Many here have observed the oft repeated assumption that QPs win because the majority of PURCHASES are QPS, and as such most of the eventual winners are QP users. I have a different take. Nobody wants to admit ( I think that drives the prejudice against QPs) that having control over your selection matters in reducing the odds of winning not a whit. Nobody wants to think that a person who follows draw history cannot even come close to the mindless terminal, because of the illusion of controlling one's destiny by picking with one's own hand is so comforting. It is the very randomness, the mindless number allocation, free of "lotto draw statistics" application, that is the strength of the QP. It is not constrained by the opinion of some nerd.
Tonight's QP in Lotto TX produced a 75 million dollar windfall...probably for some schmuck who never heard of lottery statistics program, Gail Howard, random number probabilities. Some dude (no doubt) who walked into a Quickie Mart bought a QP and won the entire ball of wax that has been building for eons to near record levels for a State game win, approaching Mega Millions territory, and it is not a multi state game!
Why? I'll tell ya why. Look at the winning numbers! Would YOU have picked them? "Educated" gamblers and such, would have never picked those numbers. QPS have the advantage of being relatively random and unbiased, in a matter of sorts. So Joe Schmoe goes in and lets the computer pick, and he gets the stupid looking 7-9-11-30-33-53 for all the loot. % of 6 ODD numbers. But, the experts tell us, the typical draw is a mixture. Too many low digits, the "educated" bettor would not pick it because of the "Birthday" picker factor! Think about it...a QP being random is its very advantage, its randomness permits combos "thinking" players would not and do not select due to their prejudices about odds and evens, lows and highs, and so forth. Just look at all them "3's" in that draw, not a one of 'ya would have picked that piece of work!
Face it, folks, the six pack buying trucker who NEXT wins Mega Millions is not going to be some dweeb with a calculator, who studies past draws, diligently forecasting the next ball chute arrival, it is going to be won with a "highly unlikely: combo coming from a terminal like, oh, say, 2-3-4-13-56 MB 1 because it does not believe all those lotto books and programs and their "low and high" "odds and evens" number total sums, etc. (insert your favorite geeky statistical model here, feel free) and the winner is going to forget it on his truck mirror for a week before checking it and saying, "gee, whiz, how "bout them apples?" before becoming famous for letting the store clerk check his numbers for him, trusting his honesty like he did the machine that gave him a fortune for a buck.
Meanwhile, the guys who wheeled, and spent buckets of cash on those numbers assumed due and hot, wins 3 bucks. Maybe 10.
The QP is unbiased. it ALLOWS 3 consecutive numbers, an "unlikely winner" according to the pencil headed authorities. You know the drill, you buy a QO and say "that thing has no chance of winning, just look at it, all odd numbers, too much low too much high, not enough of both number groupings, and in fact, that, or one just like it, turns out to be the winner.
Sorry, but my feeling is if MOST bought numbers like 70% but did NOT use QPS, (in other words, like it is for QPs in the real world) there would NOT be as many winners proportionately, but that the much maligned QP would still carry the day. Just a theory of mine, but just looking a these winning QP's shows that many of them are NOT "types" of combos that lotto nerds would forecast, and that, my friends, is precisely the point! Obviously, if 70% were picking by self selection of nuimbers, I am NOT saying it the QPs would have more winners in sheer countable numbers among them, but *relative to amount of picks made* for each group of possible selection method I do not doubt the QPs would still rule the roost. Doubt me until you see that guy who wins Powerball with 1, 21, 31, 41, 51, PB 11...with a QP, natch!