# Can lottery random be predicted?

I don't predict anymore, but when I did:

Texas 2-3-7

------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------

I quit making that kind of workouts after making them everyday or almost everyday for more than 2 months, maybe close to 3 months, 1 key digit was not as hard to predict, of course I can't talk about those kinds of predictions, I repeat what people call random is not quite as most people think that it is.

Is not that the lottery games can't be predicted, the problem is that people don't know how to predict them, even I don't know enough nor everything about the so called random prediction of lottery games, maybe I just happen to know a little more than some others at least on the pick 3 game, not that I don't know a few things about jackpot kind of games, maybe the main problem is that I myself can't make software, in order to test prediction methods or possible prediction methods I need to be able to make software and of course I can't and not knowing much about Math might also be a little of a problem.

And once prediction methods are known that work special software needs to be made.

Such will never be for several reasons.

It depends. If one utilizes all the possible information he has at hand, it is possible to make accurate predictions. While I don't think there is a crystal ball (or system) that can predict outcomes for every and all lottery, it is possible to use as much information to make practical choices when picking numbers. Knowledge is power.

I feel that random can be predicted -- to a certain extent

So, one can correctly predict more high numbers than low numbers, more evens than odds, the appearance or non-appearance of certain digits, etc.  But nailing that ONE WINNING COMBINATION is much more difficult.

I am slowly coming around to the point of view that lottery predictions work best if they combine some element of randomness.

At pick 3 you have a chance of 1:1000 and a 499:1 net payout, if it isn't 501 for a straight.
500 loosing tickets would pay one winning ticket if there were not costs, dividends, taxes and other bs.
So predicting correctly with solid average chance, which already is a win, you loose like 50.01%.
Play 1 and receive 500 means win 499 while you had 999 chances to loose the bet against one lousy chance to win.
Let's say you predict correctly every 750 drawings, you lost 250 net and predicted solid win much above average.
The crown of the stupidness would be predicting correctly every 500'th drawing and play 0 win while beating the
odds by 2:1. If you want to double, you need like 4 straight wins with one bet a game for 1000 games,
How do you want to do that?

Why try to predict lottery numbers when you can do like the weatherman does and build a computer model based on what has happened in the past?  After all you don't have be right all the time, if it's a jackpot game being right once may be plenty..

RJOH

What weathermen do is weather prediction based on past, present facts and perhaps also on physics.

The lottery not being a weather phenomenon and not having as much to do with the "elements" can be to some extent predicted using the facts of the game:

The "make-up" of the particular lottery game and the past winning combinations that were produced by the drawings.

Stats can be produced from the make-up of a lottery game and from the past winning characters (numbers or whatever is used).

While it is not very likely that we all will win jackpots then we do have to be right as often as possible, accuracy is important.

But you already know all of this even if your post says that you don't.

An aspect to consider is the vast majority of lottery numbers games have roughly a 50% overall payout. Players are a huge disadvantage right out of the gate. So even if one has a system that seemingly works, it's near certain it won't be enough to cover the 50% gap...

Search the forums here for computer randomizer problems. In some instances, players noticed discrepancies that favored some combinations over others (ie. no duplicate digits, some favored over others), and yet even if players had attempted to take advantage, the odds were still stacked against them with about 80% overall payout at best; 20% is a lot to cover. To put that in perspective, the overall payout of blackjack (21) per play is upwards of 98% and yet is a challenge to beat. The lottery is more than an order of magnitude worse.

In my view, the best system is analyzing the payout structure / potential flaws of the games, and playing accordingly. Sometimes lotteries offer promotions that can greatly improve the odds far better than likely any system ever could. For example, a few years ago Pennsylvania Lottery occasionally offered double payouts for all Quinto prizes - in essence, the overall payout percentage was 100%!

One will be hard press to find flaws in games, but they can occur. Wheeling in some instances can greatly skew payouts - whether that's advantageous long-term is debatable. However, it's enough of a concern that some games don't allow some numbers to be selected - PA Match 6 allows the first line to be selected with the additional two lines being quick-pick only...

The soon ending Monopoly Millionaire Club is another example with the property number being computer selected to increase number "variance" to prevent skewed payouts (more players hitting a higher tier prize than a lower one below it), along with reducing early "top prize" hits. Interestingly, there's still some prize payout skew - more players sometime hit for \$500 than \$250. I'm presuming that was caught in simulation and allowed anyways; strongly illustrates the importance of variance.

Roll-down games can also be a way to improve one's odds - sometimes the roll-down can result in secondary prizes being nearly as large, or potentially even larger, than the top prize. Related to that, keep an eye out for numbers games ending soon. In PA, there have been occurrences of super-sized lower tier prize payouts for the final draw of games that had no jackpot winner. Instead of PA keeping that money, they paid it out - really cool, and a savvy move that generates much positive PR, and builds goodwill, but I digress.

Ron5995 ... you bring up something that I have been wondering about with the Monopoly Game ending or being "suspended" on Dec 26, I haven't seen any talk about it so far ... if there are no top prize winners the next two Fridays are they still going to award ALL the money to empty the pot. If the 25 million jackpot is not hit this Friday then there should be 22 million dollar possible winners on Dec 26 plus the "cash value" of the \$25 million dollar prize ... or are they just going to keep the whole pot to make up for losses.

Yes you are correct, PA played off the money on ending games for more money on the lower tier prizes as I remember ... I think when they ended Super 7 to bring back the Match 6 game, this was done ... I am waiting to hear what LottoMetro might have to say, he seems to have contacts in the right places. Not very nice if they DON'T award all the money ... is the game "ending" or being "suspended" ???

I am not 100% sure Super 7 was the game that ended when Match 6 was brought back ... but whatever the game was, all the money in the pot was awarded as an increased prize amount on lower tier prizes, if I remember correctly.

Ending is pretty clear ... being "suspended" could mean temporary with a comeback in the "future" ... maybe so, maybe not ... but they might use this as an excuse to "keep" the money.

They should still award all the prize money in some way ... if the game ever does come back then they should start with "new money".

So maybe no point in throwing \$5 away on the last game if they are going to keep the money and run.

Just my thought on things ...

...

My hunch is there will be no extra payouts. Especially, since the "pot" is empty; game is deep in the red, and the next two draws likely won't be enough to fill it.

Interesting point about the semantics ... my guess is they'll call it "suspended", but if the PR gets real bad, they may decide to characterize MMC as "ended", or even "terminated", to make clear that failed turkey isn't coming back, ever.

Playing out the last two drawings with a ticket or two may be worthwhile to at least be in the game, because if the "top prize" is hit, the odds of winning a million could be better than any lottery game out there at that adjusted price-point; far better than the odds of winning a million in the PA Lottery raffle.

However, the big caveat is the odds of a "top prize" hit will be likely be around 1 in 70, though maybe, if sales are very strong, little as 1 in 30 - but even at that, still makes MMC a very bad, overall value compared to other games, even Powerball and Mega Millions.

"While it is not very likely that we all will win jackpots then we do have to be right as often as possible, accuracy is important.

But you already know all of this even if your post says that you don't."

I have always assumed regardless of the method players use to pick their combinations, every combination they played represented their best effort to win.  No player goal is to lose or to play combinations they know will lose.

With pick-3 games it's 1 out of 1000, but by using all 10 digits in the first position, it's 1 out of 100 and you always get the first digit right. So with the first digit drawing when all 10 digits are used, the "which digit" prediction a sure thing. Another thing that is predictable is over time the ten digits won't be drawn in equal amounts in any digit position.

The numbers in jackpot games won't be drawn in equal amounts either, but because each number appears in millions of combinations, players can't make much of dent in the odds by keying on one number unless it's the bonus number. When only 1 combo out of 175 million can win the jackpot, there is no predictability.

Pure random events can't be predicted, that is what "pure random" means. The case is really, how many real life events are pure random events? Lotteries in a barrel are not really that random as people believe. There is a quite "hard proof" of that as dictated by real performance outcome. In my blog here I have posted in the past numerous such incidents that show that "non pure random behavior" and I have a very recent one too.

A user plays a 6/45 game and picks 12 numbers for every draw. Over the course of 10 draws he has managed the following:

0 correct numbers: 1 draw

1 correct numbers: 1 draw

2 correct numbers: 1 draw

3 correct numbers: 5 draws

4 correct numbers: 2 draws

5-6 correct numbers: 0 draws

Can you do that "by chance"? Just to know the odds, 14.73% for 3 correct numbers (once in 6.79 draws) and 3.2% for 4 correct (once in 31.16 draws) or in plain English the user should play for about 96+ draws to achieve the above 3/4 hits.

When I made predictions long ago I made both: Good and bad predictions and most of them were bad and  good or bad by making them and then seeing the results of the winning draws maybe I learned something.

On a pick 3 game there are 1000 straight numbers so there are 1000 possible outcomes.

For a 1 predicted pick 3 number a prediction needs to be accurate, if you predict a group of numbers then the prediction doesn't need to be as accurate, the more numbers predicted the less accurate that the prediction needs to be.

There are 1000 possible straight outcomes, but only 220 boxed outcomes, so boxed predictions don't need to be as accurate as straight predictions kind of, it all depends on what kind of numbers are predicted and how many of them are predicted.

Of course a person needs to use a way or ways of knowing what is more likely to come out either next and or soon.

That is why we take a look at the past winning draws, at their numbers, digits and characters, we also try to give the digits and numbers characteristics-symbols other than the 0 to 9 digits and we might call those characteristics filters and or patterns.

How do we go about finding what is more and or less likely to show-up in the future?

When we look at the digits, etc of past draws we all might not see the exact same things or we might, but our own interpretation(s) might not be the same as those of other people, a prediction technique or method is a way of trying to find what might be next to show up, but we all might have our own ways and techniques as we all might not see prediction in the same way, we need to try to find a way or ways that follow the so called "random probabilit(y)(ies)" as closely as possible, I can say that random is possible probabilities, but we should try to narrow down the possible probabilities as much as possible without cutting out the winning number too much reduction might cause filter(s) failure(s).

If we can't reduce enough to win and also make a profit then we should not play for real.

The thing is "next expected probabilities" based on what is "seen" on the past draws.

Seeing on what? It all depends on what we are using, Are we using digits? Or numbers? Single digits? Or Pairs? Or the complete 3 digits number? Or filters such as Low-High or Even-Odd or Last Digit of the Sums and or something else?

Two prediction factors:

What is used (Charateristics).

Interpretation of what is used.

Interpretation might have the most "weight", what is used might not be as important.

I think that next are some links to 5 past boxed pick 3 predictions, 3 won boxed and 2 failed (I think).

Sometimes predictions appear to be almost like a thing of magic, but of course they are not, sometimes we interpret right and sometimes we don't.

Or sometimes those who handle the draws "make us fail", prediction is a "fragile" thing so it is not as hard to make us fail.

There really should not be neither pre nor post draws, I always think that the lottery draws are not always "honest" if they ever are.

From the very beginning when the lottery "came" to Tx I took a look at the numbers and my study told me almost right away that the drawings could not be "honest", since I don't know much about anything, I am probably wrong, at one time or at another I made predictions for most of the pick 3 games on the United States and those very many drawings didn't look to be very honest to me, but I probably must be wrong or so people say.

1st prediction:

1st result:

2nd prediction:

3rd prediction:

Failed.

4th prediction:

There never was a "Black Light" program, I made the predictions myself. I was just kidding!

5th prediction:

Failed.

--------------------------------

It seems to me that it should have been 4 wins and 1 failure instead of 3 and 2, but as I said back then I think that the draws are not honest or at least not all of the time, but as I also said, I am probably wrong.

----------

I have other prediction samples, but maybe I won't post them as it is late and I am tired.

-------------

The 2 most important things might be:

Interpretation of what is seen on the past draws.

And if the numbers are drawn in a honest way or not.

The last first and the first last.

Too bad that I could not post another very good prediction example, but it would take me some time to find it on the lottery post archives and I am tired already.

The right numbers can't be predicted, but any information that can tell you what probably won't happen can be used to your benefit. This is why my system uses elimination. What do I mean by elimination? Well, basically taking information from past drawings to determine what most likely won't happen on the next. The computer program that I wrote is basically a quick pick generator with some tests(filters) thrown in. It picks a set of numbers at random, it runs that set of numbers against some filters, and if the set passes, it's considered a "valid" set and outputs the set of numbers to the screen/output file. If the set doesn't pass, it's simply discarded.

Now, don't get me wrong. My tests are not correct 100% of the time. There are times when the winning numbers would have been discarded. However, this is something I expect. It's my job to weigh my potential odds against the likelihood that the test is correct. For example, if a test is correct only 50% of the time, in yet, only eliminates 10% of all possible combinations, I'm not going to use that test. It's not "good enough" in my eyes. On the other hand, if a test is correct 95% of the time, but it can eliminate 30% of all combinations, then I would deem that a usable filter.

From my experiences, there are going to be some patterns that show up coincidentally in random data. Here are some from the Virginia Lottery:

057: all 4 daytime exact order wins have been on the 10th day of the month (10/10/1995, 01/10/1996, 07/10/1997, and 11/10/1998).

208: The first two times that 208 won were on the European depiction of that date (2 August 1990 and 2 August 1997)

247: first 11 exact order wins were all on Wednesdays or Thursdays.

505: from 1993 to 2014, this number had only two nighttime exact order wins--both on November 15.

738: three of its first six exact order wins were on New Year's Day.

816: This number has fewer 3-ball wins (3, the fewest of any exact order combination) than 4-ball wins (0816 has six wins).

858: has recorded back-to-back exact order wins twice and one back-to-back nighttime exact order win.

On January 23, 2006, the daytime winner was 576 and the nighttime winner was 381. This happened again just over a month later, on February 25, 2006.

Bonus: in Washington State, 777 was the winner of the first two Christmas Day drawings (2002 and 2003).

Bonus: in West Virginia, not only were two of 777's first four wins on New Year's Eve; both of those New Year's Eve wins were on Saturdays. So, two of the first four times that 777 won the West Virginia 3-ball were on Saturday, December 31.

Welcome Guest

Your last visit: Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 8:24 pm