Welcome Guest
You last visited December 10, 2016, 7:11 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

AMAZING: Minnesota man wins back-to-back lottery jackpots

Topic closed. 41 replies. Last post 10 years ago by justxploring.

 Page 3 of 3
Wandering Aimlessly
United States
Member #25360
November 5, 2005
4461 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 16, 2007, 7:39 pm - IP Logged

And i bet that if he bought 2 tickets on day 1 and on day 2 he would have had the same odds as if he had bought it on day 1 and on day 3 or 4 or 5 or any other day that's not consecutive...And that's on of the things i disagree with mathematics, because everyone knows is harder to win a lottery on day 1 and on day 2 (consecutively), than it is to win it on day 1 and on day 3 or any day that's not consecutive...Example..As it happened to you that you win the pick3 one day and win it 5 or 7 days later, but you probably have never won pick3, 2 days in a row or 3 days in a row, why? because is very hard...Is easy to win pick3 one day and win it 15 days later than is to win it consecutively every following day...

This example is one of the small things i don't like about mathematics..Example one of the things i don't like about mathematics, is when geometry texbooks instead of selecting definitions that everyone agree on; they select technical definitions and in the end of the year kids don't recall those technical definitions but instead kids recall definitions that sits well with them...

"More important than winning the state's lotteries is the movie "Red Planet..".."

Strange that you posted this while I was typing.  This is what I was writing which sort of agrees with your concept:

Okay, I have another way of looking at the odds here.  I know this might sound stupid, but every time I read these posts, I am thinking of each lottery draw as an entirely different game.

So, let's say Sue Jones buys a ticket to a game where the odds are 1:170,000 and she wins.

Then Joe Brown buys a ticket to a game where the odds are 1:170,000 and he wins.

Does the fact that they won change the odds?  I don't think so.  This is why I am questioning why winning 2 days in a row changes the odds.  The odds are 170,000 to 1 for every game.  If each game is random, each time you fill out a card you have an equal shot at winning as the other guy, right?  Does it make a difference if the guy is you?  Why?  What if he won and then his wife won or his next door neighbor?  Would this have created so much commotion in the news?  As Denzel Washington said in the movie Philadelphia "Explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old, okay?"

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10354 Posts
Online
 Posted: February 16, 2007, 7:56 pm - IP Logged

I think when they say the ods against...." in a case like this the focus is on the odds against the same person hitting, and I think that is actually nore a mystical thing than a mathematical thing.

Consider:

"What are the odds against hitting this jackpot?"

"1:170,000, Sue."

"Yeah, but I hit it last draw, so now what are MY odds?"

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

Wandering Aimlessly
United States
Member #25360
November 5, 2005
4461 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 16, 2007, 8:13 pm - IP Logged

EXACTLY, COIN TOSS!!

So is there is difference between odds and chance?  I believe "odds" are mathematical statistics.  The odds are always 170,000 to one that a person will win this game.

But what are the chances someone will win twice?  Very great indeed.  2 consecutive days?  Astronomical!

There is another way of looking at it too - as if he is playing 2 different games and won both.  So then instead of a game with 31 numbers, for example, there would be 62 numbers.  So the odds of getting 10 numbers out of 62 numbers is entirely different than getting 5 out of 31 twice. (no?)

United States
Member #10720
January 23, 2005
933 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 17, 2007, 11:11 am - IP Logged

The odds of a jackpot win ON 2 SPECIFIC DRAWINGS (consecutive or otherwise) and BY PLAYING ONLY ONE TICKET each time would be one in 170,000 squared. I THINK it comes to (check my math) 28,900,000,000 (28 BILLION, 900 million!!!) to 1. HOWEVER comma there are ways to reduce the odds! Instead of a specific two drawings, make it over several months or years "any" 2 conecutive (or otherwise) drawings, and instead of "one" ticket each time, make it "100" (or whatever) tickets each time, especially the 2nd time he PROBABLY played more than one! If you figure he could have played one or a few tickets every day for years the odds of it happening become comparable to the odds "only" of being struck by lightning. If you factor in that he could have had a system (they don't specify how he picked the #s), that could further shrink the odds. Then multiply THAT with how many people total are playing the game regularly, and eventually it almost HAS to happen sometime!

I do ***NOT*** recommend moving from that game to Hot Lotto, unless the former is also RNG based. I generally don't recommend ANY games that are RNG.

United States
Member #379
June 5, 2002
11296 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 17, 2007, 11:14 am - IP Logged

The odds of a jackpot win ON 2 SPECIFIC DRAWINGS (consecutive or otherwise) and BY PLAYING ONLY ONE TICKET each time would be one in 170,000 squared. I THINK it comes to (check my math) 28,900,000,000 (28 BILLION, 900 million!!!) to 1. HOWEVER comma there are ways to reduce the odds! Instead of a specific two drawings, make it over several months or years "any" 2 conecutive (or otherwise) drawings, and instead of "one" ticket each time, make it "100" (or whatever) tickets each time, especially the 2nd time he PROBABLY played more than one! If you figure he could have played one or a few tickets every day for years the odds of it happening become comparable to the odds "only" of being struck by lightning. If you factor in that he could have had a system (they don't specify how he picked the #s), that could further shrink the odds. Then multiply THAT with how many people total are playing the game regularly, and eventually it almost HAS to happen sometime!

I do ***NOT*** recommend moving from that game to Hot Lotto, unless the former is also RNG based. I generally don't recommend ANY games that are RNG.

You can find out on LP which games are ball-drawn and which have computerized drawings. AFAIK all of Minnesota's games are computerized, except of course Powerball.

Atlanta
United States
Member #28656
December 20, 2005
5675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 18, 2007, 3:16 am - IP Logged

Wtg...very lucky!

Smart bets...... Equal Phat Pocket\$!

NY
United States
Member #23835
October 16, 2005
3475 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 20, 2007, 12:43 pm - IP Logged

I think when they say the ods against...." in a case like this the focus is on the odds against the same person hitting, and I think that is actually nore a mystical thing than a mathematical thing.

Consider:

"What are the odds against hitting this jackpot?"

"1:170,000, Sue."

"Yeah, but I hit it last draw, so now what are MY odds?"

This story and the other stories about people winning  twice are the perfect answer to your last question.  The odds of winning are always a function of the game's odds and how many tickets you have, and only a function of the game's odds and how many tickets you have. Nothing else matters. Buy a ticket and your odds of winning are exactly the same as the odds for anyone else who buys a ticket. It doesn't matter whether you've never won before, won a few years ago or won the last 5 days in a row. What happened in the past has absolutely no effect on what happens in the next drawing.

The chances of any particular set of numbers coming up on the next drawing are also exactly the same.  If there are 170,000 possible combinations, then every combination has a 1 in 170,000 chance of being drawn, whether it's a combination that has never been drawn, one that was drawn a few years ago or the one that was drawn in the previous drawing.

It's not the fact that somebody won before or that a combination was drawn before that makes it extremely unlikely for that person or that combination to repeat. What makes it unlikely is just the high odds for any particular outcome. When there are 170,000 possible outcomes it's 169,999 times more likely that the outcome will be one of any 169,999 possibilities than the 1 remaining possibility.

Honduras
Member #20982
August 29, 2005
4715 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 24, 2007, 1:14 pm - IP Logged

Look at the Chicago Bulls and the NBA for example...I am sure every team will have the odds of winning the NBA Championship...But what are the odds that one team will win it almost 7 year in a row?That's what make the Chicago Bulls the greatest thing ever..I am sure some teams may come close to getting 7 championships on their lifetime, but no team will win it in a row, that's what make the Chicago Bulls (under MIchael Jordan), the greatest team EVER (which made Michael Jordan the greatest player ever)...What make the Chicago Bulls the greatest thing ever? That they won the NBA championship almost 7 years in a row...If they had won it sporadically they probably wouldn't be considered the greatest team ever...

"Laura Simpson from Great Lakes, Illinois deserves to be rich...."            "She is so rare..."

Wandering Aimlessly
United States
Member #25360
November 5, 2005
4461 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 24, 2007, 1:28 pm - IP Logged

Look at the Chicago Bulls and the NBA for example...I am sure every team will have the odds of winning the NBA Championship...But what are the odds that one team will win it almost 7 year in a row?That's what make the Chicago Bulls the greatest thing ever..I am sure some teams may come close to getting 7 championships on their lifetime, but no team will win it in a row, that's what make the Chicago Bulls (under MIchael Jordan), the greatest team EVER (which made Michael Jordan the greatest player ever)...What make the Chicago Bulls the greatest thing ever? That they won the NBA championship almost 7 years in a row...If they had won it sporadically they probably wouldn't be considered the greatest team ever...

"Laura Simpson from Great Lakes, Illinois deserves to be rich...."            "She is so rare..."

Not at all.  You are giving an entirely different example which has nothing to do with luck or chance.  When a team wins a championship it takes skill, athletic ability, great coaching and team effort and planning your strategy against the opponents.

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10354 Posts
Online
 Posted: February 24, 2007, 6:00 pm - IP Logged

KY Floyd

The back to back hits are incredible from a mystical perspective, and I'll still say mathematical, too.

Did everyone who play the first game play the secnd game?

very likely not.

Did people who had not played the first game play the second game?

Very likely yes.

Is this common, same person back to back hits?

Obvipusly not with as many lottery drawings as there have been since New Hampshire started it all.

The ods against a particular set of numbers from drawing to drawing are a constant, true. But this goes beyond that.

pumpi

There are so many factors that go into sports that it is very difficult to name the 'best team ever'. no team can ssume everyone will stay healthy and uninjured over the course of a lenghty season, for one thing.

Years ago there was a softball team named The King (Eddy Feigner) and His Court. They finished most seasons undefeated, and only played with a four man team. Eddy Feigner even pitched blindfolded.

There's a collegiate rugby team, I think it's Univ. of California, that was so strong that opponenets forfeited games instead of showing up to play them.

Granted that was softball and college, but still.

And here's something that the public isn't suppossed to know- an owner would prefer a very close second place finish than a first place finish or even a championship, and here's why - the attendance is up while the pennant race is going on but the ext year he deosn't have players all negotioting their contracts by saying, "I helped get us to the Super Bowl / World Series / title game", etc...

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

California
United States
Member #46824
October 1, 2006
270 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 24, 2007, 6:22 pm - IP Logged

Look at the Chicago Bulls and the NBA for example...I am sure every team will have the odds of winning the NBA Championship...But what are the odds that one team will win it almost 7 year in a row?That's what make the Chicago Bulls the greatest thing ever..I am sure some teams may come close to getting 7 championships on their lifetime, but no team will win it in a row, that's what make the Chicago Bulls (under MIchael Jordan), the greatest team EVER (which made Michael Jordan the greatest player ever)...What make the Chicago Bulls the greatest thing ever? That they won the NBA championship almost 7 years in a row...If they had won it sporadically they probably wouldn't be considered the greatest team ever...

"Laura Simpson from Great Lakes, Illinois deserves to be rich...."            "She is so rare..."

pumpi76... as far as odds and sports team championships, I echo everything else that has been written about teams, coaches, etc.

However as far as your statement that no team will win in 7 years in a row; well it has happend.  In fact in a 13 year span (between the 1956-57 and 1968-69 seasons) the Boston Celtics won 11 championships and at one point 11 in a row!  That is the defintion of a sports dynasty.

Wandering Aimlessly
United States
Member #25360
November 5, 2005
4461 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 24, 2007, 6:56 pm - IP Logged

pumpi76... as far as odds and sports team championships, I echo everything else that has been written about teams, coaches, etc.

However as far as your statement that no team will win in 7 years in a row; well it has happend.  In fact in a 13 year span (between the 1956-57 and 1968-69 seasons) the Boston Celtics won 11 championships and at one point 11 in a row!  That is the defintion of a sports dynasty.

Yes, I was a proud New Englander at the time.  Born & raised.  The Celtics, The Boston Patriots, The Boston Bruins, The Red Sox.  A great town!  (Beans or no beans.) Surprised I didn't think of this example.  Thanks CALotteryGuy.

 Page 3 of 3