Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 7, 2016, 9:19 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Statisticians search for how to beat the lottery

Topic closed. 79 replies. Last post 4 years ago by jamella724.

Page 6 of 6
4.77
PrintE-mailLink
Artist77's avatar - batman14

United States
Member #121745
January 16, 2012
4791 Posts
Online
Posted: February 24, 2013, 7:46 pm - IP Logged

Absolutely I use drawings skipped when determining which numbers to pick along with at least one number delta of 4 or less in every line. I play Hot Lotto and Lucky For Life (analogous to your Decades of Dollars). In both of these games the winning numbers drawn have on average 3 numbers which have been drawn within the last five drawings, so I make sure to include 3 numbers per line which have come up within the last 2 1/2 weeks.

 

Also in both of these games a number delta of 4 or less comes up 94% of the time. I have gone back to the inception date for both of these games as my data set. Every line I play now will include at least one delta of 4 or less.

 

This strategy has worked pretty well for me. As Jimmy and KY would say my results have been at the very favorable end of standard deviations and random chance.

 

Good luck Artist77. Hopefully I'll be tied with you after Tuesdays MM drawing in the one a day MM challenge!

Banana

Thanks for all the good info. I get a hot lotto ticket on occasion also.  Both decades and Hot lotto seem like they'd be easier to win....so I am still trying.

J'aime La France.


    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 25, 2013, 12:58 am - IP Logged

    Any results that depart from average should be expected to be temporary.

    I don't pay too much attention to what people have to say about their results using their chosen "system", but I have  noticed a few things. I'm pretty sure that nobody has claimed to have a positive cash flow as a result of playing the lottery. People  may have a period in which they do very well, but it's preceded and followed by periods where they don't do so well. As I've already said, we should expect some people to do better than average purely as a result of random chance.

    Plenty of people talk about patterns, but there appears to be near-universal acceptance that these patterns come and go. Hindsight is always 20/20, and finding a pattern that has happened in the past as a result of random chance doesn't help predict what will happen in the future. You can easily see this by flipping a coin a sufficiently large number of times. You'll find several "patterns" where 5 consecutive heads are followed by a tails, but if you check every occurrence of 5 consecutive heads you'll find that the number of them followed by a tails is about the same as the number followed by a 6th heads.

    A graph of a normal distribution over a given period of time will look about the same  regardless of when that period is, but the details will change. Make a list of the numbers drawn over a few different periods spanning 100 drawings and then draw graphs showing how many numbers were drawn once, twice, three times, etc. The graphs will be similar, but the indvidual numbers won't stay be in the same place. For one period 17 might have been drawn the most number of times, but in a different period it will have been drawn about an average number of times.

    KY Floyd,

    I agree. You're better than me when it comes to explaining these concepts with words. I may post too many numbers at times but there are some who benefit from this. Here is a supplement to your above explanation.

    As the house edge increases in games of chance, without changing shape, graphs of Return On Investment (ROI) slide further and further to the left of the Break Even point. If you look back at a bar graph of ROI in a simulated Pick-3 game with a house edge of 50%, you will see how a few people managed to come out ahead after 5 years of play. BUT SOME DID! A fact that many either fail to understand, or forget, is that not only does the house edge allow the house to win overall in the long run, the variance in these kinds of random processes allows for winners as well. (If the states only held a 5.26% edge in the lottery, as casinos do in roulette, there would be a lot more happy Pick-3 players!) If there were no winners, no one would play! And it requires no more than the variance of randomness to produce these winners.

    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/2850041 

    --Jimmy4164


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 25, 2013, 9:53 am - IP Logged

      Thanks for all the good info. I get a hot lotto ticket on occasion also.  Both decades and Hot lotto seem like they'd be easier to win....so I am still trying.

      Sounds like your on the: very favorable end of standard deviations and random chance.


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 25, 2013, 9:54 am - IP Logged

        Yes Nod

          Avatar
          Texas
          United States
          Member #132455
          September 4, 2012
          483 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 5, 2013, 5:51 am - IP Logged

          I think the excitement in betting in lottery is not knowing which number combination will win. As for me it gives an elated emotion when you win and you dont even expect it. If certain strategies or certain patterns will be develop and most people will learn those, its hard to imagine how many people will take part on the prize of the lottery.