• This is it: The best online odds calculator that ever was! IonOddsCalculator, version 5.0, June 2003 (3 WE). The best online odds calculator covers a lot of territory: pick games, lotto, keno, powerball, horseracing, sports betting, soccer pools, roulette. The odds are calculated in one step as: -exactly; and- - at least.
For example, a lotto game will require 3 parameters: - the biggest number in the game (eg 49) - numbers per combination (eg 6) - pool size (eg play an 18-number system).
The odds calculated as EXACTLY in a lotto game '6/49':
- 0 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 18.99 - 1 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 4.57 - 2 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 2.9 - 3 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 3.81 - 4 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 9.83 - 5 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 52.65 - 6 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 753.28
The odds calculated as AT LEAST in a lotto game '6/49':
- 0 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 1 - 1 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 1.06 - 2 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 1.37 - 3 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 2.6 - 4 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 8.19 - 5 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 49.21 - 6 of 6 in 18 from 49 -> 1 in 753.28
If pool size is set to numbers per combination (eg 6), the results will reflect the commonly used probabilities: The odds calculated as EXACTLY in a lotto game '6/49':
- 0 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 2.29 - 1 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 2.42 - 2 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 7.55 - 3 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 56.66 - 4 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 1032.4 - 5 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 54200.84 - 6 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 13983816
The odds calculated as AT LEAST in a lotto game '6/49':
- 0 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 1 - 1 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 1.77 - 2 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 6.62 - 3 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 53.66 - 4 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 1013.03 - 5 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 53991.57 - 6 of 6 in 6 from 49 -> 1 in 13983816
The probabilities (odds) for keno games are calculated by the same function as lotto, using three parameters. For example: 80, 20, 20.
The probability calculated for the pick-3 game. The pick-3 game draws 3 digits from 0 to 9; e.g. 090. The odds of the pick-3 game are: - straight pick: 1 in 1000; - boxed: 1 in 220; - front/back pair: 1 in 100.
The probability calculated for the pick-4 game. The pick-4 game draws 4 digits from 0 to 9; e.g. 0903. The odds of the pick-4 game are: - straight pick: 1 in 10,000; - boxed: 1 in 715; - front/back 3-digits: 1 in 1000.
The probability calculated for powerball games. The odds calculated as EXACTLY in a Powerball game '53/5/42':
- 0 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 70.39 - 1 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 123.88 - 2 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 696.85 - 3 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 10685 - 4 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 502194.88 - 5 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 120526770
The odds calculated as AT LEAST in a Powerball game '53/5/42':
- 0 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 42 - 1 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 104.14 - 2 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 653.33 - 3 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 10461.49 - 4 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 500111.08 - 5 of 5 in 5 from 53 plus the Powerball -> 1 in 120526770
To calculate the odds without the Powerball: - use lotto odds for 5 in 5 from 53
The odds calculated for horse races. The odds in horseracing, 8 horses in the race:
- to win probability (top 1) -> 1 in 8 - exacta probability (top 2) -> 1 in 56 - trifecta probability (top 3) -> 1 in 336 - superfecta probability (top 4) -> 1 in 1680 - quinfecta probability (top 5) -> 1 in 6720
The probability calculated for single zero and double zero roulette tables. Various odds at 0 and 00 roulette
=================================================== Type of Bet Single 0 Double 0 =================================================== - straight-up (1 number): 1 in 37 1 in 38 - split (2 numbers): 1 in 18.5 1 in 19 - street (3 numbers): 1 in 12.3 1 in 12.7 - corner (4 numbers): 1 in 9.25 1 in 9.5 - fiveline (5 numbers): 1 in 7.4 1 in 7.6 - sixline (6 numbers): 1 in 6.2 1 in 6.3 - column (12 numbers): 1 in 3.1 1 in 3.2 - dozen (12 numbers): 1 in 3.1 1 in 3.2 - black/red (18 numbers): 1 in 2.06 1 in 2.11 - even/odd (18 numbers): 1 in 2.06 1 in 2.11 - low/high (18 numbers): 1 in 2.06 1 in 2.11 ===================================================
The odds calculated for American sports betting; i.e. betting on one team in each game. The AT LEAST odds in American sports betting, 5 games:
- parlay probability 0 of 5 -> 1 in 1 - parlay probability 1 of 5 -> 1 in 2 - parlay probability 2 of 5 -> 1 in 4 - parlay probability 3 of 5 -> 1 in 8 - parlay probability 4 of 5 -> 1 in 16 - parlay probability 5 of 5 -> 1 in 32
The odds calculated for soccer pools 1X2; i.e. one of three possible outcomes in each game; 1 = win for home team; 2= win for visiting team; X = tie (draw). The AT LEAST odds in soccer pools 1X2 for 13 games:
- 0 of 13 -> 1 in 1 - 1 of 13 -> 1 in 3 - 2 of 13 -> 1 in 9 - 3 of 13 -> 1 in 27 - 4 of 13 -> 1 in 81 - 5 of 13 -> 1 in 243 - 6 of 13 -> 1 in 729 - 7 of 13 -> 1 in 2187 - 8 of 13 -> 1 in 6561 - 9 of 13 -> 1 in 19683 - 10 of 13 -> 1 in 59049 - 11 of 13 -> 1 in 177147 - 12 of 13 -> 1 in 531441 - 13 of 13 -> 1 in 1594323
The following functions are also present in the online number, combination generator: IonSaliuGenerator. - calculate the binomial standard deviation; - calculate the fundamental formula of gambling: number of trials necessary for an event of individual probability p to appear with the degree of certainty DC; - open a file in the rich text box; - edit a file in the rich text box; or, edit the content created by an odds calculating function; - save the file in the rich text box; or, save the content created by an odds calculating function; - print a file in the rich text box; or, print to the default printer the content created by an odds calculating function; - change the font of a file in the rich text box; select the contents of rich text box, then click the Font button.
IonOddsCalc is an ActiveX control. It requires Microsoft Internet Explorer version 4 or later! It shouldn't be a big deal, though. Microsoft Internet Explorer is easily available as a freebie. Download your free copy of MSIE5 or later from the home page. You need enable your browser to accept downloading and running ActiveX controls. Like all my software, IonOddsCalc ActiveX control is guaranteed to be safe. There have been no reports of security problems related to my software. When you use the Save option, be careful with the file names. Do not overwrite files that you don't want to overwrite!
• Click here if you want to run IonOddsCalc online ActiveX control. It is the best online odds, probability calculator that ever was!
Hardly a waste of bandwidth. If you want to talk about bandwidth waste then anything written on wheeling 3 in godknowswhat in whatever is bandwidth pollution. Their bank balances will reflect this in the negative. The latest calculator gives you invaluable information. For example if I pick a pool of 12 numbers out of 49 my odds of getting it right are approximately 1 in 15 000. Every time Saliu posts here the castle drawbridge is raised and archers are stationed on the battlements to repel the invader. Just what is it you people fear from Saliu?
> Hardly a waste of bandwidth. If you want to talk about bandwidth waste > then anything written on wheeling 3 in godknowswhat in whatever is > bandwidth pollution. Their bank balances will reflect this in the > negative. The latest calculator gives you invaluable information. For > example if I pick a pool of 12 numbers out of 49 my odds of getting it > right are approximately 1 in 15 000. Every time Saliu posts here the > castle drawbridge is raised and archers are stationed on the > battlements to repel the invader. Just what is it you people fear from > Saliu?
The problem Andrew,
Every time Ion posts some information for me (us) to feast our brain, we always without fail find error in the said work.
Not once have I learnt even a snippet of information from Ion and to be honest have tried (with others) to point out exactly where the error occurs, he simply does not seem to 'take it in' and argues a point *not* mentioned or changes the subject.
Now clearly, one day he may come up with something worthwhile, but we aren't listening anymore.
You can only cry wolf so often, gARY
BTW. I in 15 000 approx, is correct. This I posted in the thread 'back to basics':- (no software required).
I'll reply as objectively as possible, and hope you'll see it that way.
"Andrew G" wrote: > Hardly a waste of bandwidth. If you want to talk about bandwidth waste > then anything written on wheeling 3 in godknowswhat in whatever is > bandwidth pollution. Their bank balances will reflect this in the > negative.
If 'wheeling 3 in godknowswhat' is an example of wasted bandwidth -- then two of the most egregious such examples seen in this forum have been:
... the 416-line wheel, wheeling '3 in 6' with its claim of '3 times as many 5-winners' as any other set of 416 lines, in any lottery game, worldwide.
... the 307-line wheel, wheeling '3 in 6' with its 'benchmark' of '3.7 wins' (expectation is 3.84), but containing a 9-to-1 disparity in prize matching.
The issue is not mainly the technical content of those wheels, although they are, very objectively and frankly by modern covering standards, mediocre. There are better ways for the player to wheel his £416 or £307 against the chance of some '3 in 6' wins, if he were so inclined.
The issue arises from the way those '3 in 6' wheels have been presented by their author.
The issue is fourfold: (1) outrageous, inflated, unsubstantiated claims for those wheels; (2) perfunctory testing using inadequate (even trivial) data; (3) evasion of dialogue, shifting away from the subject, and personally attacking responders with terms like: "stinking sucker", "pretender", "son of a bitch", etc, along with accusations of web site hacking, software stealing, et al; and (4) after the subject has lain dormant for weeks/months, with no further postings in the newsgroup, coming back out of the silence with a renewed string of personal attacks, devoid of any new technical content.
Those are the elements of the issue in this RGL forum. There's a related issue as well. Here in this forum, unsubstantiated claims are shown to be false, using extensive test data that is publicly presented here. Therefore this forum shows the full picture. However in other forums, the author maintains the same unsubstantiated claims, without reference to their refutation in RGL.
Here is why those things are an issue in this RGL forum.
This is a Usenet forum and it has standards for ethical posting. There is also this RGL forum's FAQ which explicitly specifies that authors who present material here are expected to substantiate it. Finally, this is also a lottery players resource and needs to be respected by all of us as such. That applies both to the usefulness of the technical content and to its accessibility in message threads -- i.e., if it's a wheeling topic, then stay on-topic, develop dialogue, and don't do diversions and name-calling.
Every one of us has our responsibility to try to stick to those standards. Otherwise this place would be a zoo.
> The latest calculator gives you invaluable information. For > example if I pick a pool of 12 numbers out of 49 my odds of > getting it right are approximately 1 in 15 000.
That's right. Of course your odds go down, and your costs go up, proportionately.
> Every time Saliu posts here the > castle drawbridge is raised and archers are stationed on the > battlements to repel the invader. Just what is it you people fear from > Saliu?
It's not "you people". It's a public place where technical content and human decency need to be kept in mind.
If you're unconvinced by any of the above, check the archives in Google Groups. Check <rec.gambling.lottery> as well as other related groups. Check some message threads. Start at their very beginning, work your way down through them, and see where objectivity falls apart.
I assure you, there is no 'fear'. If a claim is made, it will be evaluated with data. If personal insults come back in lieu of a data dialogue, those insults will be met head-on with more data.
I hope this is reasonable. Feel free to discuss it, by E-mail if you like, or publicly here if it's OK with others.
> Hardly a waste of bandwidth. If you want to talk about bandwidth waste > then anything written on wheeling 3 in godknowswhat in whatever is > bandwidth pollution. Their bank balances will reflect this in the > negative. The latest calculator gives you invaluable information. For > example if I pick a pool of 12 numbers out of 49 my odds of getting it > right are approximately 1 in 15 000. Every time Saliu posts here the > castle drawbridge is raised and archers are stationed on the > battlements to repel the invader. Just what is it you people fear from > Saliu?
Nothing, you don't think his bank balances reflects his genius do you? The problem is his calculator was giving wrong results for years and he couldn't or wouldn't fix it. On the other hand the correct results were free on the Lotto Genie site for years, did he send you there?
There are two sets of odds for every amount of numbers you might choose to wheel. The odds of having any number of winning numbers, and the odds of winning the prizes when you do have winning numbers among those you are wheeling. As one goes up the other goes down and vice versa. Yes, when you wheel 12 numbers the odds drop from 1 in 13.9 million to 1 in 15,000 all six winning numbers will be among your 12, you can do this with only two tickets!!! Think it over again. Robert Perkis
> castle drawbridge is raised and archers are stationed on the > battlements to repel the invader. Just what is it you people fear from > Saliu?
I have no fear of Ion. What's to fear ?
Ion chose to be the invader years ago when he came here from nowhere and attacked Robert with no provocation. RGL didn't create the monster. When Joe and I challenged his claims with data he responded with attacks and it's been that way ever since. Read the history book.
If Ion were so *godknowswhat* perfect he would be King of the World rather than wandering through life as a run of the mill megalomaniac wannabe.
Yes, you and others may say that a bunch of guys here hate me. There is a subtlety here, however. Those who appear bitter enemies of mine used to be bitter enemies to one another! They are a bunch of happy friends now! I have this skill to turn biter foes into friends, while turning them into my fierce foes. Not long ago, Gerry Boozdoogahn and Joytsar Taxnut were fierce enemies. The same between Gerry Boozdoogahn and gARY mOUSE and Paul Pulicker' etc. Now they are a happy bunch because of me. You can add to the bunch the likes of Druncan/Paralelsus, Gail Perkis. They became the sweetest of friends, while turning into my fiercest foes.
I am proud of it. I have done that in many places, at many times in my life. I know where I don't belong. I bring harmony to where I don't belong, while attracting resentment and hate. I can go away easily to where I belong. I was rewarded for this talent of mine not long ago. The "Netizenship Awards Site" honored me with ‘The Angel of Friendship" award. The chairman, Netizen Tabaki Paravicius even advanced the idea that my next duty of honor should be the Middle East. He stated that I should be able to bring not only peace, but also true friendship between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Then, I would go to the Indian subcontinent…
I hope you'll read also my reply to Nicolas Garcia Barkez in his latest probability and strategy thread.
I wish you the best of luck, old chap!
Ion Saliu http://www.saliu.com/ (So people don't have to search at Google on ‘Ion Saliu'. They can go directly to the source.)
"The foolish man, the silly woman, the infatuated child draw beverage from the swamp, when crystalline water is aplenty in the rock nearby." (Tladouque, "Steps to Maya Pyramid")
> Hardly a waste of bandwidth. If you want to talk about bandwidth waste > then anything written on wheeling 3 in godknowswhat in whatever is > bandwidth pollution. Their bank balances will reflect this in the > negative. The latest calculator gives you invaluable information. For > example if I pick a pool of 12 numbers out of 49 my odds of getting it > right are approximately 1 in 15 000. Every time Saliu posts here the > castle drawbridge is raised and archers are stationed on the > battlements to repel the invader. Just what is it you people fear from > Saliu?
> Yes, you and others may say that a bunch of guys here hate me. There > is a subtlety here, however. Those who appear bitter enemies of mine > used to be bitter enemies to one another!
We still are....get a life! This is just one thing we ALL agree for once!
I wonder why?
>They are a bunch of happy > friends now! I have this skill to turn biter foes into friends, while > turning them into my fierce foes. Not long ago, Gerry Boozdoogahn and > Joytsar Taxnut were fierce enemies. The same between Gerry Boozdoogahn > and gARY mOUSE and Paul Pulicker' etc. Now they are a happy bunch > because of me. You can add to the bunch the likes of > Druncan/Paralelsus, Gail Perkis. They became the sweetest of friends, > while turning into my fiercest foes.
> I am proud of it. I have done that in many places,
The 'cross posting' "many places"? May be your downfall this time Ion.
>The odds calculated for horse races. >The odds in horseracing, 8 horses in the race:
> - to win probability (top 1) -> 1 in 8 > - exacta probability (top 2) -> 1 in 56 > - trifecta probability (top 3) -> 1 in 336 > - superfecta probability (top 4) -> 1 in 1680 > - quinfecta probability (top 5) -> 1 in 6720
Hi would like to define odds as in "odds calculated for horse races". What you have here are not odds as such.
Further more all horses don't have an equal chance in each race so how does the above take this into account?
I am happy that you program is capable of dealing with Keno and roulette but horse racing ain't the same.
> I am referring to odds as the more popular term for probability, > expressed as '1 in N' (favorable odds!). My online odds calculator > expressly prints: > "- to win probability (top 1) -> 1 in 8" (i.e. probability, not payout!)
> You are referring to odds as payouts. What they post "odds" at > horseracing tracks are the potential payouts; the payouts vary wildly, > from the morning line until post time. It is a subjective quantity.
> Here is a tip. Play 'to win' randomly. Forget about 6-horse races! > Better still, keep records of races with 12+ horses. Generate random > numbers using MDIEditor and Lotto, or any random number generator. In > MDI: The biggest number=number of horses in the race; numbers per > combination=1. You can select the first number generated, or the last > number generated. Don't play them for a few races. Most often than not, > your random numbers will not hit immediately, or in the next few races. > But they'll hit! The advantage of random picks is the payout (what you > referred to as odds). Randomness will give you better paying horses. > What's the big deal of winning 1 to 1 or 2 to 1?
>> I am referring to odds as the more popular term for probability, >> expressed as '1 in N' (favorable odds!). My online odds calculator >> expressly prints: >> "- to win probability (top 1) -> 1 in 8" (i.e. probability, not payout!)
A small point about horse racing. If you take the tote odds over a large number of races and find how many times horses at given payouts win you find that there is a very close relationship between the payout and the probability of a horse with that pay out winning.
Thus even money shots win about 49% of the time 4/1 shots about 18% of the time.
>> You are referring to odds as payouts. What they post "odds" at >> horseracing tracks are the potential payouts; the payouts vary wildly, >> from the morning line until post time. It is a subjective quantity.
>> Here is a tip. Play 'to win' randomly. Forget about 6-horse races! >> Better still, keep records of races with 12+ horses. Generate random >> numbers using MDIEditor and Lotto, or any random number generator. In >> MDI: The biggest number=number of horses in the race; numbers per >> combination=1. You can select the first number generated, or the last >> number generated. Don't play them for a few races. Most often than not, >> your random numbers will not hit immediately, or in the next few races.
If my numbers are random why won't they be likely to hit next race or in a few races?
>> But they'll hit! The advantage of random picks is the payout (what you >> referred to as odds). Randomness will give you better paying horses. >> What's the big deal of winning 1 to 1 or 2 to 1?
How will random picks give me better paying horses. If the numbers a random and the payouts are not related to the horses number then what is the advantage of picking random numbers rather than say 6 8 and 9 every race?
Look at the ">>" Steve was answering you from MY reply!
Got it yet? Don't answer rgl..do em' all! As YOU started! WE have nuffin to do with HORSE racing.
I really don't need to be on your case Ion, gARY
BTW. Sent reply back into "what you started"
"Thus even money shots win about 49% of the time 4/1 shots about 18% of the time."
No, Steve. That never, ever happens: "49% of the time". It would be too good to be true. Horseracing would be too easy to win. In my testing, the 'to win according to the crowd' has never been better than 40%. Visitors to my website recorded more races. Their result for 'to win according to the crowd' has never been better than 33%. 1 in 3 may be appealing; but it's not appealing money-wise. Besides, you cannot establish who number 1 is before post time. It changes up to the last second! At Kentucky Derby, the favorite wins no better than a coin toss landing on the edge! Something like that, you get the point!
If you play randomly as I presented, you will cover big shots equally to non-shots. Overall, you'll win regardless of the tote. The tote-that's the main point, will not influence you.
I posted at my website the predictions for Belmont 2001. It was a sweep! But the payouts, therefore the winnings were a misery! I no longer play that way. I no longer post predictions. I don't even bother about races with fewer than 12 horses! Money is not in races of fewer than 12 horses!
Belmont 2003? It can make history today, June 7, 2003! Good for them who make history! But money-wise for the player, Belmont 2003 is a skipper' 'coz it's a sleeper! There will be a negligible exacta, a negligible trifecta, and a nerve-wreckingly small superfecta!
In message <f2567897.0306051332.3b908...@posting.google.com>, Ion Saliu <isa...@onebox.com> writes
Apologies I'm trying to get this back on thread Thanx Gary
"Thus even money shots win about 49% of the time 4/1 shots about 18% of the time."
"No, Steve. That never, ever happens: "49% of the time". It would be too good to be true. Horseracing would be too easy to win. In my testing, the 'to win according to the crowd' has never been better than 40%. Visitors to my website recorded more races. Their result for 'to win according to the crowd' has never been better than 33%. 1 in 3 may be appealing; but it's not appealing money-wise. Besides, you cannot establish who number 1 is before post time. It changes up to the last second! At Kentucky Derby, the favorite wins no better than a coin toss landing on the edge! Something like that, you get the point! If you play randomly as I presented, you will cover big shots equally to non-shots. Overall, you'll win regardless of the tote. The tote-that's the main point, will not influence you. I posted at my website the predictions for Belmont 2001. It was a sweep! But the payouts, therefore the winnings were a misery! I no longer play that way. I no longer post predictions. I don't even bother about races with fewer than 12 horses! Money is not in races of fewer than 12 horses! Belmont 2003? It can make history today, June 7, 2003! Good for them who make history! But money-wise for the player, Belmont 2003 is a skipper' 'coz it's a sleeper! There will be a negligible exacta, a negligible trifecta, and a nerve-wreckingly small superfecta! Ion Saliu "
Ion is does happen. There are datasets of races from all over the world for the past 50 years that says this happens. Horses that start at even money win about 49% of the time. If you have alternative sources for this please let us know what they are.
You are confusing the winning chance of all favourites I suspect.
"Besides you cannot establish who is number 1 before post time?"
Yes you can in very large numbers of races,
"At Kentucky Derby, The favourite wins no better than a coin landing on its edge."
This is historically inaccurate. Can you explain further?
"If you play randomly as I presented, you will cover big shots equally to non-shots. Overall, you'll win regardless of the tote. The tote-that's the main point, will not influence you."
Fascinating. Do you have any form of evidence for this or perhaps a proof? -- Steve Tilley
|
