27, 2003 we didn`t win and there was only one other SFN participant, Aman. the numbers were 22,41,27,3,18,46 and 37. the same will apply next week however for the next 9 weeks. Use the SFN chat instead of the email idea, all emails will be void as of now, the SFN chatroom will be the valid and sensible choice. Aman, better luck to us next time dude
aman Posted December 28, 2003 Posted December 28, 2003 yah, I was dissapointed at the response but we had 1 quarter the hemisphere covered since I'm GMT - 6 hours. Next time. Just aman
gene Posted December 28, 2003 Posted December 28, 2003 Sheez. I forgot. AH.. sorry YT. I made a promise and broke it. Geez. i really really forgot cause i was busy with school Hw rushing to complete. Holidays coming to an end. /Me dreads.
Kedas Posted December 28, 2003 Posted December 28, 2003 YT2095 said in post #33 :the numbers were 22,41,27,3,18,46 and 37. Aman, better luck to us next time dude So you are only missing the 5, right? BTW '22' makes sense two persons thinking about '2'
YT2095 Posted December 28, 2003 Author Posted December 28, 2003 LOL @ Kedas, I really wish it did work like that!
Rasori Posted December 28, 2003 Posted December 28, 2003 I really thought about it! I was just at the mall so I couldn't e-mail. (There's the 2 in 27 lol)
alt_f13 Posted December 29, 2003 Posted December 29, 2003 We dont know what forces are at work in things like this but I would imagine distance between the participants plays a pretty big role. Then again, these distances relative to the universe are negligable and probably so are the forces behind this as well. Good luck in the next few weeks anyway but I doubt it will work unless you manage to recruit a goodly ammount of the planet.
YT2095 Posted December 29, 2003 Author Posted December 29, 2003 Duke LOL! I`m the one spending the money here, and the only garauntee is that there will be data to be had when the experiment is done (and a cash payout for SFN chatroom participants at the time the numbers are drawn if we win). other than that, you buying tickets with same numbers is going to do little else than add external interference to the test! just leave this one to Me, and take part, that`s all I ask
iglak Posted December 31, 2003 Posted December 31, 2003 i thought about it, but only for an hour the day before. . . when i was going to bed. and i woke up past noon (when i would have e-mailed you) so i couldn't really e-mail you, but i didn't really contribute much. . . P.S. a few times i thought from 1 to 6 and accidentally went on to 7, so those 7's in the numbers could be a result of something like that. . . just a thought.
YT2095 Posted December 31, 2003 Author Posted December 31, 2003 well, it`s still on for this saturday too, same numbers, same place just in the SFN Chat, that way a more coordinated effort can be gained. at the moment, it`s all speculation (and that`s good too) but realisticly we need to obtain the data 1`st and then work with that, stage One will run for 10 weeks (9 weeks now). stage Two will also run for the same, but with a different number set. I THINK that should provide a reasonable insight as to where this experiment is going, mathematicaly speaking
YT2095 Posted January 3, 2004 Author Posted January 3, 2004 ok, the ticket`s bought again, for those interested in participating, the draw will be in 1 hour and 50 mins from the time of this post, see you in the SFN Chat room {added} no luck, the numbers were; 49, 18, 40, 23, 17, 22, 10. 8 more trials left, but we had Blike and Aman participating, and a few observers that may have been. better luck next time
aman Posted January 4, 2004 Posted January 4, 2004 49,18,40,23,17,22,10 That's 7 numbers YT Just aman
Kedas Posted January 4, 2004 Posted January 4, 2004 Don't we need to know which numbers will be drawn before we can change them? (makes it a bit pointless to change them then) with other words: Don't we need a feedback line before we can change something. (I thought some scientific experiments pointed in that direction)
YT2095 Posted January 4, 2004 Author Posted January 4, 2004 Kedas, all I know, is that in the original version conducted with a studio audience (about 200 people), a series of numbers were chosen, they then had to concentrate on those numbers and "will" them to appear from the machine, and it worked well above the random probability, it was 87%. that`s to say that 50/50 would have been the expected result had there have been no one there, so it was clearly above unity. I was just wondering if the same thing could be made to work with the lottery although there`s so little participation, I`de have to say the results so far are meaningless in all honesty, I`de probably have better luck doing it at a local pub than over the net. I`ll give it one more try again next week and if there`s not a better turnout, I`ll cancel the experiment and try a different way. it was worth a try at least
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now