Repeats and Dodgy Statistics (Hi MJ!)

[nigel]

The correlation betweem my system's predictions for number of repeats
and the actual results has now hit -0.20389041942593, and that's after
44 draws.

I 'cheated' and used my software's TTest function with the following
parameters:
Array of predictions
Array of results
2-tailed test (since we're looking for oddities in either direction)
Pairs (since each prediction and result forms a discrete pair)

It calculated the probability as 0.64430697390173.

I'm not sure what that means, but my best guess is that it reckons
there's a 64% chance that something untoward is going on ie not
statistically significant.

Nigel

Congrats for keeping it up ;-)
Did you learn much? Did you find a bias?
MJ
(I have post here, can't post further down the thread)

[Ion Saliu]

Post by nigel
I 'cheated' and used my software's TTest function
Nigel

Congrats for keeping it up ;-)

I second that. Bravo, Doollow! Keep it going, axiomates, Doollow & Martsopolleahk! Being alive is of utmost importance — second only to good health.

As for lottery strategies, the easiest one is wheeling 18 numbers ‘3 of 3, 4 of 6’. But NOT just 18 numbers, since the lotto numbers were NOT born equal. The ‘most frequent numbers’, ‘the best pairings’, and ‘the most frequent triples’ build the best way to FINANCIAL success. See in this very newsgroup (hopefully, it’ll stay alive much longer):
• https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.lottery/c/O6MrMoK0Pwg
• Super 18,6,4,6 42 Wheel

IonSaliu Axiomaticus
Founder of Lotto Mathematics

• “Stayin’ Alive” – Bee Gees

[nigel]

Ion Saliu wrote:

<snip>

Post by Ion Saliu
I second that. Bravo, Doollow! Keep it going, axiomates, Doollow &
Martsopolleahk! Being alive is of utmost importance — second only to
good health.

Thank you for the kind words - more than I deserve after all my teasing.
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

I'm like a senescent ugly duckling, paddling away below the surface ever
more slowly, in the hope it's not too late to become a swan.

I noticed something strange a while back but wrote it off as a
coincidence. Then something similar happened, then again and again. I've
started monitoring it formally because if it holds up, it's weird,
wonderful and mind-blowing. I've been here before only to have my hopes
dashed but it's nice to have a bit of optimism to cling to in these
troubled times.

I wish you and your family a prosperous New Year.

Nigel

[Marmaduke Jinks]

Post by nigel
<snip>

Post by Ion Saliu
I second that. Bravo, Doollow! Keep it going, axiomates, Doollow &
Martsopolleahk! Being alive is of utmost importance - second only to
good health.

Thank you for the kind words - more than I deserve after all my teasing.
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
I'm like a senescent ugly duckling, paddling away below the surface ever
more slowly, in the hope it's not too late to become a swan.
I noticed something strange a while back but wrote it off as a
coincidence. Then something similar happened, then again and again. I've
started monitoring it formally because if it holds up, it's weird,
wonderful and mind-blowing. I've been here before only to have my hopes
dashed but it's nice to have a bit of optimism to cling to in these
troubled times.
I wish you and your family a prosperous New Year.
Nigel

Festive Greetings to all in the group :-)

MJ

[nigel]

Did I say dodgy? Most of my software's built-in functions ignore blank
rows. It seems the TTest function is different. So the result I posted
below is wrong, though fortunately not by much.

Post by nigel
The correlation betweem my system's predictions for number of repeats
and the actual results has now hit -0.20389041942593, and that's after
44 draws.
I 'cheated' and used my software's TTest function with the following
Array of predictions
Array of results
2-tailed test (since we're looking for oddities in either direction)
Pairs (since each prediction and result forms a discrete pair)
It calculated the probability as 0.64430697390173.
I'm not sure what that means, but my best guess is that it reckons
there's a 64% chance that something untoward is going on ie not
statistically significant.
Nigel

[nigel]

Yesterday my syste predicted 2 repeats in the New York Lottery and we
got two repeats. That didn't do my dodgy statistics much good :-)

Happy Christmas to those who care, Happy Holidays to those who don't.

Post by nigel
Did I say dodgy? Most of my software's built-in functions ignore blank
rows. It seems the TTest function is different. So the result I posted
below is wrong, though fortunately not by much.

Post by nigel
The correlation betweem my system's predictions for number of repeats
and the actual results has now hit -0.20389041942593, and that's after
44 draws.
I 'cheated' and used my software's TTest function with the following
Array of predictions
Array of results
2-tailed test (since we're looking for oddities in either direction)
Pairs (since each prediction and result forms a discrete pair)
It calculated the probability as 0.64430697390173.
I'm not sure what that means, but my best guess is that it reckons
there's a 64% chance that something untoward is going on ie not
statistically significant.
Nigel