Odd things not supposed to be Gamblers Fallacy

[Katweezel]

I mentioned that I heard author, Deepak Chopra.* He described the Universe as 'One vast energy field where all is connected.'* He went on at at length about Eastern Spiritual masters, Gurus and mystics who have been teaching this concept for perhaps as long as 6000 years.

Nowadays, I have read of - and seen on DVD's and TV - various quantum physicists who strangely enough, say the same thing.* They go into more detail, such as, 'everything in the universe is made of the same stuff: energy.* The same energy.* Everything is apparently connected in a most mysterious way,' and so on.* Theories abound as to how this could be so.

When I heard Chopra say that, a light bulb went on in my gaming brain/mind.* Of course!* That's it!* I thought.* THIS was the answer to a mystery that had befoggled me for years...Streaks, negative and positive have no connection, said the books.* Independent events have zero influence upon each other.* Dice, roulette, coin-tossing; all are individual events with no effect on the next event.* Science can prove that.*

And yet, I always felt there was something science/math was missing, like as if the full story contains more than the known. Blackjack, of course is not an independent event because card removal does effect the next event.* But 'expert' BJ authors would be unanimous in this decision: There is no connection between one shoe's results and another shoe's results.* How could it be?* They are independent events.

Not satisfied with the official, scientific, math-geek explanation,*and with Chopra's lightbulb burning in my brain, I began to pay particular attention to BJ streaks, dealer streaks and dealer-busts results, shoe-total results and the like.* I kept records.* After some months, I began to notice more things about BJ.

Another thing he said began to replay and I noticed it was true: "Whatever you focus on, expands."* My knowledge about the nature and characteristics of the game definitely became deeper.* One of the big things that had a very positive effect on my bankroll was this:* I'd noticed that (even though science/math said otherwise) there IS a connection one shoe's results with another.

For example, BJ has an 'average' result for the dealer hand, and for your hand, if you are playing a single box.* It helps to know those 'averages.'*

Let's say the dealer hand has a result from this shoe where her totals were an average of 55% higher than its 'normal average' for all or most of its categories...Dealer busts, BJ, 21, 20, 19, etc.* (Each individual total needs to be looked at and compared.)* Such a result I have learned from long experience, often means (but not always) that a 'correction' could be likely for the next shoe, or maybe the one after.* This 'correction' may even be the 'mirror image' of the 'exceptional' shoe that went earlier.

I was fully aware of the phenomenon called: 'Gamblers' Fallacy,' which is true, from a scientific point of view.* But not true, from a different perspective.* If you discover for yourself some things that work for you, even though 'experts' say 'impossible', what does it matter what they say? Many reading this may say: "K, go to Voodoo, now."* And I can relate to that!However, I'm certain I am not the only one who noticed 'odd' things about BJ that can be exploited, and are 'not supposed to be' because a math geek said so.

 

[sagefr0g]

I mentioned that I heard author, Deepak Chopra.* He described the Universe as 'One vast energy field where all is connected.'* He went on at at length about Eastern Spiritual masters, Gurus and mystics who have been teaching this concept for perhaps as long as 6000 years.

Nowadays, I have read of - and seen on DVD's and TV - various quantum physicists who strangely enough, say the same thing.* They go into more detail, such as, 'everything in the universe is made of the same stuff: energy.* The same energy.* Everything is apparently connected in a most mysterious way,' and so on.* Theories abound as to how this could be so.

When I heard Chopra say that, a light bulb went on in my gaming brain/mind.* Of course!* That's it!* I thought.* THIS was the answer to a mystery that had befoggled me for years...Streaks, negative and positive have no connection, said the books.* Independent events have zero influence upon each other.* Dice, roulette, coin-tossing; all are individual events with no effect on the next event.* Science can prove that.*

And yet, I always felt there was something science/math was missing, like as if the full story contains more than the known. Blackjack, of course is not an independent event because card removal does effect the next event.* But 'expert' BJ authors would be unanimous in this decision: There is no connection between one shoe's results and another shoe's results.* How could it be?* They are independent events.

Not satisfied with the official, scientific, math-geek explanation,*and with Chopra's lightbulb burning in my brain, I began to pay particular attention to BJ streaks, dealer streaks and dealer-busts results, shoe-total results and the like.* I kept records.* After some months, I began to notice more things about BJ.

Another thing he said began to replay and I noticed it was true: "Whatever you focus on, expands."* My knowledge about the nature and characteristics of the game definitely became deeper.* One of the big things that had a very positive effect on my bankroll was this:* I'd noticed that (even though science/math said otherwise) there IS a connection one shoe's results with another.

For example, BJ has an 'average' result for the dealer hand, and for your hand, if you are playing a single box.* It helps to know those 'averages.'*

Let's say the dealer hand has a result from this shoe where her totals were an average of 55% higher than its 'normal average' for all or most of its categories...Dealer busts, BJ, 21, 20, 19, etc.* (Each individual total needs to be looked at and compared.)* Such a result I have learned from long experience, often means (but not always) that a 'correction' could be likely for the next shoe, or maybe the one after.* This 'correction' may even be the 'mirror image' of the 'exceptional' shoe that went earlier.

I was fully aware of the phenomenon called: 'Gamblers' Fallacy,' which is true, from a scientific point of view.* But not true, from a different perspective.* If you discover for yourself some things that work for you, even though 'experts' say 'impossible', what does it matter what they say? Many reading this may say: "K, go to Voodoo, now."* And I can relate to that!However, I'm certain I am not the only one who noticed 'odd' things about BJ that can be exploited, and are 'not supposed to be' because a math geek said so.

sounds like your tawkin bout the law of averages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages

 

[Sonny]

Such a result I have learned from long experience, often means (but not always) that a 'correction' could be likely for the next shoe, or maybe the one after.* This 'correction' may even be the 'mirror image' of the 'exceptional' shoe that went earlier.

As I said before, keep reading and studying. There is still a lot that you don't understand about the basic principles of gambling. You mention the Gambler's Fallacy, but obviously you don't understand how it works. Here are some old discussions about it that might help you:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9093
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9325

As you can see, your results are completely normal. They do not refute the Gambler's Fallacy at all and you have no reason to think that it is wrong. Read through those threads a few times until you really understand what the Gambler's Fallacy is all about. Most voodoo systems are based on this fallacy so it is very important to understand how it works and how to avoid falling into it's traps.

-Sonny-

 

[ohbehave]

Sonny: You seem to have even misused the Gambler's Fallacy in your coin toss example. The Gambler's Fallacy is the belief that a certain outcome is due on the next event based on the results of previous events.

Also the wikipedia definition, "The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future." seems to refute statistics. In a statistically fair event deviations will in fact be likely to be evened out by opposite future deviations and fluctuate for the most part within one standard deviation.

Contrary to what you imply it doesn't take millions or billions of trials to determine a statistically significant event. It actually takes surprisingly few trials. Its just that even a relatively small number of trials can get expensive if one is betting on the outcome.

In your example I would most def be accusing someone of cheating if after 1000 flips I was never once ahead or at best even. If that coin flip is not fluctuating around 50/50 within a couple hundred trials then something is wrong with the coin and its not a fair game.

You can't trust statistics out of one side of your mouth and distrust statistics out of the other. A fair coin toss will be that... fair.

 

[Sonny]

Also the wikipedia definition [of the Gambler’s Fallacy]…seems to refute statistics. In a statistically fair event deviations will in fact be likely to be evened out by opposite future deviations and fluctuate for the most part within one standard deviation.

That is exactly the point that I was making in the second thread. In statistics there is no law that describes a “correction” that “evens things out” after a series of similar events. Just because the Roulette wheel hits black five times in a row doesn’t mean that the next spin is not completely random. People assume that wins will be followed by corresponding losses or that unusual results will suddenly turn around in order to “average out”. Many people assume this, which is why the Gambler’s Fallacy is so prevalent in voodoo systems. If you understand statistics you will understand why this is not true. The math supports the fallacy and the threads I gave above explain it. I agree that a "correction" seems like common sense, but common sense had bankrupted many otherwise intelligent gamblers.

In your example I would most def be accusing someone of cheating if after 1000 flips I was never once ahead or at best even.

I never said that either player was never ahead or that the results didn’t fluctuate during play, only that the end results were positive for the player. The fluctuations could have jumped wildly back and fourth during the course of those 1,000 flips. If the player was using a negative progression system then it is very likely that he had some very large “unexpected” losses that were recouped by many small wins. My example purposely left those details out. In my experience, most progression players ignore that information anyway, which is why I wrote this post:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=7821

-Sonny-

 

[standard toaster]

Hey Alfred E Flash, Let me guess. You once lived in Boston when Deepak was a doctor and he botched an operation on your... errr, am I getting warm?
Boy, you even wipe alternative medicine! Four months ago, I developed a rash that spread; like an irritating itch in my crotch area. No amount of creams, balms, potions, gells or advice from the pharmacy helped. Then, blessed relief arrived in the form of 'Bush Flower Essences'. My rash mysteriousy vanished in just one week. No more jock itch. Now if I listened to you, I'd still be furiously scratching my balls...So, in my mind, your judgement could be...flawed in other areas as well, such as Chopra.
PS You are not, by any chance, a Transcendental Meditator like he, are you?

could it have possibly been that after all that time spent using different creams allowed it to just go away on its own? That it was just coincidence that it went away a week after using the "bush flower essence." Were you still with the same gf at the time it went away?

 

[Sonny]

could it have possibly been that after all that time spent using different creams allowed it to just go away on its own? That it was just coincidence that it went away a week after using the "bush flower essence." Were you still with the same gf at the time it went away?

Stop trying to find rational explanations. It was magic damnit! :laugh:

-Sonny-

 

[ohbehave]

That is exactly the point that I was making in the second thread. In statistics there is no law that describes a “correction” that “evens things out” after a series of similar events. Just because the Roulette wheel hits black five times in a row doesn’t mean that the next spin is not completely random. People assume that wins will be followed by corresponding losses or that unusual results will suddenly turn around in order to “average out”. Many people assume this, which is why the Gambler’s Fallacy is so prevalent in voodoo systems. If you understand statistics you will understand why this is not true. The math supports the fallacy and the threads I gave above explain it. I agree that a "correction" seems like common sense, but common sense had bankrupted many otherwise intelligent gamblers.



I never said that either player was never ahead or that the results didn’t fluctuate during play, only that the end results were positive for the player. The fluctuations could have jumped wildly back and fourth during the course of those 1,000 flips. If the player was using a negative progression system then it is very likely that he had some very large “unexpected” losses that were recouped by many small wins. My example purposely left those details out. In my experience, most progression players ignore that information anyway, which is why I wrote this post:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=7821

-Sonny-

Fair enough. I think we agree.

In a game with mathematically proven results such as blackjack where the perfect BS player will win a certain percentage of hands the Gambler's Fallacy lies not with the math involved but rather in the players mind.

As you know losing streaks will turn around. Winning streaks will follow losing streaks and the percentages will play out. The fallacy is the player believing he knows when those things will happen solely based on previous results and betting accordingly.

 

[Katweezel]

Irritating solution

could it have possibly been that after all that time spent using different creams allowed it to just go away on its own? That it was just coincidence that it went away a week after using the "bush flower essence." Were you still with the same gf at the time it went away?

Hey Toast, I appreciate your interest in my personal, intimate delicates but your suggestion is only a rank outsider. My wife of 28 years seized control of the situation - and my balls - and began regularly applying the liquid. It felt good, right from the first rub. Unlike all that useless muck from your pals, the pharmacies, with their chemical solutions. It began to fade almost immediately and within one week it had vanished as mysteriously as it had appeared. If you and Sonny want to call my relief 'magic' I'm more than happy with that, as you might have guessed.

Toast, instead of talking about jock itch, I hoped you might have come up with something more meaningful and profound. Something which would have shed more light on the quantum physics energy thing. I suspect you know more than you are letting on...

 

[standard toaster]

Hey Toast, I appreciate your interest in my personal, intimate delicates but your suggestion is only a rank outsider. My wife of 28 years seized control of the situation - and my balls - and began regularly applying the liquid. It felt good, right from the first rub. Unlike all that useless muck from your pals, the pharmacies, with their chemical solutions. It began to fade almost immediately and within one week it had vanished as mysteriously as it had appeared. If you and Sonny want to call my relief 'magic' I'm more than happy with that, as you might have guessed.

Toast, instead of talking about jock itch, I hoped you might have come up with something more meaningful and profound. Something which would have shed more light on the quantum physics energy thing. I suspect you know more than you are letting on...

the quantum physics energy thing im working on is classified information i cant reveal to anyone until my work is complete... but you wouldent be interested in that stuff anyway... it has scientific and mathmatical reasoning. With all your doubt in all proven i would have though you would understand the betting strategy i made viewable in your "keep this one quiet thread."

I still have questions about your ball itching phenomenon as it is a good break from my quantum physics energy capsulating diode math thingamagig... I noticed you were the one who made a point to go to the doctor and get cream for the itch.. im assuming you rubbed that on? While the bush oil was your wifes doing and she rubbed it on could that have simply taken your mind off of the itch and onto your 28 year old wife? (why the age matters i have no clue... my gf is 21 does this cout for anything?) Also a little ap advice here if it feels so good for her to apply the liquid and rub your balls it may be in your best intrest to pretend its still itchy while you do this i will invest in some "bush flower essence" stock and make a killing.

also if jock itch cream does not help id suggest a test... you know many forms of std come and go without warning it may have simply been the wrong treatment! although the voodoo flower may have cured it

sorry to seem like a prick this is just to good to pass up:laugh:

 

[QFIT]

Fair enough. I think we agree.

In a game with mathematically proven results such as blackjack where the perfect BS player will win a certain percentage of hands the Gambler's Fallacy lies not with the math involved but rather in the players mind.

As you know losing streaks will turn around. Winning streaks will follow losing streaks and the percentages will play out. The fallacy is the player believing he knows when those things will happen solely based on previous results and betting accordingly.

The fallacy is the belief that there is a correction, not that you don't know when it will occur. There is no correction in absolute numbers of wins and losses. There is a regression toward expected value. But this is NOT the correction incorrectly believed in the gambler's fallacy.

 

[Sonny]

QFIT hit the nail on the head, but I’d like to explain it in a little more detail.

As you know losing streaks will turn around. Winning streaks will follow losing streaks and the percentages will play out.

Winning streaks do not always follow losing streaks. Sometimes you will have two or three losing streaks in a row. Even if you have 20 losing streaks in a row it does not indicate that a winning streak is destined to average things out. That is the Gambler’s Fallacy.

Let’s use another coin toss example. You flip a fair coin 10 times and it lands on heads every single time. You would expect 5/5 heads/tails but you ended up with 10/0. According to your logic you would expect a higher number of tails so that everything averages out. That is not the case. For the rest of the flips we still expect the same 50/50 chance of either result. That means that we expect heads to always be 10 flips ahead of tails for the rest of our lives. That seems illogical, but if you follow the math you will see that things do regress towards 50/50 even though the results are always uneven. After 990 more flips we expect to see 495 heads and 495 tails, plus the extra 10 heads from the first “lucky” flips. That gives us a total of 505 heads and 495 tails, which is very close to our 500/500 expectation. If we continue for 10,000 flips the results would be 5005/4995 which is even closer to our expected 5000/5000. If we had been betting on tails waiting for a "correction" we would have been wasting our money.

As you can see, the results don’t have to be exactly even if the number of trials is large enough. The small variances will begin to disappear as you approach a significant number of flips and the overall results will approach the theoretical expectation. There is no need for a correction or negative streak to even things out since things will even out on their own over time.

The Gambler’s Fallacy is the underlying foundation of all streak/trend systems, which makes them all faulty by nature. Understanding this fact will show you the flaw in pretty much every gambling system that people discuss in the voodoo forum. Any system that raises its bets in order to take advantage of a streak (a win after a series of losses, a series of dealer busts, a “choppy” table of wins and losses, not taking insurance after the dealer had a BJ the last 3 times in a row, etc.) will not be effective because it is based on this fallacy.

-Sonny-

 

[standard toaster]

QFIT hit the nail on the head, but I’d like to explain it in a little more detail.



Winning streaks do not always follow losing streaks. Sometimes you will have two or three losing streaks in a row. Even if you have 20 losing streaks in a row it does not indicate that a winning streak is destined to average things out. That is the Gambler’s Fallacy.

Let’s use another coin toss example. You flip a fair coin 10 times and it lands on heads every single time. You would expect 5/5 heads/tails but you ended up with 10/0. According to your logic you would expect a higher number of tails so that everything averages out. That is not the case. For the rest of the flips we still expect the same 50/50 chance of either result. That means that we expect heads to always be 10 flips ahead of tails for the rest of our lives. That seems illogical, but if you follow the math you will see that things do regress towards 50/50 even though the results are always uneven. After 990 more flips we expect to see 495 heads and 495 tails, plus the extra 10 heads from the first “lucky” flips. That gives us a total of 505 heads and 495 tails, which is very close to our 500/500 expectation. If we continue for 10,000 flips the results would be 5010/4990 which is even closer to our expected 5000/5000. If we had been betting on tails waiting for a "correction" we would have been wasting our money.

As you can see, the results don’t have to be exactly even if the number of trials is large enough. The small variances will begin to disappear as you approach a significant number of flips and the overall results will approach the theoretical expectation. There is no need for a correction or negative streak to even things out since things will even out on their own over time.

The Gambler’s Fallacy is the underlying foundation of all streak/trend systems, which makes them all faulty by nature. Understanding this fact will show you the flaw in pretty much every gambling system that people discuss in the voodoo forum. Any system that raises its bets in order to take advantage of a streak (a win after a series of losses, a series of dealer busts, a “choppy” table of wins and losses, not taking insurance after the dealer had a BJ the last 3 times in a row, etc.) will not be effective because it is based on this fallacy.

-Sonny-

And this is exactly correct! I tried to write this out but for some reason could not get it the way i wanted so i just let it be assuming someone else would give a go at it. You can always trust sonny

 

[ohbehave]

QFIT hit the nail on the head, but I’d like to explain it in a little more detail.



Winning streaks do not always follow losing streaks. Sometimes you will have two or three losing streaks in a row. Even if you have 20 losing streaks in a row it does not indicate that a winning streak is destined to average things out. That is the Gambler’s Fallacy.

Let’s use another coin toss example. You flip a fair coin 10 times and it lands on heads every single time. You would expect 5/5 heads/tails but you ended up with 10/0. According to your logic you would expect a higher number of tails so that everything averages out. That is not the case. For the rest of the flips we still expect the same 50/50 chance of either result. That means that we expect heads to always be 10 flips ahead of tails for the rest of our lives. That seems illogical, but if you follow the math you will see that things do regress towards 50/50 even though the results are always uneven. After 990 more flips we expect to see 495 heads and 495 tails, plus the extra 10 heads from the first “lucky” flips. That gives us a total of 505 heads and 495 tails, which is very close to our 500/500 expectation. If we continue for 10,000 flips the results would be 5005/4995 which is even closer to our expected 5000/5000. If we had been betting on tails waiting for a "correction" we would have been wasting our money.

As you can see, the results don’t have to be exactly even if the number of trials is large enough. The small variances will begin to disappear as you approach a significant number of flips and the overall results will approach the theoretical expectation. There is no need for a correction or negative streak to even things out since things will even out on their own over time.

The Gambler’s Fallacy is the underlying foundation of all streak/trend systems, which makes them all faulty by nature. Understanding this fact will show you the flaw in pretty much every gambling system that people discuss in the voodoo forum. Any system that raises its bets in order to take advantage of a streak (a win after a series of losses, a series of dealer busts, a “choppy” table of wins and losses, not taking insurance after the dealer had a BJ the last 3 times in a row, etc.) will not be effective because it is based on this fallacy.

-Sonny-

I'll skip over the fact that you've used a made up experiment that proves your argument because its not relevant.

I propose that embeded within your 1000 or 10000 coin flips there are numerous possibly lengthy streaks of both heads and tails. This is what I meant by there will be winning streaks following losing streaks, etc. This is what the gambler who falls victim to the Gambler's Fallacy focuses on... the streaks. But in the end the statistics will prevail.

 

[Sonny]

I propose that embeded within your 1000 or 10000 coin flips there are numerous possibly lengthy streaks of both heads and tails.

I agree completely. I was just pointing out that the streaks will not necessarily cancel out. Many gamblers assume that a streak must be followed by an equal and opposite streak in order to restore things to the average expected result. That’s not how it works. The overall results can regress towards the expected average even while the absolute difference is becoming larger. In reality, a player could continue losing more money while his overall loss rate is becoming smaller. That’s a very important concept that I wanted to mention.

-Sonny-

 

[ohbehave]

In reality, a player could continue losing more money while his overall loss rate is becoming smaller. That’s a very important concept that I wanted to mention.

-Sonny-

No argument with that Sonny.

 

[Katweezel]

Powerball Fallacy

I've read with interest comments on Gambler's Fallacy on this thread. Not sure if that principle applies in my question, but I'd like opinion on this... I deliberately chose #10 from Australian Powerball results, (which just had weekly draw #656) My VD system has predicted #10 to appear as the PB# for draw #657 next week. (LOL if you want but as a pure guess, it is a 45/1 math chance, which is not a huge outsider, is it?)

I also chose just one aspect of records I keep: The powerball number that hit in the draw preceding #10.

Now, number 10 as the PB has hit 14 times in 656 draws. Here is a list of the 14PB numbers that hit in the draw before #10PB hit in each of those 14 draws:

4 7 8 18 21 22 26 31 35 36 37 38 42 45

#31 was the most recent.
Briefly, there are no numbers appearing from the family of 3's, 9's or 0's. But there are 3 X 8's, and 2 X large 5's, for example.
There is also a neighbour streak from 35 through 38. Low-High favor H 6-8 O-E are equal. In the groups of 5 X 9 numbers, the group 37-45 is the leading total with 4.

I agree these are results for 'independent events' and 'random events.'
None of these numbers has appeared twice or more, (which is unusual compared with the other numbers' results.) The streak of 4neighbours is intriguing. Last week's PB was #33.

Q1. Do you think any of this data could be meaningful or helpful in predicting #10 as the next Powerball?

Based on past events, (which are not connected, right?) I am going with the 'form' of #10 as 33 is a number that has not yet appeared on the list. (That qualifies it from this aspect. I have other VD 'signs' in other aspects.)

Q2. Is GF applicable with my example?

Background: I enjoy keeping records of PB and trying to connect and collect. I have not scored anything major to date, BUT, now here is a clue: I have collected small prizes from 3 of the past 4 draws, including selecting the PB 3/4. (I'm not bragging here, just pointing out that in 3/4 recent draws, I have already overcome tremendous odds of something over 80K/1 multiplied X 3. I collected $90something, $250 and $120 odd. Seeing as the odds against selecting the 5 winning numbers plus the PB are about 54M/1, I figure I am HOT! like hot dice.

Would somebody here like to tell me what a complete waste of time and effort all this post is, how idiotic it all is, and I will certainly NOT be a winner - large or small - next draw, and #10 will certainly NOT be the next Powerball?

 

[Unshake]

Would somebody here like to tell me what a complete waste of time and effort all this post is, how idiotic it all is, and I will certainly NOT be a winner - large or small - next draw, and #10 will certainly NOT be the next Powerball?

I'd say there is roughly a 1/45 chance of 10 being the Powerball, just like any other number :laugh::laugh: ... Not to insult you, but did you actually read (..and comprehend) anything else in this thread or others about Gambler's fallacy?

 

[standard toaster]

I've read with interest comments on Gambler's Fallacy on this thread. Not sure if that principle applies in my question, but I'd like opinion on this... I deliberately chose #10 from Australian Powerball results, (which just had weekly draw #656) My VD system has predicted #10 to appear as the PB# for draw #657 next week. (LOL if you want but as a pure guess, it is a 45/1 math chance, which is not a huge outsider, is it?)

I also chose just one aspect of records I keep: The powerball number that hit in the draw preceding #10.

Now, number 10 as the PB has hit 14 times in 656 draws. Here is a list of the 14PB numbers that hit in the draw before #10PB hit in each of those 14 draws:

4 7 8 18 21 22 26 31 35 36 37 38 42 45

#31 was the most recent.
Briefly, there are no numbers appearing from the family of 3's, 9's or 0's. But there are 3 X 8's, and 2 X large 5's, for example.
There is also a neighbour streak from 35 through 38. Low-High favor H 6-8 O-E are equal. In the groups of 5 X 9 numbers, the group 37-45 is the leading total with 4.

I agree these are results for 'independent events' and 'random events.'
None of these numbers has appeared twice or more, (which is unusual compared with the other numbers' results.) The streak of 4neighbours is intriguing. Last week's PB was #33.

Q1. Do you think any of this data could be meaningful or helpful in predicting #10 as the next Powerball?

Based on past events, (which are not connected, right?) I am going with the 'form' of #10 as 33 is a number that has not yet appeared on the list. (That qualifies it from this aspect. I have other VD 'signs' in other aspects.)

Q2. Is GF applicable with my example?

Background: I enjoy keeping records of PB and trying to connect and collect. I have not scored anything major to date, BUT, now here is a clue: I have collected small prizes from 3 of the past 4 draws, including selecting the PB 3/4. (I'm not bragging here, just pointing out that in 3/4 recent draws, I have already overcome tremendous odds of something over 80K/1 multiplied X 3. I collected $90something, $250 and $120 odd. Seeing as the odds against selecting the 5 winning numbers plus the PB are about 54M/1, I figure I am HOT! like hot dice.

Would somebody here like to tell me what a complete waste of time and effort all this post is, how idiotic it all is, and I will certainly NOT be a winner - large or small - next draw, and #10 will certainly NOT be the next Powerball?

I give up... theres no way... its like a progressive player who does not care what the facts are but truly believes it will work... only to realize it is a failure when all their money is gone.

 

[Sonny]

Pointless

I agree. This silliness has gone on long enough. There’s no point in wasting any more time explaining the truth to someone who doesn’t want to hear it. This thread is closed, as is the other thread started by Ion, I mean parpaluck, I mean North Wind, I mean Moneyman, I mean Licentia, I mean Katweezel.

-Sonny-