Who would actually believe the authenticity of this BS?

[irritant]

What a total crock of BS. Here, in South Africa, we have a way of setting a whole new low standard when it comes to...well, anything.

Never used to watch or play "LOTTO" that much because I always felt there was a snake in the grass somewhere. People winning huge sums of money very frequently -- which one does not really expect from a lottery.

Anyways, since I could remember, it was always little numbered plastic balls that used to roll/float around in a glass case with spinning rotary arms mixing the whole lot, then some "celeb" (usually totally unknown to most of the population) would press a button, and voila -- the balls would be "sucked up" one-by-one into a glass tube which reminds me of a "thief" water sampler, until six numbers and a bonus were drawn.

Then, for a long time never watched it, until the other night when I turned on the TV, and low and behold, I find a total crock of you-know-what appearing on my television, similar to this:



At first I thought, wait a minute, this is some kind of joke, right? A computer-animated lotto-draw? You gotta be shitting me.

Come to find out, this BS is now the real lotto draw! Yep, millions being raked in from punters, millions at stake, and this is now the way the winners are determined!

All the while being assured that the numbers are drawn using random number generator (RNG), and live too. Yeah, live. I'll bet.

[irwazza]

Do you wear a tin hat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[irritant]

Do you wear a tin hat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha, OK.

Look, ordinarily, I would agree with you. Five years ago I would have said, nah, so what.

Not anymore. Not after the revelations that I've seen come to light with regards to rampant corruption, state capture and the like. There is not a pool/concentration of money anywhere in the land that has not been touched/pillaged/plundered/siphoned somehow.

I have learnt to expect literally anything nowadays, and that the bottom of the barrel/rock bottom is a temporary concept, until someone stoops even lower.

[Uncle Fester]

All the while being assured that the numbers are drawn using random number generator (RNG), and live too. Yeah, live. I'll bet.

Gambling and honesty... seriously??

If it is computer generated then it is not an RNG but a PRNG, the 'P" stands for Pseudo.
The result can be reverse engineered(here not practical) but if the state of the PRNG is known then it's result can be predictable.

That is why to generate keys for encryption you might be asked to wiggle your mouse around for a while to add true randomness.

Pokies have also always been 'rigged' to provide the provider(and the ATO) always a certain percent of income. Surely the punters know that and don't care when they end up losing their assets and family, so why then worry about computer generated 'randomness' in Lotto?

[irritant]

...but if the state of the PRNG is known then it's result can be predictable...

Yes, sure, but the point is, I mean, where does all this type of stuff end? Did the majority of people become so complacent that a fake "lotto" doesn't even seem off to anybody anymore? You get a few people commenting about it on social media or whatever, and then the brouhaha dies a quiet death, until a new one starts about yet another way the population gets screwed. And so on and so on till everything goes for a ball of shit.

[Uncle Fester]

I mean, where does all this type of stuff end? Did the majority of people become so complacent that a fake "lotto" doesn't even seem off to anybody anymore?

Hence my mention of the 'fake' computer generated Pokies, who cares?
The same as the majority have become so complacent to the loss of our privacy rights with the new encryption laws, Google, Facebook, blah, blah.

Nobody cares about anything that matters anymore !

In fact when you dare to point out the risks of this stuff you get the usual "tin hat", "I got nothing to hide" bullshyte.

This careless attitude is open season for the rich to get insanely rich while in the meantime Dystopia can slowly creep in from everywhere, USA, China and locally.
Your opinions are manipulated, you have no right to question anything, we do everything for your own protection, individuality is a crime if it does not fit the expected profile.

Full tin foil body armour now activated

[trash]

I know South Africa is a bit behind the times, but reality is that this has been happening in Australia for well over 25 years.
Being a satellite based forum, I first noticed it because of satellite TV. What I noticed was the lotto draw which was always "live" in that it was pre-recorded would have the symbolic three people from the government lotteries to oversee the draw. Yep, the little balls jumping around randomly, all looks perfectly legit.
Then I was watching a different channel from a different state with a different draw about an hour later. I remembered the first three numbers from the other draw and the last number as the sup. The second draw caught my attention because the first number was the same. To my surprise the 2nd and 3rd were the same ... and so was the sup. Looking at the show, the "officials" were different as was the machine.
The following week I wrote down the numbers and .. wow, completely different machine drawing the exact some numbers live !

Now I have no doubt that the draw somewhere was completely random. It is a fair lottery. They don't need to rig it, the odds and payout are as good as printing money.

So the fact the that numbers are computer generated on a screen really doesn't matter. If it is a fair lottery, then it is a fair lottery.
As for people winning large amounts every week. That is how the lottery works. Every week somebody wins. The odds on "somebody" winning the lottery are very low. The odds on any one person winning are high. If you confuse the two, the fact that anybody wins might seem unrealistic.

It's how much they don't win with respect to the odds that you want to pay attention to. Like a casino, people "think" that the Casino wins when you lose.
This isn't the case at all. The casino wins when you win. The money you lose pays the winner. The casino doesn't pay the winner as much as they should have got.
Roulette is the best example. The odds are 36 to 1 of picking a single number on Australian roulette wheels. They pay 35. Each dollar you win, they get $1.

this brings me to Nomeat's statement.

Pokies have also always been 'rigged' to provide the provider(and the ATO) always a certain percent of income.

Nope. The pokies aren't rigged. That is conspiracy thinking.
You know the pokies odds are against you, but that is not rigging them. Rigging them implies an unfair game.
If they tell you the odds are 100 to 1 and they aren't, then that is rigging or cheating.
But if you know the odds and you know the payout, then it is a fair game.

Pokies are fair in that respect, you can calculate the odds and the machines play to those odds. I have (a few) poker machines, I can assure you they play true and fair. (I also have a cardy machine, which doesn't play true, but it was not designed to pay out. It's an entertainment machine even though you could win credit).

That doesn't mean they don't play dirty. The truth of how poker machines work is far more insidious.
They are parasitic gambling and like a leech uses body heat, poker machines use stupid. Stupid is a bit unfair, they prey on human behaviour.

The first is the really obvious stuff. Lots of bright colours, a bit of action, a catchy theme (egyptology is always a winner) and the catchy music and tones.
No surprises there. They keep stupid entertained else stupid might think it was losing.

Older machines don't do a lot of this stuff, but new machines do. They make you think you're winning when you're actually loosing.
You played $1 on 1000 line machine, and won 20 cents .... ROLL THE MUSIC so the idiot thinks he's winning !
Even more subtle is how long spins take. You can change the speed at which the reels spin and stop. The quicker you run them, the quicker they gamble.
But you can slow things down. Slow down that payout ... instead of a 1 second "chaching" tone for winning 20 cents, the machine can be made to play some music and take three of four seconds to count out all 20 cents one at a time. You feel like a bigger winner and you're still a looser.

And there are all kinds of other little settings that you can tinker with and it is disturbing how people behave in response to them.
They are evil but they are not rigged.

And then there are higher levels of what you might call rigging, but still it is nothing but using human inattention and laziness and taking advantage of it even while they give you outrageously good odds.

You have probably heard the claim that pokies/clubs pay out 95%. So for every $1 spent, they pay out 95 cents. And this is true.
Yet the clubs rake in a considerable income and the government knows exactly how much they made because they keep excellent records and pay tax on it.
No surpises there where the money goes. Tax collected is a GOOD thing. It's an idiot tax. If you didn't tax bogans playing pokies, they might spent that money on alcohol or cigarettes (but we got that tax in the bag too).

In NSW hotels, annual poker machine profits over $200,000 are taxed at 33 per cent up to $1 million. Between $1 million and $5 million the rate is 36 per cent and 50 per cent over $5 million. Clubs that earn less than $1 million a year in pokie profits pay no tax.
Between 1 December 2017 to 31 May 2018 NSW Clubs made a net profit of $1,945,161,625 and hotels made a net profit of $1,169,040,731 from pokies alone.

So that is $3 billion profit. By that logic with a return of 95% it would imply that people put $60 billion through NSW machines.
That's about $8500 for every person in NSW. $163 per week or about $23 per day.

Those numbers seem a bit high don't they? Well they are.
Reality is that accounting is the criminal here. But to understand it we need to look at how people play poker machines.
I have some chronic pokie players in my family and I have experimented on them over the years.

So typically my grandmother is a perfect example of your average idiot. In the good old days she would get $1 in 10 cent pieces and play the one armed bandit.
And when her cup was empty, she would typically have 90 cents in the tray. BUT here's where she feeds the trolls in the accounting department.
She reaches into the tray and picks up a coin and feeds the machine. The odds say that after another nine spins she should have about eight coins in the tray.
You can hear the accounting trolls giggling behind the machine as she continues to reach for more coins until the law of diminishing returns has no coins left in the tray.

How much did she gamble? You're going to say, she lost $1. But she lost $1 + 90c + 80c + 70c + 60c + 50c + 40c + 30c +20c +10c.
She lost a grand total of $5.50 but won $4.50. She lost $1 but the accountants will tell the public that the machine's odds are 1-(1/5.5) = ~82%

Now I trained my granny very well. I would instruct her to play the machine as per normal, but the rule was she could only play from the cup.
I would watch her like a hawk and stop her reaching into the tray. When her cup was empty, I would take all the coins from the tray and put them into my cup.
If she wanted to continue playing, I made her go and get another cup of coins, which she did. Again she would pay the cup to empty and I would collect the winnings. She would complain, but I told her that if she wanted to continue playing... go get more coins. (which she would do).
When she had spent maybe $30-50 she would finally give up and then I would give her back her winnings.
If she spent $50, I could pretty much guarentee that I would give her back $45 I had cashed in for her. If she hit a big win, the attendant would clear the winnings and I could still collect the tray and make her play the remainder of her cup.

I was looking after my inheritance

However, with the rise of electronic machines that don't pay out coins immediately..... granny has got her fingers in her own till and the last time I watched her play a machine, I watched $50 vanish into the ether.

By far this one human behaviour is the cause of most gambling losses.

As an example of my machines... one of them has $6000 in it. I have been hammering the bugger for months and I cannot get it down to zero.
Now you might think this machine is paying out unrealistically. No, it's paying out fair. I had one big win on it as you might expect, but if you apply the 95% rule, I have to gamble about $120,000 to achieve bankruptcy.
This highlights how hard chronic gamblers must be hitting the machines.

I really don't like playing poker machines. They're boring. But they are interesting to learn how they work.
Even more fun is letting people play the machines. I have experimented on my kids which is a hell of a lot of fun.
They are surprisingly smart. And when they can study the machines, they have worked out ... they are a mugs game. They have no interest in putting any money in them and they don't find them entertaining either.
When you don't have skin in the game, pokies are dull.

I could easily write laws for how poker machines should work so that chronic gambling is hard while gambling $1 is fun.
But that would cripple poker machine revenue and tax. There would literally be no winners.

It is morally wrong to allow stupid people to keep their money.

Mohs .... Don't look at the lottery loosers. Look at what happens to the winners. Money is toxic to stupid people.
That story in South Africa does not usually have a happy ending !

[irritant]

...Money is toxic to stupid people...

Definitely agree. The sort of people that win the massive jackpots have no idea how to manage so much money. In a few months they are worse off (poorer) than before they won.

[VroomVroom]

You have probably heard the claim that pokies/clubs pay out 95%. So for every $1 spent, they pay out 95 cents. And this is true.
Yet the clubs rake in a considerable income and the government knows exactly how much they made because they keep excellent records and pay tax on it.
No surpises there where the money goes. Tax collected is a GOOD thing. It's an idiot tax. If you didn't tax bogans playing pokies, they might spent that money on alcohol or cigarettes (but we got that tax in the bag too).

mate you are spot on there , I used to play them a bit back in the mid 80s and although i never put my whole pay through them i always seemed to get some money back , and sometimes more than i dropped in. The machines then were standalone units , purely electromechanical.
Then these new fangled machines came in with buttons that needed to be pushed , and i recall them all having data connectors on the back , and from that moment i realised they were no longer standalone but linked to a master unit somewhere , which gave rise to a theory ( in my head ) that they were every easily rigged , so i have not used one since.

as for the tax money they generate , i see it as a way of Centrelink getting back the money they give to the bogans who play the machines bit of a money circle.

[Uncle Fester]

Pokies have also always been 'rigged' to provide the provider(and the ATO) always a certain percent of income.

Nope. The pokies aren't rigged. That is conspiracy thinking.

Every time I put these things ' ' over words, that means I don't mean it literally
Yes I meant programmed or designed to return only a certain percent less of what goes in, which implies that it is not truely random.

Lotteries are designed in a similar fashion as only a certain percent of the pool is payed out in winnings.

Even old mechanical pokie machines where designed that way, at least the ones I had in Germany in the bar of my practice room for the band.
That income was always used to pay for the transport of the equipment to the concerts and that income never failed.

[enf]

Every time I put these things ' ' over words, that means I don't mean it literally
Yes I meant programmed or designed to return only a certain percent less of what goes in, which implies that it is not truely random.

Lotteries are designed in a similar fashion as only a certain percent of the pool is payed out in winnings.

Even old mechanical pokie machines where designed that way, at least the ones I had in Germany in the bar of my practice room for the band.
That income was always used to pay for the transport of the equipment to the concerts and that income never failed.

Designed to return an average of 87% in Australia from memory, although that may have changed. If you play them you should know this going in, so rigged? I don't think so technically.

It's the minds of the habitual players that are rigged.

[trash]

Every time I put these things ' ' over words, that means I don't mean it literally

It's good that you can clarify that because I deal with a lot of conspiracy nutters, and they do think they are rigged.

Yes I meant programmed or designed to return only a certain percent less of what goes in, which implies that it is not truely random.

No, you're confusing two different things there.
Stacking the odds and randomness.

A good example is if you walk up to a pokie and make a bet, you have as much chance of winning as I do if I come up any other time and make the same gamble.
That is random, and it's 100% fair. All poker machines at "fair". This will lead us onto the "gambler's fallacy".

But that doesn't mean the odds aren't stacked against you. You're chances of winning might be 1000:1 you know that, so that is also fair.
And you know that you will be paid $500 for the win even though the odds were 1000:1 on a $1 bet. You won $500, but so did the club. (You should have been paid $1000).

Pokies are fair in all of those respects.
The gamblers fallacy is that if you play the machine and don't win, it means that I have a better chance of winning after you.
Absolutely not. I have the exact same chance.

If I flip a coin and it comes up heads. I flip it again, head, and again, heads and again 10 more times and they all come up heads, I flip the coin again, what are the chances of it coming up tails?
They are 50:50, completely even odds. The coin does not know or care what happened before this flip/spin.

Lotteries are designed in a similar fashion as only a certain percent of the pool is payed out in winnings.

Nope, lotteries (and Keno and Powerball) are fair games too. The payouts are all based on a fixed set of rules. But you've got the cart before the horse.
You need to remember that these sorts of lotteries do not win when you lose. They take their income from winnings based on fixed odds.
In some cases you'll notice that division 1 might be based on a jackpot rather than fixed odds. It can be a huge amount of money compared to the bet, but when you look at the odds of winning it, the jackpot is massively short of the odds.
The authority running the games doesn't need to rig it or bias the game. Step right up, everyone's a looser.

So I'll pull an example out of my arse. Lets say that tonight's lotto has a division 1 jackpot of $5 million. That sounds fair doesn't it? You bet is 25 cents. (Because you get 4 games for $1).
It looks like there are 45 numbers in NSW lotto. (wow).
45 x 44 x 43 x 42 x 41 x 40 = 5,864,443,200 The odds on winning are almost 6 billion to 1 and they are offering you (a share) of $5 million. Even if we divide by 4 to account for the 25 cent bet, That's still about 1.5 billion to one.

The game is not rigged. they don't need to rig it because, you're being short changed

Even old mechanical pokie machines where designed that way, at least the ones I had in Germany in the bar of my practice room for the band.
That income was always used to pay for the transport of the equipment to the concerts and that income never failed.

nope, absolutely not. I can tell you that I have several mechanical pokies and they are all 100% fair.

Of course the odds are stacked against you, but the machine plays fair to those odds.
I just went out, opened one of my mech machines and counted the reels. It has 24 symbols per reel and this machine is a 4 reeler.
It's jackpot is $50 and it is a 10 cent machine.

20 x 20 x 20 x 20 = 160000 to 1 are your odds of winning the $50 jackpot. But you should be paid $16,000 for that win.

Now sure there are some lesser wins to reduce the odds, with of course lower payouts.
An example is a [10] on the first reel pays 20 cents. When know the reel has 20 symbols and 3 of those are [10]'s
The odds on winning the minimum prize are 20/3 = 6.667 to 1 Instead of being paid 66 cents for the win, you're paid 20 cents. I keep 46 cents every time you win.

Now even though the odds are (fairly) stacked against you, and you're being short changed (how much I think determines the fairness).
The game is still fair. as an example. You spin the pokie and win the jackpot, and then I spin the machine and I have the exact same odds of winning. So even if they have to pay you $50 and me $50, they might be $100 behind, but they aren't anywhere close to losing $32,000. And of course you know the odds on a double win like that happening is 256 million to one. It's not going to take long to recover their $100

If you want to amuse yourself, look at the odds on Powerball. Those odds are astronomical.

But, if you're looking for an unfair form of gambling, there is one. It is rotten to the core because the house can control the odds precisely.
The club always has the 256 million to one risk that I will win two spins in a row. Instant scratchies have no such fear. They are a licence to print money. The not only control the odds, they can change them with each bet.
They control who wins and how much and when. Of course if they print a fair batch and release them, then the batch plays fair from that point on. Everybody has the same change of buying that one winning ticket.
But the company can prevent anybody from winning by just not printing a winning ticket in a batch. They know EXACTLY how much they will rake in from printing a batch of tickets.
That, by definition is a truly rigged game.

[trash]

Designed to return an average of 87% in Australia from memory, although that may have changed. If you play them you should know this going in, so rigged? I don't think so technically.
It's the minds of the habitual players that are rigged.

It's all comes down to human behaviour and cognition. Humans can behave both irrationally but predictably irrational. The gamblers fallacy is where most of it is at.

As I mention above, if I flip a coin and it comes up heads. I flip it again, which is more likely, head or tails?
Part of the gamblers fallacy says that a human will think tails is more likely to come up next. And the more head in a row they have seen previous, the stronger that bias becomes to believe tails is "due" to come up next.

My pokie gambling relatives all suffer from gambler's fallacy. IF they see a machine has just paid out, they won't play it. If they see somebody else lose a sum of money on a machine, they will pay it because they believe it is due for a payout.
Mind you, these same relatives all say they are "ahead" on their pokie gambling quota. They are all sailing down the river denial.


Reality is that none of us are immune from such a fallacy because it is human nature.
As a side note I will describe a couple of generations of pokies.

The first generation are all mechanical. You provide energy for the spin by pulling on the one armed bandit.
Second generation machines are still one armed bandits, but the arm triggers a switch which electromagnetically releases or kicks the reels, and a motor winds it up for the next spin.
Third generation are push button, but the reels a still kicked and spin freely. The computer works out where they stop.
Fourth generation the reels are driven by stepper motors. The machine knows precisely the position of each reel at any point in time.
Fifth generation are all electronic machines. The reels are software. Again, the software knows the exact position of each symbol in it's software stack.

I'm now seeing what I call sixth generation machines in clubs but I'm not sure how to define them or if they are actually still just fifth gen machines to look different.

You can see where an inherent flaw comes into play with poker machines.
There is a point between the third and fourth where randomness is taken away from the universe and it is given to the computer.
With that comes some interesting changes to the rules.

This is similar to the game show fallacy or the Monty Hall problem.
A contestant is given a choice of three boxes. One of which has the prize, the other two have nothing.
The contestant picks a box. The game show host then takes away one of the other two boxes and offers the contestant a chance to swap his box for the other one.

What is his best choice? Keep the box he has or swap it? What gives him the best odds of winning?

[enf]

It's all comes down to human behaviour and cognition. Humans can behave both irrationally but predictably irrational. The gamblers fallacy is where most of it is at.

.................................................. ....................

What gives him the best odds of winning?

Don't play!

[irritant]

So guys, just seen the ad - this Friday night, PowerBall jackpot is 110M ZAR (which is about 11M AUD).

Anybody feel up for a bit of hacking of this "RNG"?

We'll split the prize.

[irritant]

As an aside, I've never really believed in the concept of "randomness". It's probably just me, but I've always reckoned we call stuff random just because we have not been able to determine (at any given time) the value of the potentially millions of variables that determine the outcome of a particular thing (whether the position of a particular leaf on a tree or a lotto ball being chosen).

Imagine if someone really did sit down and tried to predict which balls would be chosen in a particular draw by considering all the aspects and variables. If you could measure and predict all parameters, I'm sure one would predict the draw spot-on. But, you'd have to obsess about literally everything -- from the air pressure in the ball chamber, to the pattern the balls roll in, the ambient temperature at that location at that exact time, the list is virtually endless.

If you had to do all that work, it would literally be a life's work, so the reward of several millions of dollars is fitting in that sense. I mean, you would definitely have earned it. But, you'd probably have to lay out billions of dollars on all the equipment you would need to gather all this data, so in the end, would it really be worth it?

It seems the easiest way still to win the lotto is none other than pure luck.

[trash]

As an aside, I've never really believed in the concept of "randomness". It's probably just me,

Nope, it's everybody. Humans are hardwired to find patterns. The human brain is so good at it that we find patterns in things that aren't really there. Especially faces. The man in the moon is the classic example.
Look at how many people believe in luck or karma. Even if they are not religious or superstitious in any significant way, they "feel" these things are real in some undefinable way.

I love karma because it lets me do bad things to people and they believe they deserve it.

but I've always reckoned we call stuff random just because we have not been able to determine (at any given time) the value of the potentially millions of variables that determine the outcome of a particular thing (whether the position of a particular leaf on a tree or a lotto ball being chosen).

Welcome to the world of modern physics. This statement is actually a real paradox. What your describing is the current battle between Quantum physics and Classical physics (Newtonian and Relativity).

Newton says that if you know the position of every particle in the inverse and you know it's velocity (as a vector) then you can essentially predict the future with infinite precision.
The limitation to this is not that it is impossible to know every particle in the universe, but rather it's just too complex to do so.
Relativity further complicates it because you see the universe from your frame of reference, not from every frame of reference. It's not impossible, it's just more complex.

Quantum Physics on the other hand says thanks to Heisenberg, you cannot know the position and the motion of any particle in the universe with any sort of precision.
Hence the future, let alone the present is unknowable.

Enter the butterfly effect. Newton says that if a butterfly flaps it's wings, each time the experiment is performed, if all the particles in the universe have the exact same starting conditions, the outcome will always be identical.
Quantum physics says, the outcome will always be different.

This then brings as to consciousness and free will. If you think Newton and Einstein a right, then you don't actually have any free will. The universe is already entirely fixed in it's past and future. Free will is just an illusion.
If Heisenberg is correct, then free will is real, the future is not fixed and who wins tomorrow's lottery has not yet been determined.

It seems the easiest way still to win the lotto is none other than pure luck.

Ah Luck. There is another creation of humans. Like ghosts or bigfoot, luck also does not exist. It is completely devoid of substance.
Luck only exists in the past. Never the future.

If I flip a coin and bet against you that it will comes up heads. Am I lucky if it does come up heads?
If I flip it again and it comes up tails. Where is that luck now? It never existed.
If the coin comes up heads the second time, am I more lucky?

If I am more lucky, sure this luck will ensure me success for my next flip of the coin since I have been defined as being charged with some quality of luck?
YOU WOULD NOT BET YOUR BALLS ON IT.
The next coin flip has exactly 50:50 odds of me winning regardless of if I keep heads or switch to tails.
Luck does not exist in the future.

---

Time to go back and look at the Monty Hall effect.

Three boxes, you pick one. (You have a 1 in 3 chance of picking a winner).
The host takes away one of the two unchosen boxes and you are offered a chance to swap boxes.

Over the history of the TV show and if the experiment is repeated in the real world today, most people will keep their chosen box.
That is human behaviour and it "feels" right.
It's at this point I will ask you: Do you fell lucky punk?

Keeping your chosen box is not the best choice.

If you don't switch, you retain the 1 in 3 chance.
But if you switch, your odds become 2 in 3 chance of winning.

[ 1 ] - [ 2 ] - [ 3 ] = {#1} == (swapped for)

[win]-[loss]-[loss] = {win} == (LOSS)
[loss]-[win]-[loss] = {loss} == (WIN)
[loss]-[loss]-[win] = {loss} == (WIN)

[irritant]

Yeah, I guess I should have said, the easiest way to win the lotto was to depend on this thing people call luck.

But, it is hugely ineffective, most of the time, for the individual, not as a group, as there is probably a winner in the group as a whole at some point. But, then again, a "group"?

Stuff the group. Nobody ever posted me a cheque for a cut of their winnings.

---

Time to go back and look at the Monty Hall effect.

Three boxes, you pick one. (You have a 1 in 3 chance of picking a winner).
The host takes away one of the two unchosen boxes and you are offered a chance to swap boxes.

Over the history of the TV show and if the experiment is repeated in the real world today, most people will keep their chosen box.
That is human behaviour and it "feels" right.
It's at this point I will ask you: Do you fell lucky punk?

Keeping your chosen box is not the best choice.

If you don't switch, you retain the 1 in 3 chance.
But if you switch, your odds become 2 in 3 chance of winning.

[ 1 ] - [ 2 ] - [ 3 ] = {#1} == (swapped for)

[win]-[loss]-[loss] = {win} == (LOSS)
[loss]-[win]-[loss] = {loss} == (WIN)
[loss]-[loss]-[win] = {loss} == (WIN)

Sorry to be pedantic, but I'm not quite following this part. Could you explain why the odds go up to 2 out of 3 upon swapping? And, how does the removed box come into it?

[hoe]

you forgot to mention the box that the host takes away is shown to the contestant and is a loser......

changes things completely

[Uncle Fester]

This then brings as to consciousness and free will. If you think Newton and Einstein a right, then you don't actually have any free will. The universe is already entirely fixed in it's past and future. Free will is just an illusion.
If Heisenberg is correct, then free will is real, the future is not fixed and who wins tomorrow's lottery has not yet been determined.

I call it all the Chaotic Order because both are right, depending how you look at the universe.