All Activity

You rotten twine…..

BTW, you can replace drawing balls in an entry with this bit of python code: import secrets def draw_numbers(): return sorted(secrets.SystemRandom().sample(range(1, 45), 6)) print(draw_numbers()) That is it..

The outcome is totally random - yes. As I mentioned, a historical simulation may show a more or less universal distribution of drawn numbers, in which case the odds and the probability would be the same for all practical purposes. However, a historical simulation may show certain combinations of number drawn more often than others material enough to be a pattern or series of patterns emerging that increases the probability of sets of numbers being drawn. The draw is stall random, but the probability - and that is all it is - a probable and no guaranteed - set of drawn numbers may become higher than any old random selection. This could be because of say manufacturing imperfections of the balls where minutely different weight distributions result on some balls being more likely to be scooped than others.. And it could be that the probability if subsequent balls being drawn changes depends on what ball/s were previously drawn for the same reasons. In order to prove it, you would need a lot of data, including that of the factors that we define as determinative to the probability - but without those factors, we can only rely on the historical number draws. Given the permutations and combinations, coming to a single set of numbers likely to be drawn using a historical simulation would improve the probability - but only marginally at best. These simulations predict probable outcomes over various scenarios and normally a confidence level is provided. And it will be a probability map. So for example, it may give a probability for each number of that number being drawn first. For each number, it will give the probability of every other number being drawn second. Then for each number drawn second of the number that was drawn first, it will come up with a probability of each number not drawn yet to be drawn third, and so on. Taking this approach, there are 130m nodes in the map for each number drawn first. So, if 1 is drawn first, there will be a map of 130m possible permutations and combinations. Now multiply by 6 and that is how big the probability map will be. You can use a binary coefficient approach to reduce it, but you attenuate the probability calculation as a result because we don't know the factors that are causing some numbers to be picked more than others. Anyway, for a 6/45 lottery draw, the probability map reaches something like 900m nodes, each with a confidence factor. Of course, if we could pick our numbers just before each number is drawn, we could really improve our probability of winning. But we can't, so the only way to really improve the probability is to try and predict what the first through 6th number is going to be dependent on what we think the first number is going to be. So, in defining our confidence level, we have to look for any other correlations. As we have virtually no other known factors, the only thing I can think of is to look at time based cycles and add that to the algorithm to predict the different potential numbers to draw. And that is the rub. Coming up with one most likely to draw is not really going to to reduce it much; intuitively, I would reckon you need to put around 200k minimum bets on it spread across the different scenarios. And, it is still not guaranteed. I have no idea what the cost of a singe entry is, or 200k entries are against the normal prize value. So, it may be futile.. buit the above is a glimpse of algo trading (well, that would get smashed in the markets.. so I would not recommend it). Now I am rambling as I have had my first wine in 6 months - a Jim Barry McLaren Vale.. and very nice. What impressed me is my local Majestic Wines knew exactly which aisle I was heading for when I entered the shop... I digress. Anyway, chasing the single winning entry will probably not yield too much more likelihood than the basic odds.. it is how you play the probability map.

I currently live under a Ln optional voting and fist past the post system. I am not sure Farage would have been successful given the low voter turnout (44%) delivering him a 27% vote of the total electors in his seat

The freyed knot was the responce to Nev suggestion, and applies to Marty's also.

The wrong number?

That dog deserves a medal. Or at least his owner, who probably walked him around the star for 15 minutes until the eagle landed.

I'm sure the electoral Commission has stats on the number of informal votes. But the thing is, if voting is optional, only those who feel strongly about issues will bother. That means more goes to the extremes, which is why you have an autocratic kleptocracy in the US right now. I think our system means more people vote towards the centre, which helps reign in the more extreme policies on both sides.

Afraid not

https://www.facebook.com/reel/4425951241004413

Answer previously given. It was correct.

yes and know. when people are forced to vote, how many are just going through the motions and ticking any box or just folding the slip and handing it in.

I looked at reams of historical draws years ago and noticed apparent variations in the frequency with which certain numbers came up. So I tried writing programs to analyse the data and improve my odds, while knowing that in the long run all numbers had an equal probability of being drawn, assuming there was no bias in the system. In effect, I assumed there was some kind of short to medium term bias. However, even if there was it became clear that the odds were still so high I might as well have stuck to random numbers.

Jerry that makes no sense to me. The outcome is either random or it is not. The next number is not dependent on previous results.

When it rains it pours

the wrong teller? Nev

Media being what it is, there is also a possibility that the parents may not have first heard anything from an official source. I did hear (unofficially) that the parents were likely present at the search. A sad outcome on all fronts. My heart goes out to all involved.

Correct Nev.

when it rains it pours. Nev

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1569344667967992

I agree as a parent it would be devastating to have your hopes raised but then dashed, but it's hard to be overly critical if the searchers were doing their best to keep the parents informed in real time. Also, we don't necessarily know exactly what they were told. It could have been anything from, `She's alive' or `We've found her, haven't been able to get to her yet but we think she may be alive'. Big difference, but the media would just focus on them being initially told she was alive and then criticise the mistake.

I totally agree with all the above re: search efforts, discovery and legalities. However, I cannot understand anyone in an official capacity making a public announcement without being very sure of what they are saying. That was not (in my opinion) acceptable. Whover contacted the parents with such incorrect, unverified information, has made a terribly thoughtless action.

You don't comb the hair over it, it's worn as shown in the second photo, over the hair. You take it off for sleeping, showering, swimming. Any way, I have a buzz cut, nothing to comb.