New Jersey United States Member #50273 March 3, 2007 348 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2007, 10:16 am - IP Logged

Lets say I reduce the number pool in either the MM or PB games by half and play either 3 odd and 2 even or vice versa from that number pool, how much am I reducing the odds of getting 5 + 5 +0 and 5 +5 +1?

I see that the MM odds are 1:175,711,536 for 5 + 5 + 1. The odds for 5 + 5 + 0 are 1:3,904,701.

So how much do you think doing that will reduce those odds?

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7546 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2007, 11:04 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by MegaWinner on March 19, 2007

Lets say I reduce the number pool in either the MM or PB games by half and play either 3 odd and 2 even or vice versa from that number pool, how much am I reducing the odds of getting 5 + 5 +0 and 5 +5 +1?

I see that the MM odds are 1:175,711,536 for 5 + 5 + 1. The odds for 5 + 5 + 0 are 1:3,904,701.

So how much do you think doing that will reduce those odds?

There are 1,238,328 combinations having either 3 even and 2 odd or 3 odd and 2 even numbers.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3611 Posts Offline

Posted: March 20, 2007, 7:24 pm - IP Logged

First, you aren't reducing the number pool at all. Each of the 56 choices can be used in any combination that mixes odd and even. If you want to reduce the number pool to half you'd actually eliminate half of them from consideration. Whether you get rid of all the odd numbers, all the even numbers, 1 to 28, 29 to 56, or eliminate half of them at random, cutting the number pool in half means choosing from a pool of 28 numbers. Picking 5 numbers from a pool of 28 there are 98,280 possible combinations. If you look at the numbers that Stack gave you, you'll notice that the choices for 0 odd or 0 even have 98,280. You'll probably also notice that this is a lot less than half of the possible combinations for picking 5 of 56. By using all 56 numbers, but only picking combinations that have either 2 or 3 odd numbers you'll have 2,476,656 combinations to choose from. Cutting the number of combinations in half would require picking your 5 numbers from a pool ofabout 49.3 (sic).

"So how much do you think doing that will reduce those odds? "

I can offer you a precise answer. Your odds will be exactly the same. You'll have fewer combinations to choose from, but the lottery doesn't care and they're going to continue to use all 56 numbers when they pick the only winning combination. If you play one of the 1,238,328 combinations that has 3 odd numbers and if the winning combination has 3 odd numbers you will have a 1 in 1,238,328 chance that yours will match the winning combination. That makes you about 3.0846561 times as likely to win as if you had picked from all of the possible combinations, but the chances that the winning number will have 3 odd numbers is 1 in 3.0846561. Do you notice that those numbers are exactly the same?

Your chances of winning can be calculated like this: (chance that the winning combination will match the pattern you play) X (chance of picking the right combination from the reduced number of combinations) . For 3 odd numbers the equation becomes (1/3.085) X (1/1,238,328). That simplifies to 1 / (3.0846561 X 1,238,328), which equals 1 in 3,819,816. That's exactly the odds of correctly picking 5 of 56. (If you actually do the math the answer will be a bit different because I rounded the chances that the winning combintaion will have 3 odd numbers.)

And there's the problem with wheels. They reduce the number of combinatins butguarantee that there's no chance of winning if other numbers come up in the drawing. I'll offer you the ultimate wheel. Pick 5 numbers and wheel them to play all possible combinations of the 5 numbers. There's only one 5 of 5 combination, so it will only cost $1 to cover the entire wheel, and you are guaranteedto have a 5+0 or 5+1 matchifthe winning combination contains those 5 numbers, in any order . Disclaimer: it may not show, but that's a big "if".

Unless the numbers you eliminate from consideration are less likely to be drawn for some reason, there's absolutley no advantage to eliminating them. That's the problem with a lot of systems.

New Jersey United States Member #50273 March 3, 2007 348 Posts Offline

Posted: March 20, 2007, 9:52 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on March 20, 2007

First, you aren't reducing the number pool at all. Each of the 56 choices can be used in any combination that mixes odd and even. If you want to reduce the number pool to half you'd actually eliminate half of them from consideration. Whether you get rid of all the odd numbers, all the even numbers, 1 to 28, 29 to 56, or eliminate half of them at random, cutting the number pool in half means choosing from a pool of 28 numbers. Picking 5 numbers from a pool of 28 there are 98,280 possible combinations. If you look at the numbers that Stack gave you, you'll notice that the choices for 0 odd or 0 even have 98,280. You'll probably also notice that this is a lot less than half of the possible combinations for picking 5 of 56. By using all 56 numbers, but only picking combinations that have either 2 or 3 odd numbers you'll have 2,476,656 combinations to choose from. Cutting the number of combinations in half would require picking your 5 numbers from a pool ofabout 49.3 (sic).

"So how much do you think doing that will reduce those odds? "

I can offer you a precise answer. Your odds will be exactly the same. You'll have fewer combinations to choose from, but the lottery doesn't care and they're going to continue to use all 56 numbers when they pick the only winning combination. If you play one of the 1,238,328 combinations that has 3 odd numbers and if the winning combination has 3 odd numbers you will have a 1 in 1,238,328 chance that yours will match the winning combination. That makes you about 3.0846561 times as likely to win as if you had picked from all of the possible combinations, but the chances that the winning number will have 3 odd numbers is 1 in 3.0846561. Do you notice that those numbers are exactly the same?

Your chances of winning can be calculated like this: (chance that the winning combination will match the pattern you play) X (chance of picking the right combination from the reduced number of combinations) . For 3 odd numbers the equation becomes (1/3.085) X (1/1,238,328). That simplifies to 1 / (3.0846561 X 1,238,328), which equals 1 in 3,819,816. That's exactly the odds of correctly picking 5 of 56. (If you actually do the math the answer will be a bit different because I rounded the chances that the winning combintaion will have 3 odd numbers.)

And there's the problem with wheels. They reduce the number of combinatins butguarantee that there's no chance of winning if other numbers come up in the drawing. I'll offer you the ultimate wheel. Pick 5 numbers and wheel them to play all possible combinations of the 5 numbers. There's only one 5 of 5 combination, so it will only cost $1 to cover the entire wheel, and you are guaranteedto have a 5+0 or 5+1 matchifthe winning combination contains those 5 numbers, in any order . Disclaimer: it may not show, but that's a big "if".

Unless the numbers you eliminate from consideration are less likely to be drawn for some reason, there's absolutley no advantage to eliminating them. That's the problem with a lot of systems.

"Unless the numbers you eliminate from consideration are less likely to be drawn for some reason, there's absolutley no advantage to eliminating them. That's the problem with a lot of systems."

This is based off of eliminating numbers that most likely will NOT come up. Lets look at the last drawing of the MM. 17 · 25 · 36 · 40 · 43+ 09

I could eliminate *most* of those numbers from the next drawing unless one or more were considered hot or due. There is slim to NO chance of the same exact numbers coming up again in any sequence. I know there is a 1:175 million + chance of it coming up again but I actually think there are odds that the lottery officials don't define that would explain that the chance of the same sequence hitting back to back is probably 10 times 1:175 million.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3611 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2007, 10:21 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by MegaWinner on March 20, 2007

"Unless the numbers you eliminate from consideration are less likely to be drawn for some reason, there's absolutley no advantage to eliminating them. That's the problem with a lot of systems."

This is based off of eliminating numbers that most likely will NOT come up. Lets look at the last drawing of the MM. 17 · 25 · 36 · 40 · 43+ 09

I could eliminate *most* of those numbers from the next drawing unless one or more were considered hot or due. There is slim to NO chance of the same exact numbers coming up again in any sequence. I know there is a 1:175 million + chance of it coming up again but I actually think there are odds that the lottery officials don't define that would explain that the chance of the same sequence hitting back to back is probably 10 times 1:175 million.

You "could" eliminate any numbers you want to, but what's the reason for eliminating them? Of course the chances that the same combination will repeat next time are slim to none. There are 175,711,535 other combinations that could come up instead, so that makes the odds that the same number will come up in the next drawing 1:175,711,535. It's not a coincidence that those are exactly the same odds as for any other combination. For any combination that you pick, and no matter how you pick it, there wil always be 175,711,535 other combinations that could be drawn, so the odds of *any* particular combination being drawn will always be 1:175,711,535. As far as the lottery not telling us about some odds that they don't define, are you suggesting that only mathematicians who work for the the lotteries knows about this and no other mathematicians have ever figured it out, or are you suggesting that there's some vast conspiracy among all mathematicians to never tell the rest of us that numbers (and balls, dice, cards, coins etc) have memories of previous results and the power to decide whether or not they'll come up again?

Of course the odds above assume that each number has exactly the same chance of being drawn. I firmly believe that some balls are more likely to be drawn and some are less likely to be drawn, but the problematic questions are how much more or less likely and which balls. I don't have an exact answer for the first question, but I guarantee that the difference is small, and it varies from one draw to the next because the balls and machines aren't always the same (and the myriad other factors that influence the outcome also vary). That means that the 17 that was drawn this time may or may not be the 17 that was drawn last time. I also can't answer the second question, but I can tell you that eliminating numbers just because they came up in the last draw is a foolish strategy. The only rational basis for eliminating numbers from consideration is evidence that they are less likely to be drawn than other numbers, and being drawn in the last drawing is definitely not evidence that the number is less likely to be drawn. Unless you really believe that the numbers (and balls, dice, cards, coins etc) have memories of previous results and the power to decide whether or not they'll come up again there is no such thing as anumber that's due. If anything, not being drawn for a long time is evidence that the number is less likely to be drawn than some of the other numbers.

New Jersey United States Member #50273 March 3, 2007 348 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2007, 3:27 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on March 21, 2007

You "could" eliminate any numbers you want to, but what's the reason for eliminating them? Of course the chances that the same combination will repeat next time are slim to none. There are 175,711,535 other combinations that could come up instead, so that makes the odds that the same number will come up in the next drawing 1:175,711,535. It's not a coincidence that those are exactly the same odds as for any other combination. For any combination that you pick, and no matter how you pick it, there wil always be 175,711,535 other combinations that could be drawn, so the odds of *any* particular combination being drawn will always be 1:175,711,535. As far as the lottery not telling us about some odds that they don't define, are you suggesting that only mathematicians who work for the the lotteries knows about this and no other mathematicians have ever figured it out, or are you suggesting that there's some vast conspiracy among all mathematicians to never tell the rest of us that numbers (and balls, dice, cards, coins etc) have memories of previous results and the power to decide whether or not they'll come up again?

Of course the odds above assume that each number has exactly the same chance of being drawn. I firmly believe that some balls are more likely to be drawn and some are less likely to be drawn, but the problematic questions are how much more or less likely and which balls. I don't have an exact answer for the first question, but I guarantee that the difference is small, and it varies from one draw to the next because the balls and machines aren't always the same (and the myriad other factors that influence the outcome also vary). That means that the 17 that was drawn this time may or may not be the 17 that was drawn last time. I also can't answer the second question, but I can tell you that eliminating numbers just because they came up in the last draw is a foolish strategy. The only rational basis for eliminating numbers from consideration is evidence that they are less likely to be drawn than other numbers, and being drawn in the last drawing is definitely not evidence that the number is less likely to be drawn. Unless you really believe that the numbers (and balls, dice, cards, coins etc) have memories of previous results and the power to decide whether or not they'll come up again there is no such thing as anumber that's due. If anything, not being drawn for a long time is evidence that the number is less likely to be drawn than some of the other numbers.

"As far as the lottery not telling us about some odds that they don't define, are you suggesting that only mathematicians who work for the the lotteries knows about this and no other mathematicians have ever figured it out, or are you suggesting that there's some vast conspiracy among all mathematicians to never tell the rest of us that numbers (and balls, dice, cards, coins etc) have memories of previous results and the power to decide whether or not they'll come up again?"

No, you are misinterpreting my reply. What I meant was that probability isn't an exact science and never will be since you are trying to predict a future outcome. Yes probability can reduce certain variables but it can never be counted on as completely accurate. I believe there are other variables that remain undiscovered or undocumented that go into probability because as of now either we do not have the technology to compute such computations and/or we haven't figured out a formula to handle these "undiscovered" variables.

Here is an example. On Fri. March 16th, the MM numbers were 17 · 25 · 36 · 40 · 43+ 09. The next drawing on Tuesday, March 20th was 07 · 21 · 46 · 49 · 55+ 15. So what was the likelihood of 17'25'36'40'43+9 coming out on 3-20-07? Exactly ZERO. Not 1:175,711,535 but ZERO. The laws of probability are not yet refined enough to predict such an outcome. That is what I mean by "hidden variables". Its the same with Chaos and String thoery. Its also the same with "pi". There are some experts that say humans will one day create a way to find a pattern in Pi.

I know at first sight it doesn't sound like it makes any sense because one would say "but before the actual drawing, there were 175,711,535 different opportunities for that sequence to repeat." Yes, thats true but you have to add the variable of the probablity/likelihood (different from odds as defined by 1:175,711,535) of the sequence repeating again.

(Now this is based on asigning definitions to the two words, "odds" and "probablity/likelihood" where "odds" = the actual numerical number assigned to possible combinations; and "probability/likelihood" = the theoretical chance compounded by the possibilty of the sequence repeating exactly the same the next time.) And as we can see, the probability/likelihood of the those two sequences being the same was absolutley ZERO and not 1:175,711,535. The mathematical formula for "probablity/likelihood" (as defined here by me lol) is not known at this point (to my knowledge) and may be known in the future.

This can be demonstrated by holding 175,711,535 consecutive drawings with the same numbers and variables and not seeing a sequence ever repeat in 10 times that number of drawings.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3611 Posts Offline

Posted: March 22, 2007, 4:58 pm - IP Logged

"probability isn't an exact science and never will be since you are trying to predict a future outcome."

Probability is an exact science. You're just confused about what it can "predict". It doesn't predict future events. It describes probabilities. There's a reason we don't refer to the "laws of certainty" or the "laws of what's definitely going to happen".

"probability can reduce certain variables but it can never be counted on as completely accurate."

Probability can't reduce any of the variables that affect probability, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to describe. It obviously can't be completely accurate if you're trying to guess at the exact outcome of some future event because that isn't what probability does.

"So what was the likelihood of 17'25'36'40'43+9 coming out on 3-20-07? Exactly ZERO."

What are you saying? That after an event occurs the probability of the event changes? If so, you're wrong. Probability describes what could happen, not what will happen or what did happen.

"There are some experts that say humans will one day create a way to find a pattern in Pi."

And? What will that pattern do to change the way pi works? Pi is the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle. If we figure it out to another few billion decimal places we may indeed find that it begins repeating the familiar 14159 "pattern' but that won't change how it works. Set your compass for some radius and draw a circle and the circumference will still be exactly 2pi times the radius.

"I know at first sight it doesn't sound like it makes any sense"

Until you can explain it better, no, at least not to me.

"The mathematical formula for "probablity/likelihood" (as defined here by me lol) is not known at this point (to my knowledge) and may be known in the future."

Sorry, but you don't get to define how the world works. The science of probability and the definitions are already well established. Likelihood is just another way of describing probability, so probablity/likelihood = 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

"This can be demonstrated by holding 175,711,535 consecutive drawings with the same numbers and variables and not seeing a sequence ever repeat in 10 times that number of drawings."

Again, you're simply showing that you don't understand how probability works. If somebody cares to do that experimentally it's very unlikely (about 0.0045% chance) that there will be no back to back repeats in that many tries, but unlikely things happen all the time. The chance that any particular combinatioin will be drawn is far less than 0.0045%, but we get a particular combination every time there's a drawing. For events with higher probabilities, such as pick 3 there are already many examples of back to back repeats. The study of probabiltii has shown time and again that it does a very good job of predicting general results. If you flip a coin 3 or 5 times you can't possibly come very close to having 50% heads and 50% tails, but as you increase the number of flips you will get closer and closer. In a short time you can do your own experiment that will show that the chances of getting back to back heads is pretty damn close to the 1 in 4 that is predicted by probability. Increase the number of events and the closer things will be to what is predicted. Radioactivity is perhaps the best example of something with a very low probability, but very many repetitive tests. The half life of Uranium 234 is 244 thousand years, so the chances that any one atom will decay in the next hour is 1 in 2,137,440,000. You're more than 12 times as likely to pick the right MM combination with a single ticket than to predict the hour during which an atom of U234 will decay. Put enough atoms together, though, and the decay runs like clockwork.

Is it possible that there's something at work that we don't know about that has some affect on probability? Sure. Is it possible that the outcome of lotteries is goverened by aliens with some agenda that we aren't aware of?. Yes, to that too. Has thousands of years of study turned up any evidence that probability doesn't work exactly the way we currrently think it does? No.

New Jersey United States Member #50273 March 3, 2007 348 Posts Offline

Posted: March 29, 2007, 1:21 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on March 22, 2007

"probability isn't an exact science and never will be since you are trying to predict a future outcome."

Probability is an exact science. You're just confused about what it can "predict". It doesn't predict future events. It describes probabilities. There's a reason we don't refer to the "laws of certainty" or the "laws of what's definitely going to happen".

"probability can reduce certain variables but it can never be counted on as completely accurate."

Probability can't reduce any of the variables that affect probability, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to describe. It obviously can't be completely accurate if you're trying to guess at the exact outcome of some future event because that isn't what probability does.

"So what was the likelihood of 17'25'36'40'43+9 coming out on 3-20-07? Exactly ZERO."

What are you saying? That after an event occurs the probability of the event changes? If so, you're wrong. Probability describes what could happen, not what will happen or what did happen.

"There are some experts that say humans will one day create a way to find a pattern in Pi."

And? What will that pattern do to change the way pi works? Pi is the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle. If we figure it out to another few billion decimal places we may indeed find that it begins repeating the familiar 14159 "pattern' but that won't change how it works. Set your compass for some radius and draw a circle and the circumference will still be exactly 2pi times the radius.

"I know at first sight it doesn't sound like it makes any sense"

Until you can explain it better, no, at least not to me.

"The mathematical formula for "probablity/likelihood" (as defined here by me lol) is not known at this point (to my knowledge) and may be known in the future."

Sorry, but you don't get to define how the world works. The science of probability and the definitions are already well established. Likelihood is just another way of describing probability, so probablity/likelihood = 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

"This can be demonstrated by holding 175,711,535 consecutive drawings with the same numbers and variables and not seeing a sequence ever repeat in 10 times that number of drawings."

Again, you're simply showing that you don't understand how probability works. If somebody cares to do that experimentally it's very unlikely (about 0.0045% chance) that there will be no back to back repeats in that many tries, but unlikely things happen all the time. The chance that any particular combinatioin will be drawn is far less than 0.0045%, but we get a particular combination every time there's a drawing. For events with higher probabilities, such as pick 3 there are already many examples of back to back repeats. The study of probabiltii has shown time and again that it does a very good job of predicting general results. If you flip a coin 3 or 5 times you can't possibly come very close to having 50% heads and 50% tails, but as you increase the number of flips you will get closer and closer. In a short time you can do your own experiment that will show that the chances of getting back to back heads is pretty damn close to the 1 in 4 that is predicted by probability. Increase the number of events and the closer things will be to what is predicted. Radioactivity is perhaps the best example of something with a very low probability, but very many repetitive tests. The half life of Uranium 234 is 244 thousand years, so the chances that any one atom will decay in the next hour is 1 in 2,137,440,000. You're more than 12 times as likely to pick the right MM combination with a single ticket than to predict the hour during which an atom of U234 will decay. Put enough atoms together, though, and the decay runs like clockwork.

Is it possible that there's something at work that we don't know about that has some affect on probability? Sure. Is it possible that the outcome of lotteries is goverened by aliens with some agenda that we aren't aware of?. Yes, to that too. Has thousands of years of study turned up any evidence that probability doesn't work exactly the way we currrently think it does? No.

Sorry I took so long to reply, I didn't even know you replied back.

"Again, you're simply showing that you don't understand how probability works." "Probability is an exact science. You're just confused about what it can "predict". It doesn't predict future events. It describes probabilities. There's a reason we don't refer to the "laws of certainty" or the "laws of what's definitely going to happen."

No, I took advanced mathematics in college. I'm pretty versed on the subject of probablity. Probability is NOT an exact science and I am DEFINITELY not confused. I don't know where you got your definition from but the very nature of probability is to predict a future outcome; which cannot be done with 100% accuarcy all the time so it tries to come "close". "a measure of how likely it is that some event will occur; a number expressing the ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible;"That is not exact. And when I say the chances were ZERO, they were always ZERO, thats why it didn't happen.

New mathematical theories and changes/challenges to old ones happen all the time. That uranium example you provided proves my point. You still cannot predict with 100% accuracy when any of the atoms will decay, all you can do is speculate with the use of probability. Sure you can get close and possibly even perfect, but not perfect everytime.

"Sorry, but you don't get to define how the world works. The science of probability and the definitions are already well established. Likelihood is just another way of describing probability, so probablity/likelihood = 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000."

Actually, I used the real definitions of probability and liklihood, I just paraphrased them. Go ahead and look them up.

"If somebody cares to do that experimentally it's very unlikely (about 0.0045% chance) that there will be no back to back repeats in that many tries, but unlikely things happen all the time."

Either thats not what you said the first time around or I misunderstood you. From what I read from your other reply, you said that it would definitely happen (repeat) in at least 175,711,536 tries.

"And? What will that pattern do to change the way pi works? Pi is the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle. If we figure it out to another few billion decimal places we may indeed find that it begins repeating the familiar 14159 "pattern' but that won't change how it works. Set your compass for some radius and draw a circle and the circumference will still be exactly 2pi times the radius."

You missed my WHOLE point. My point was that challenges to established facts WILL HAPPEN. Some will change and some won't

"The study of probabiltii has shown time and again that it does a very good job of predicting general results."

While I do agree with this statement, it is from the standpoint of an opinion. That is neither fact nor exact.

"Is it possible that there's something at work that we don't know about that has some affect on probability? Sure. Is it possible that the outcome of lotteries is goverened by aliens with some agenda that we aren't aware of?. Yes, to that too."

Now your being a wiseguy, I meant no such of the sort and its "probable" you knew that.

Has thousands of years of study turned up any evidence that probability doesn't work exactly the way we currrently think it does? No."

Exactly, and that is probability isn't an exact science. We (people) may have mastered the variables that we know of now but there are still others that haven't been defined. At the present time, probability cannot predict anything with 100% accuracy all the time. That is why it is called probablity.

I challenge you to find any reputable source on the internet, or anywhere else to say otherwise.

MD United States Member #1701 June 18, 2003 8537 Posts Offline

Posted: March 29, 2007, 1:37 am - IP Logged

I read all this thread Whew! I think it they never change the matrix and say in another 1000 drawings or so we might see a repeat of the 5 white balls.

On another note if you played just one line for every draw and you lived a thousand years you might not even match all 5.

make your self a 54 number wheel and wheel the numbers on 500 tickets as a test and see what comes up.

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3157 Posts Offline

Posted: March 29, 2007, 2:14 am - IP Logged

A lot of people think a winning lottery combination won't be drawn again. When Florida had a 5/26 game all one had to do to be a jackpot winner was to play all the previously drawn combinations in each draw. There were something like 7 jackpot combinations that repeated within this time frame before it became unprofitable.

When one applies the birthday paradox to lottery the odds of a winning combination ever repeating is better then you'd think.

When it comes to Powerball the odds are 50/50 whether a drawing will contain any of the winning numbers from the previous drawing. As there is no way to know whether one, two or three of the previous numbers will be drawn let along which of them, the easy path is to eliminate the previous draw's numbers from your selection for the next drawing. The larger the game the better this works.

For the Powerball itself, the best to play are the five longest out.

MD United States Member #1701 June 18, 2003 8537 Posts Offline

Posted: March 29, 2007, 10:12 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on March 29, 2007

A lot of people think a winning lottery combination won't be drawn again. When Florida had a 5/26 game all one had to do to be a jackpot winner was to play all the previously drawn combinations in each draw. There were something like 7 jackpot combinations that repeated within this time frame before it became unprofitable.

When one applies the birthday paradox to lottery the odds of a winning combination ever repeating is better then you'd think.

When it comes to Powerball the odds are 50/50 whether a drawing will contain any of the winning numbers from the previous drawing. As there is no way to know whether one, two or three of the previous numbers will be drawn let along which of them, the easy path is to eliminate the previous draw's numbers from your selection for the next drawing. The larger the game the better this works.

For the Powerball itself, the best to play are the five longest out.

BobP

i didn't say there wouldn't be a repeat.

Mega mill has only had 184 drawings since the last matrix change.

powerball has had 469 drawings since their last matrix change this is of course if the figures are right.

In Maryland we have bonus match 5 every day there have been a hand full of times the same numbers, all 5 have repeated. Mind that these repeats were month or years apart. I don't have the exact figure on how many drawings have taken place. But it's several years worth.

While i realize mega and powerbal could have a drawing in which all 5 numbers might be drawn 2 times. Because they have a large pool of numbers that might be drawn i think it will be a long while before they have a drawing in which all 5 of any previous drawings numbers will repeat.

BigJohn says. You don't hit the number. The number hits you!!!!

I'm not Big John, I'm Four4me, Big John's a friend.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 20111 Posts Offline

Posted: March 29, 2007, 10:36 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by four4me on March 29, 2007

i didn't say there wouldn't be a repeat.

Mega mill has only had 184 drawings since the last matrix change.

powerball has had 469 drawings since their last matrix change this is of course if the figures are right.

In Maryland we have bonus match 5 every day there have been a hand full of times the same numbers, all 5 have repeated. Mind that these repeats were month or years apart. I don't have the exact figure on how many drawings have taken place. But it's several years worth.

While i realize mega and powerbal could have a drawing in which all 5 numbers might be drawn 2 times. Because they have a large pool of numbers that might be drawn i think it will be a long while before they have a drawing in which all 5 of any previous drawings numbers will repeat.

PowerBall had its last matrix change 162 drawings back at 09/07/05. The bonus numbers pool didn't change but its regular numbers pool went from 52 to 55 shortly after MegaMillions changed its matrix.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *