UK Lottery → RIGGED!!!?!!!?!!!

(ditto: ALL Lotteries!!!)

Mathematics without Science & Engineering => Defective Maths

Recognise Non-Random from claimed Random

 

A visible Lotto draw does NOT mean a TRANSPARENT draw

 

 

URGENT need for a more secure method of Lotto draw

away from single-stage draws → multi-stage draws

 

 

Gambling Commission, statement as per website:

'We exist to safeguard players and the wider public by ensuring gambling is fair and safe …..'

[bolding & text size added]

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/guide/how-we-regulate

 

The arguments herein & emails from Gambling Commission clearly demonstrate dereliction by the Gambling Commission, NatLott & Camelot – UK Lotto is Unfair & Unsafe!!!! Ditto all Lotteries.

 

Appended are emails to/from the National Lottery & Camelot, in 2014, in which concern was raised regarding the Lottery data & the fairness of the Lottery draws, and the non-transparency of the Lottery history results – both NatLott & Camelot evaded the issues.

 

 

Tails You Win – The Story of Chance – David Spiegelhalter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKiz5smpvE8

 

 

Bulgarian Lottery http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8259801.stm - repeat winning numbers on consecutive weekends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI3yW-2reGA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AEbn1NUvq0

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

 

 

Wikipedia: Sir David John Spiegelhalter OBE FRS is a British statistician and Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk in the Statistical Laboratory at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge. Spiegelhalter is an ISI highly cited researcher

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

 

 

 

Recap: It is important to note that Mathematics is NOT Science, nor Engineering – Maths is crucial to both Science & Engineering - Maths is a small-tools subset of the many necessary tools required for Science & Engineering – Engineering PROVES/DISPROVES Science Theories – Incorrect understandings of Science leads to defective Mathematics (e.g. Einstein was wrong because Newton was wrong → e≠mc² because Opticks (wrongly attributed to Newton) are WRONG!!! - follow Fast-Track on Homepage www.cdadd.com)

 

 

The referenced video 'Tails You Win – The Story of Chance' is riddled with numerous errors – largely because Spiegelhalter is a Mathematician, he is not a Scientist, hence cannot be an Engineer – which explains why there are numerous errors in his arguments, and by the various guests within the video.

 

 

Before moving onto the Lottery issue - some of the other errors:

- Pensions (at minutes 12 in video) – Mortality Tables are invalid for determining income stream of pension payouts. Adjudicated proofs? → see www.cdadd.com, lhs panel: Pensions & Mastermind papers

 

- Bank of England (at minutes 55 in video) – Fan Chart – the error rests with the fact that the fan chart shows short term history only, it has ignored the medium/long term data which would show more clearly the overheated state of the economy, hence the increased likelihood of imminent crash.

 

- Toss of Coin – Spiegelhalter states: 1 in million(?) chance of getting 20 consecutive heads or tails. BUT, if one is confronted with a coin that gives 5 consecutive heads then it is likely would be rejected as biased, if betting money.

(Question: if a person has (unbeknown to you) a doubled-head (or tail) coin & asks you to call does this biased coin affect your 50/50 chance on calling the toss? On a single toss, No!, But on consecutive tosses one would quickly establish the bias)

 

- It is important to understand that Statistics relies on micro-data. A MASS of micro-data does not become MACRO-data, it remains a MASS of micro-data. It is impossible to draw firm conclusions regarding MACRO-Economies/Systems from micro-data. Interpretation of micro-data depends upon whether one correctly understands the dynamics that produced, directly and indirectly, the data (Hubble misinterpreted the data of his astro observations by wrongly accepting light colours as being frequency based, colours are arc-angle related, not frequency based – hence Einstein was also wrong) Also, micro-actions have ZERO impact on MACRO-Economies/Systems (Proof? → plug your hairdryer into the socket & note that it has ZERO impact on the National Grid → QED!!!)

 

- The book of a Million 'Random' numbers is NOT PROOF of its Randomness, see later.

 

- What does it mean to say 'Random' – Dame Shirley Stephanie (in 'Tails You Win' video – minutes 24:30 - re: ERNIE (a single-stage draw mechanism)) states Random must be Unpredictable & also Unbiased - but, is it also fair to say: if biased then also partially predictable?

Unpredictable is difficult to determine. Unbiased is more readily detectable. It is entirely possible to develop a perfect bell-curve with purely pre-selected data …............ => Predictable & Biased (despite bell-curve 'unpredictable' & 'non-bias')

 

- What does it mean to say 'Transparent' – Transparent does not solely mean Visible.

Transparent (from Web search) → Medieval Latin verb transpārēre, meaning “to show through,” from trans-, meaning “through,” and the Latin verb pārēre, meaning “to appear” or “to be visible” (pārēre is also the root of the words appear and apparent)

So, Transparent means to see not only the immediately visible but to look through(out) for all that is apparent pertaining to that being scrutinised.

Alternatively stated – anything that purposefully obstructs inspection renders Non-Transparent

 

- Also bear in mind that UK Gambling Commission, NatLott & Camelot infer 'GOVERNANCE' behind their arguments (see emails appended) – It is important to remember that Corporate Governance was developed as a first line defence for corporate Organised Crime (by Mervyn King, ex-High Court Judge, Johannesburg – King Reports I, II, III ….; also see CDADD website lhs panel, paper on Fraudulent sale by King of Kyalami F1 racetrack) - which 'governance' claims explains the EVASIONS by UK Gambling Comm., NatLott & Camelot .

 

 

Lottery: (at minutes 27 in video: Tails You Win ...)

Spiegelhalter argues that the Lottery draw is a Random process of ball selections – in the video the results are depicted in the Distribution Graphs of 2000 draws over 20 years (at minutes 28:30) & the corresponding Bell Curve (at minutes 28:53) – and that the 'Shape of Randomness' is given by the normal Bell Curve.

 

To put what Spiegelhalter is saying in another way – if one achieves a normal Bell Curve then one has achieved a Random distribution –> this is an erroneous conclusion, one has to look at the data itself to determine whether this is a fair conclusion or not – AND at the draw system mechanics.

 

By simple observation of the Lotto graphs in the video the distributions are NOT Random (i.e. Unpredictable AND Unbiased) – this is clear by observing that the different coloured balls, which colours are different according to the 'tens' numbers sets (e.g. Green are for the 30s numbers), are not randomly distributed nor are the other colour sets - i.e. they are BIASED within & across the colours, and therefore one cannot say UNPREDICTABLE – thus the Lotto draws are not RANDOM.

 

Further, if you take a screenshot of the graph & print out, and project the vertical lines upwards and at different levels draw out horizontal lines for the units sets (i.e. on one line display the positions of the '0' unit balls – thus 10, 20, 30, 40 balls), then on a line above for the '1' units and so on onto successive lines up to '9' units – then you will see that the units balls are also differently distributed → BIASED.

 

 

What this means is that the Lottery is NOT Random!!! - for a Random set the entire subsets must also be Random within total Random sets.

 

 

But, why is the Lottery result not Random?

 

There could be unwitting design flaws in the mechanism of the Lottery machine …..

 

OR …..

 

…. it could be purposefully rigged, either with precision of pre-selection of winning balls or with a degree of unavoidable error such that it nonetheless markedly increases the chances of pre-selection of winning balls

 

The outcome of the Bulgarian Lottery in which a winning combination was repeated in 2 successive draws indicates that it is totally rigged. Even though the balls (which are uniform colour) are bounced around at fairly high speed it cannot be ruled out that a high speed detector can be programmed to select a specific ball.

 

The order of the 2 sets of balls was different (same COMBINATION of numbers but different PERMUTATIONS, a Lotto outcome only requires a COMBINATION to win, NOT a PERMUTATION) – this can be explained by the fact that waiting for a specific ball of a pre-selected 7-balls means there is increased risk of uneven lags between balls popping out – if you watch the video of the Bulgarian Lottery (link above) you will note that there are different time sequences in the selections of each ball (from start of high-speed ball bouncing to when a ball pops out) – thus the selection process is NOT uniform, which time variances supports claim of pre-selection - what other reasonable explanation for a near-impossible successive repeat outcome?????

 

(Check times on video – from start of speed-up of balls to selections – the times vary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AEbn1NUvq0

Ball 4: 0.04 – 0.08 → 0.04 secs; Ball 33: 0.17 – 0.24 → 0.07 secs; Ball 12: 0.33 – 0.39 → 0.06 secs; Ball 27: 0.55 – 1.02 → 0.07 secs; Ball 21: 1.32 – 1.38 → 0.06 secs; Ball 6: 3.07 – 3.14 → 0.07 secs; Ball 13: 3.38 – 3.45 → 0.07 secs)

 

Another point that must be considered, a question:– if a Random process IS rigged – then what sort of distribution would one achieve so as NOT to raise suspicions, bearing in mind that it is pre-conceived that a bell-shape 'proves' (wrongly so) randomness?

 

Answer: a distribution NOT dissimilar to the distribution in Spiegelhalter's video!?!?

 

Where BIG, or even large, money is involved International Auditors are also involved

The fact that ALL financial mechanisms are fraudulently rigged & globally, and with the major International Auditing Firms (PwC, KPMG, Deloittes, E&Y, Grant Thornton) being key players therein & criminal entities – also indicates that the Lotteries are rigged.

 

International Auditors <=> International corporate Organised Crime

 

Back to UK Lottery:- The UK ball machine operates differently to the Bulgarian machine. UK Lotto balls are constantly bouncing around and at near-5sec intervals a ball pops out into the chute – but the video perspective is always changing so it's difficult to get accurate times – nonetheless hovering the mouse along the time line it does appear there are slight discrepancies in drop-out intervals - and in any 1-sec interval the ball positions are constantly changing …...............

 

Let's rule out the possibility of an unwitting design flaw. As can be observed, the different coloured balls ('tens' sets) produce different distributions, one to the others, as do the 'units' sets – so, is it likely that the dynamics of the balls are influenced by the colours (different masses/weight due to differing colourants), and differing amounts of black to display the different numbers?

It's possible …..... but it seems unlikely … so much so that it seems fair to rule these out.

 

It leaves only the fact that as the distribution is NOT Random that somehow the draws are rigged – but how?

 

The fact that the balls are visible when bouncing around the draw machine it is not impossible that high-speed controllers are able to manipulate/select which ball enters the exit hopper. The ball numbers are on all sides visible so readily detectable. Reiterate that the Bulgarian Lotto machine has differing draw times, thus indicating pre-selection.

 

But the real issue is the fact that the Lotto machine is visible – giving a false sense of security that visible means transparent, hence rig-free – completely wrong deduction – as is also abundantly clear with the lies over the Twin Towers IMPLOSIONS, fabricated 'evidence' in Stephen Lawrence murder trial, etc., etc., - deceptions are rife in UK ..................... and covered up by Government & Judiciary!!!

 

A visible Lotto draw does NOT mean a TRANSPARENT draw

 

 

One can spend a lot of time chasing 'smoking guns' when trying to determine whether a Lotto draw is rigged - when the real issue is to remove doubt – thus:

 

How do we achieve a Transparent Draw that is Random (Unpredictable & Unbiased)?

And ensure non pre-selection?

… Reasonably so ...

Answer: with a more secure draw method

 

 

 

 

It follows that greater security is achieved through multi-stage draws – note: does this mean a more 'PERFECT' Bell Curve will be achieved? → ???????????????? - who knows?????

 

BUT, …....... it would seem to make more sense if a multi-stage process were adopted – as a suggestion: first, a simple closed machine is used whereby it is rotated to mix balls up randomly, then stopped and a slide opened to allow the balls to flow freely into an exit chute (vibrating?) and then free flow into a funnel (vibrating?) leading into a transparent tube – where all balls are visible.

 

Second, a wheel spun to choose which set of balls that will be coming out of the chute are to be the winning numbers (e.g. if a set of 7 balls required for the draw, then wheel selects first, second, third, etc. set of balls to be the winning balls - or - the wheel choosing a number being the sequence number out of the chute & the number on that ball being the first winning number, along with the next 6 balls being the other winning numbers)

 

Third, a throw of dice to determine whether one counts the 7 balls forwards or backwards (1-3 back, 4-6 forward, or odds/evens basis) -

 

 

The non-Random distributions of the single-stage Lottery draws, as displayed in the video, is clear evidence that the UK Lottery is RIGGED!!! → ditto ALL Lotteries!!! - therefore it makes sense to adopt a multi-stage draw.

 

----

 

Regarding the million 'random' numbers – one would need to project the number-sets of units, tens, hundreds etc. each onto their own level & study the distribution patterns of those number-sets before one can state a reasonable level of Randomness.

Further – to total the numbers of 1s, 2s through to 9s, regardless of their positionings in any number, and seeing those distribution patterns.

 

Also, how many of those million numbers are repeated? Once? Twice? Thrice? ….. Nonce? …..

 

 

[An interesting result → ball numbers 1 through to 49, assign preceding zeros on single digits (1 → 01, etc.)

Total number of digits are: 0 – 13 digits ( e.g. 0 → 01-09, and for 10, 20, 30, 40 = 13 digits), 1 – 15, 2 – 15, 3- 15, 4 – 15, 5 – 5, 6 – 5, 7 – 5, 8 – 5, 9 – 5

Total Digits = 98

Digits/Total Digits are: 0 – 0.133; 1, 2, 3, & 4 – 0.153; 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 – 0.051

 

Now draw up a spreadsheet of all the numbers & ACTUAL Frequency counts (as per video) in columns, columnate all the digits (0 through to 9) & cross-fill the frequency into respective Digit columns

Total all the individual Actual Digit Frequency counts & Total Digit Frequency counts (which Total Digit Count will be 2 x the Total Ball Frequency count, because counting the total digits of double-digit numbers, think about this …)

Actual Digit Counts/Total Digit Counts are in close alignment to the Digits/Total Digits (as calculated above) –> which would seem to support Unbiased.

 

BUT, there is still a clear visible bias across the coloured balls – as seen in the video

why does this occur????

 

Caveat: the writer is notorious for dropping of digits in counts, whilst the above process has been triple checked there still remains a possibility of an error – but unlikely, please check for yourself]

 

 

For Randomness ALL variables MUST display a Random distribution, within & amongst each; if one variable is non-Random then the entire set is non-Random.

 

Even if one achieved a fully Random set (depicted by a perfect bell curve) it does not remove the probability of any one, or more, draw being pre-selected. That can only be minimised by a multi-stage draw method similar to that described above ...

(Note: how does one physically PROVE a draw is random?, plottings only reveal the actual results, it is not PROOF in itself …... how?)

 

A visible Lotto draw does NOT mean a TRANSPARENT draw

 

 

The fact that NatLott & Camelot do not display a downloadable active spreadsheet & graphs of ALL historical draw results is in itself cause for serious concern, as is their refusal to provide a spreadsheet, along with feeble excuses for not doing so; as also is their general evasion over valid enquiries –

Non-Governance => Non-Transparency => Rigged!

 

 

 

But, moving from a narrow Lottery issue to MACRO issues:- Clearly the MASSES of micro-data that Statisticians use is resulting in defective analyses, which flows into the corporate & parliamentary spheres, wherein destructive policies result.

 

It's really up to Parliamentarians/Government to hold Academia to account for their defective models – but this doesn't happen – hence grossly defective models produce massively destructive policies → global chaos prevails, with a World that is increasingly becoming enslaved to corporate Organised Crime tyranny & oppression ….................... resulting in hostilities (witness: Russia/Ukraine/NATO,EU,USA …............... all because Western Governments allowed corporate & academic criminals to gang-bang Russia post wall-fall, ….....… failing Socio-Economies creating frustrations/angers leading to violence (mass shootings, bombings, terrorism, …) …... etc., etc. …...........

 

It is up to Government to Reward/Fund Research & Development based on Merit – Parliamentarians pat themselves on their backs for supplying billions of sterling bombs, bullets, missiles to Ukraine when it would have cost less than a billion sterling to correct grossly defective models behind Parliament's massively destructive policies that allowed Russia (China, NKorea, ….) to be gang-banged by corpOrgCrime criminals ….............

 

----

 

Constructive engagement & criticism is always welcome.

 

Sincerely

 

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

 

 

Emails:

 

 

 

Gambling Commission: statement as per website:

We exist to safeguard players and the wider public by ensuring gambling is fair and safe. [bolding&sizing added]

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/guide/how-we-regulate

 

The arguments herein & emails from Gambling Commission clearly demonstrate gross dereliction

 

 

Subject:	Re: Your National Lottery Complaint
Date:	Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:33:16 +0000
From:	Husnaa Ahsan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dear Mr Addington

Thank you for your email of 12 December 2014 regarding your National Lottery complaint.

The National Lottery is regulated by the Gambling Commission. We have a duty to ensure that the National Lottery is run in a fair and honest way and that the interests of all players are protected. Subject to these duties, we ensure that as much money as possible is raised for good causes.

I note from your email that you had requested information from Camelot which was provided to you but you are dissatisfied with the format in which it was provided to you. I also note that you have taken your complaint directly to Camelot, however, from the correspondence you have included, I can see that you have not yet received a Senior Manager response. The Commission can only look at complaints from a regulatory perspective once a player has completed the complaints procedure and received a Senior Manager response.

By way of background please note that the Commission has licensed Camelot to run the National Lottery. For this reason, Camelot is responsible for answering complaints and enquiries from players in the first instance.

Please contact Camelot to discuss the issues you have raised via one of the following channels:

• By email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
• By post: Customer Operations, The National Lottery, PO Box 251, Watford, WD18 9BR
• By telephone: 0370 737 3983

You can also find out more information about making a complaint to Camelot on the National Lottery complaints webpage: https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/contact-us/complaints

If you receive a response to your complaint and you remain unhappy, you should ask to escalate your complaint through the internal complaints process, firstly to a manager, and then to a senior manager, if necessary.

The Commission’s Remit

Please note that the Commission is a regulator, not a complaint handling body. We do not review individual complaints directly and our remit does not extend to intervening in Camelot’s internal complaints handling process.

If you have exhausted Camelot’s internal complaints process and think the Commission should be made aware of the details of your complaint then please contact us. However it is important to note that we will only review this information from a regulatory perspective to ensure that Camelot is adhering to the terms of its operating licence. Sometimes the information that we receive highlights areas of concern and the Commission’s enforcement team will explore any potential breach in the licence and decide if any further action needs to be taken. Whilst we value all information we receive from players, we do not review individual consumer complaints and cannot influence or alter the outcome or decision made by Camelot.

If your complaint is related to a contractual dispute and you have exhausted Camelot’s internal complaints process and remain unhappy, then you may wish to consider consulting a solicitor or pursuing your claim through the Courts. The Commission is unable to provide any legal advice or provide assistance with any legal action that a player may decide to pursue.

For further information please see our website: http://www.natlotcomm.gov.uk/information-for-players/how-to-make-a-complaint.html

Yours sincerely

Husnaa Ahsan

Consumer Protection Assistant

Tel: 0121 230 6750

Direct dial: 0121 230 6575

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

4th Floor Victoria Square House

Victoria Square

Birmingham B2 4BP

National Lottery Commission is now part of the Gambling Commission

 

Subject:	Response from The National Lottery (Ref:NL958112)
Date:	Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:02:41 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Camelot Customer Services <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

The National Lottery

 

Dear Mr Addington Thank you for sending us a copy of your email dated 23 December 2014 regarding your complaint. Please be assured that we will be happy to provide the Gambling Commission with all the information they require when they contact us. I hope that the detail above gives you some assurance, and that it has answered the queries you have raised. If you have any further queries, please contact us again.

Yours sincerely Paul Morrison
National Lottery Customer Care Team At Camelot, we always aim to provide the highest possible standards of service. To help us improve these standards, we would appreciate your completion of our short customer satisfaction survey, by either clicking on the link below, or copying and pasting it in to your Browser’s Address Bar. Thank you. http://survey.national-lottery.co.uk/Community/se.ashx?s=2EA0F6793F09767A&EmailID=ppmorr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Addington" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: 23 December 2014
Subject: Reply to gambling commission Fwd: Response from The National Lottery (Ref:NL958112) to gambling commission: commissioner & husnaa ahsan
& camelot please see camelot's response which is response from a senior team
manager (.... 'This response now concludes our complaints process.'...) as a regulator the gambling commission is empowered to ensure that the
lottery is fair - this can ONLY be done by adequate analysis -- and that
requires raw data in analysable form -- if you do not have it from
camelot then the gambling commission CANNOT be fulfilling its regulatory
obligations and for lottery to be fair, and seen to be fair, it needs this
information transparently on its website in analysable form - camelot is
disingenuous by obstructing, which leads to fair comment that it is not
fair, that it can/could be/is rigged sincerely Chris Addington Pr.Eng. On 17/12/2014 10:58, Chris Addington wrote:
to camelot/national lottery - ceo & carol hunt
gambling commission

the reply below is entirely disingenuous.

camelot's complaint process is simply a case of fobbing-off & binning
each & every objection, then fobbing & binning the escalated complaint
- thus fobbing & binning is the sole intent - thus a PERFECT CRIME is
achievable because of non-transparency.

camelot confirms that the gambling commission is a token, hence bogus,
'authority' - the commissions inaction over camelot's non-transparency
confirms this

camelot has refused to provide details of consumer watchdogs that are
watchdogging camelot

thus, if, and it is a plausible if, someone/persons achieved
technology to rig the national lottery draw then it would be a PERFECT
CRIME, because there is no way of checking or proving - and this would
explain camelot's disingenuous standpoint

assume in worst case (best case for those that may be crooking) that
each chosen ball can be detected & selected - clearly then if
that/those person/s were to rig each & every draw then suspicions
would eventually be aroused - so, clearly some sensible game play
would be engaged - including ensuring that some draws do not produce a
winner thus increasing the pot-size for a pre-selected future draw.

and if rigged then clearly watchdogs are not competent or are in on
the scam - either of which explains camelot's refusal to name watchdogs

sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Response from The National Lottery (Ref:NL958112)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:11:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: Camelot Customer Services <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Service Email

The National Lottery

Dear Mr Adlington

I am sorry to learn of your continued dissatisfaction. Your complaint
has been escalated to me for review and response in line with our
internal process.

In terms of supplying draw results data, I must reiterate that we are
unable to provide this in your desired format/layout. It is our policy
to display draw results information for the last 180 days on our
website, as this is the agreed period in which players can claim their
prizes.You are, of course, free to convert the data we have supplied
in to an alternate format/layout to suit.

You also questioned the randomness of National Lottery Draws. Again, I
must reiterate that these are conducted under strict conditions and
are independently observed. The randomness principle is paramount to
the integrity of The National Lottery. Over time, it is entirely
normal that some numbers will be drawn more frequently than others.
However, this merely confirms the random nature of each draw.

This response now concludes our complaints process. Should you wish to
pursue your complaint, you may now refer directly to our regulatory
body, the Gambling Commission. They are a regulator and not a
complaint handling body and they will not investigate the facts of
your complaint, nor will they alter the decision that we have made in
our internal complaints process. The Commission reviews whether we
have adhered to the terms of our operating licence. It does not
investigate consumer complaints, rule on prize disputes, pay
compensation or provide legal advice.

You can contact the Gambling Commission at:

Consumer Protection
Gambling Commission
4th Floor
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham
B2 4BP

Telephone: 0121 230 6666
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Yours sincerely



Carl Hunt
Customer Operations Senior Team Manager
Camelot UK Lotteries Limited

 

 

Subject:	Response from The National Lottery (Ref:NL951197)
Date:	Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:06:01 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Camelot Customer Services <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

The National Lottery

 

Dear Mr Addington Thank you for your email most recently dated 10 December 2014 regarding your request for Lotto Draw results. I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied with our previous response. I can confirm that we are not refusing to provide you with the information requested. I should explain that we do not have the details that you have requested in the format you require. As a business we do provide the Draw History on our website, this contains the information that you are requesting; I am aware that this has been sent to you in our previous correspondence. The information provided can be transposed to a spreadsheet or graph; therefore each individual can tailor it into the format that that they require. I should advise that there are numerous ways this information can be displayed and we are not required to provide the information in any other format than that which can be found on the website. I can assure you that we take matters of propriety very seriously. The National Lottery and its Draw’s are operated in accordance with various strict requirements and are subject to the scrutiny of independent adjudicators and an independent regulator, the Gambling Commission.
I hope that I have clarified matters further and thank you for your feedback. If you are not satisfied with this response, you can ask for your complaint to be reviewed by a Senior Manager. We aim to respond to escalated complaints within 10 working days.
Camelot is the operator of the National Lottery and we are regulated by the Gambling Commission. If you feel that we have not dealt with your complaint properly or that we have not followed our own published complaints procedure, you can complain to the Gambling Commission about our failure to operate a proper complaints process.
The Gambling Commission is a regulator and not a complaint handling body and they will not investigate the facts of your complaint, nor will they alter the decision that we have made in our internal complaints process. The Commission reviews whether we have adhered to the terms of our operating licence. It does not investigate consumer complaints, rule on prize disputes, pay compensation or provide legal advice.
You can contact the National Lottery’s regulator, the Gambling Commission, at: Consumer Protection
Gambling Commission
4th Floor
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham
B2 4BP
Telephone: 0121 230 6666 Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Yours sincerely
Lisa Wray
National Lottery Customer Care Team ----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Addington" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: 10 December 2014
Subject: Fwd: Response from The National Lottery (Ref:NL951197) to camelot/national lottery - ceo & lewis fuller
and to gambling commission thankyou for reply camelot's reply however is evasive and confirms camelot's refusal to
engage transparency which is supposed to be at the core of the lottery draw common sense says that camelot have the requested information & in
convenient format but refuse to make this available stating that consumer watchdog bodies, independent auditor, gambling
commission and scientific tests are involved does NOT prove that the
draw process is random. the world is bamboozled by bogus science such as
einstein's energy & relativity, cern's false claims etc. - and it is
because of these false 'sciences' that the draw process needs to be
reviewed by those competent
it is also doubtful that consumer watchdogs or gambling commission have
the skills needed to assess the draw process camelot's evasive attitude is a reason why public services should not be
privatised will the gambling commission compel camelot to transparency? sincerely Chris Addington Pr.Eng. -------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Response from The National Lottery (Ref:NL951197)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 17:16:52 +0000 (GMT)
From: Camelot Customer Services <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Service Email The National Lottery Dear Mr Addington I am writing in response to your email dated 04 December 2014 regarding
Lotto draw and results. It is with regret that we are unable to provide the information that you
have requested in the format you specified, however, please find
attached a copy of the historical results which contains the same data. I note your comments in regards to the randomness of the Lotto and the
frequency of certain numbers. I should explain that some numbers do
appear more frequently in draws than others; however, this is all purely
coincidental. If the draw machines were to intentionally avoided any
number the draw would not be truly random. The whole draw process including the selection of the draw machines and
the set of balls used, plus the loading of the balls and the draw
itself, are observed by an independent auditor and a representative of
the Gambling Commission, the government regulatory body. There is a whole series of scientific precision tests that have been is
use for many years and approved by both the government and consumer
watchdog bodies.The tests are designed to show that all the balls are
identical in terms of weight, size, wear and tear and so on allowing the
draw to be truly random. I note your comments regarding the bonus ball, I should explain that
players are not required to select a bonus ball when making a purchase.
The bonus ball only comes into effect when matched with five of the six
main numbers drawn and is used to create a further prize tier. I hope the information provided is helpful and may I take this
opportunity to wish you the best of lucky playing National Lottery Games
in the Future. Yours sincerely Lewis Fuller ----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Addington" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: 04 December 2014
Subject: Fwd: Response from The National Lottery (Ref:NL951197) to national lottery, customer care, paul morrison hi paul
thanx4reply & attachments - but these attachments do not allow for easy
analysis = not fully transparent the lottery assumes that 'random' selection occurs but there is no easy,
nor it appears is camelot providing, meaningful analysis of the results
over time & in toto.
i have been informed that certain numbers have appeared more frequently
than others - this indicates non-random; and non-random can be due to
inherent unforeseen inequalities within the system or due to pre-planned
but seemingly unseen inequalities. my interest is sparked by a lecture at royal irish academy by
statistician professor david spiegelhalter in which he stated he avoided
discussion on 'random' but then some days later in a bbc interview he
made statements that appeared to contradict and appeared to support uk
lottery as being random. i would be interested to see raw data of all draws tabulated on x-axis
of the ball numbers: 1, 2, 3, .....50;
and in the y-axis columns the countsin rows by date of count, with
TOTAL counts for each number at the bottom (or top) of the column -
please ask your technicals to develop this into a spreadsheet, they
probably already have one; and a graph of TOTAL counts by ball-number,
which they probably also have; and email to me & put onto website. please also explain the significance of the 'bonus' ball & how it
affects/alters customer choices of play thanxchris Chris Addington Pr.Eng. -------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Response from The National Lottery (Ref:NL951197)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:09:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: Camelot Customer Services <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To: cdadd
Dear Mr Addington Thank you for your email dated 03 December 2014. I am sorry to learn
that you have been experiencing problems with viewing results. Could you please kindly supply some further information about the issue
you have been experiencing: - Please can you provide us with the date and time this happened to you?
- What device were you using to access the website (including IOS version)
- What internet connection were you using (Wi-Fi, 3G, 4G)
- What browser were you using? (Safari, Firefox or Google Chrome for
example)
- What error is being displayed, if any? If there is an error are you
able to send a screen shot?
- Have you try using an alternative web browser? If so does the problem
still occur? Once received, we will be in a better position to advise you or can pass
the information onto our Technical Team for their review. For your convenience I have attached the entire Lotto and EuroMillions
draw histories. I hope that the detail above gives you some assurance, and that it has
answered the queries you have raised. If you have any further queries,
please contact us again. Yours sincerely Paul Morrison
National Lottery Customer Care Team
On 03/12/2014 09:08, Chris Addington wrote:
ok, it has opened but not in a useable analysis format, why cannot
these be placed in one ball-number per cell??

sincerrely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Addington"
Date: 03 December 2014
Subject: draw hisdtory hi downloading draw history does not open in openoffice calc ?????????????????? why not?
sincerely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGyjnY6bnng

0.30 41, 0.35 43; 0.40 29; 0.45 56; 0.51 14; 0.56 31; 1.00 42