Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7344 Posts Offline

Posted: April 3, 2007, 7:52 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on March 30, 2007

"What happened to the other 357 combinations?"

Don't you mean the other 600 combinations?

1 X 10 X 10 = 100 possible combinations with 21 balls.

On a related note, Mary has three apples. She gives two apples to Johnny. How many oranges does Mary have left?

Have no idea where Conner was going but numbers can be deceiving.

"Don't you mean the other 600 combinations? 1 X 10 X 10 = 100 possible combinations with 21 balls."

That's more deception than I used but very similar to how you turned around the odds of Mega Millions.

By using the proportion of 175 million:1, you made the case that if somebody bought 2000 tickets they had a 1 in 87,855 chance of winning. 175 million/2000 looks much better than the actual percentage of combinations; 2000/175 million or .0014%.

"On a related note, Mary has three apples. She gives two apples to Johnny. How many oranges does Mary have left?"

You could have followed up the "1 X 10 X 10" by pointing how much that could be reduced by using a ratio of even/odd, high/low digits with sums of 6 to 21 and be constructive but I suppose you would rather show how clever you are.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3502 Posts Offline

Posted: April 3, 2007, 12:28 pm - IP Logged

I don't know where he was going either, but both of our examples are good ways to show that while numbers don't lie, what we do with them may be misleading to some, or at least counter-intuitive. Just because some people are fooled doesn't mean that there is any intent to deceive.By choosing to reduce each group of 10 by 3, you chose the pattern that resulted in the highest number of combinations. By reducing only 1 group of 10 by all 9, I chose the one with the fewest combinations. I don't know about you, but my example was simply to show that changing how the numbers are selected changes the number of combinations.

I suspect that most people imagine that there's some relatively simple correlation between the size of the number pool and the number of possible combinations that can be made from those numbers, and that your example of reducing the field by 30% really resulted in "missing" combinations when there were less than 70% as many. Of course, the reality is that it's far more complex than simple linear or geometric progressions. Whether you're dealing with the comparatively simple example of pick 3, or (n of x), reducing the pool by 30% reduces the possible combinations by more than 30%, and different methods of reducing the pool will result in different reductions in the possible combinations. The reduction in the size of the pool and the redcution in the possible combinations are two different things. I alluded to the comparison of apples and oranges, but it's your example that was comparing apples and oranges.

I definitely have't tried to deceive anybody about the odds for MM or how those odds work. If you thought otherwise you've completely misunderstood what I've said, which is only that the effect that buying more chances has on your odds in MM or other games of chance is a simple direct correlation. Not only have I never suggested that buying 10, 20,or 100 tickets gives you a decent chance of winning, I've often pointed out that even with huge numbers of tickets your chances are still slim to none. Since it's a direct linear correlation, buy twice as many tickets and your chances of winning are twice as "good" as they were. Buy 10 times as many and your chances are 10 times as good. Buy 16.77773 times as many tickets and your chances of winning are 16.77773 times as good. The fact that some people don't understand how it works doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a simple linear correlation.

I'm sure that everybody believes that if we find two boxes that each have 100 apples in them, and I take 10 from one box and you take 20 from the other box that you've taken twice as many as I have. You'll have 100% more aples than I have, but the box you took them from will still have 80/90th's or 88.88% as much as my box. It's exactly the same with taking chances from the combinations that are available in the lottery. As near as I can tell, a lot of people don't understand that the chances of winning and the chances of losing are different things that follow different progression, just like how many apples you have compared to me, and how many are left in your box compared to mine. Whether the chances of winning the lottery are expressed as 1 in 87,855 or 0.0014%, it's the same thing. If some people think one of those numbers looks better than the other, it has nothing to do with anything I've ever said.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7344 Posts Offline

Posted: April 3, 2007, 3:27 pm - IP Logged

Floyd,

I wasn't saying that either of us were deceiving people, just that your example was a little more deceptive than mine.

"Whether the chances of winning the lottery are expressed as 1 in 87,855 or 0.0014%, it's the same thing."

I agree and that's why Pennsylvania will advertise that each ticket in their 4th of July Raffle has a 1 in 80 chance of winning without mentioning each winning ticket only represents 1.24% of all the tickets sold.

People seem to be more influenced by jackpot fever than anything you or I could say. Some people are so confident they will win, they have already set up trust funds so they can remain anonymous and hired teams of financial advisors.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3502 Posts Offline

Posted: April 4, 2007, 1:00 am - IP Logged

I've got plenty of questions I'd ask if I won a jackpot, but at $100 an hour there aren't many hypothetical questions I need my accountant to answer.Most people could benefit from some good financial advice, but hiring advisors for advice about a jackpot you haven't won would be pretty ironic if the first piece of advice takes more than 30 seconds and isn't offered for free. IMHO, an advisor that would take your money in exchange for advice on what to do if you win is probably not going to put your interests ahead of thiers, and isn't somebody I'd want advice from.

CA United States Member #2987 December 10, 2003 832 Posts Offline

Posted: April 16, 2007, 1:43 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on March 30, 2007

Are you sure about that?

The Pick-3 has 1000 possible combinations and by reducing the field by 30%, there are 700.

1000 - 30% = 700

There are 3 sets of balls numbered 0 - 9 for a total of 30 and by reducing that by 30%, there are 21.

30 - 30% = 21.

If I play the remaining 7 digits, there are 343 combinations.

7 x 7 x 7 = 343.

What happened to the other 357 combinations?

700 - 343 = 357

Of course, when you reduce one field of 1,000 by 30%, you have 700 possibilities left. In the second example you are reducing three fields of 10 by 30% each and combining the results. And there are 343 combinations which do not contain the numbers 0, 1 or 2.

Looking at it the other way - reduce the three fields by 30% and eliminate only those possibilities that contain all three of those numbers - then you wind up with 973 combinations, as there are only 27 possibilities that contain only the numbers 0, 1 and 2.

gl

j

Blessed Saint Leibowitz, keep 'em dreamin' down there.....

Next week's convention for Psychics and Prognosticators has been cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7344 Posts Offline

Posted: April 18, 2007, 10:17 pm - IP Logged

"Looking at it the other way - reduce the three fields by 30% and eliminate only those possibilities that contain all three of those numbers - then you wind up with 973 combinations, as there are only 27 possibilities that contain only the numbers 0, 1 and 2."

After I reduced the field by 30%, I could play those 343 combinations and also play the other numbers; 343 + 27 = 370. But 70% + 30% = 100% and 700 + 300 = 1000.