Re: iPod classic on shuffle
wracket wrote:
Harold Bissonette wrote:
My theory of 3-from-one-row plus 3-spread out only works in about half of these answers, but I think even if it only works half the time, that would at least - if only fractionally - narrow the odds.
Certainly nothing even approaching 6-in-a-row - and presumably nothing like that has ever come up.
Whether we're talking about numbers or animals, there are no rows, no groupings. It's all purely artificial, hence the ability to substitute animals for numbers. There are x numbers of balls in pot and at the first go any of those balls has a 1/x chance of being selected, at the second drawing 1/(x-1), etc. The fact that they use numbers tends to draw your attention into grouping them into rows or multiples of three or whatever, though my point with the animals is that one could regroup the animals-painted-over-numbers balls into rows of, say, mammals, fish, reptiles, birds...and then probably try to find patterns of the winning combinations based upon these new row groupings. But if you scratched off the animals, you might find yourself with one "row" of balls 2,7,18,19,24,38,43,45. So which "row" actually applies to the varied probability of these balls being selected, the animal one or the number one? The answer is clearly that it is neither of them.
(I hope we're not boring people too much with this)
I think the difference between our arguments is that you are arguing for what should happen mathematically/logically, whereas I am arguing for what tends to happen in practice. I think it would be possible to take a set of results - similar to those I linked to and make certain conclusions. For instance:
the average gap between the 6 numbers that come up is so much
the average variation within those gaps is so much
the average odd/even numbers are so much
and so on
and from that come up with rules relating to these. Then choose your set of 6 numbers that roughly following these rules - wouldn't that lower the odds of winning?