Leaderboard

The owner probably said "sit, sit" and lisped. Nev

Money donated by some is considered a good investment. Like Gina, as a prime (and Blatant) example. Plenty of others. Support some one and get your Paddock rezoned for Housing. Nev

Foreign investors get Au$'s as dividends too and what about the fossil fuel we buy and the Chinese stuff we import?. Tourists and foreign students bring money IN. Not much need to send money back to China. Nev

I don't think our system of preferential voting is the fault. The fault with modern elections is the contributions made to Parties by organisations. Dose an organisation have a franchise to vote? Is an organisation a person? We are coming to the conclusion that donations to political parties by organisations are bribes - a rose by any other name.

For years now, I have been losing sleep about global warming. And I'm sure I'm not the only one worrying about our government's lack of action on it. But now I am happy to report they ARE taking action. I am now returning home via the coast of South Australia. Why isn't our media telling all Australians about the hundreds of great big sky fans dotted along the coast? Everyone come to the coast to feel the cool breeze generated by wind farms! Thank you Mr Albanese!

You rotten twine…..

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?

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.