Welcome Guest
You last visited January 16, 2017, 5:37 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Probability related question

Topic closed. 11 replies. Last post 9 years ago by Mike Frazier.

 Page 1 of 1
New Member

Singapore
Member #58096
January 30, 2008
1 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 30, 2008, 10:52 pm - IP Logged

I've been having these two questions for a long time already but am not too sure what the answers are.

Question1:

Is it better to buy fewer larger systems(and be able to cover more numbers per system) or to buy many more smaller systems(and be able to have much more different combinations of different numbers)?

Question2:

Every subsequent draw is a new set of random numbers. (1st continually changing factor) We have heard that we should base our next draw's numbers on the history pattern of numbers which have been drawn before. We have also heard that we should continuously perservere with the numbers which we have chosen because it is sure to come out one day.)

Here's the logic and question:

If we follow option 1 and keep changing our numbers every draw, then there are two continuously changing factors. If we follow option 2 and keep buying the same numbers, then there is only one continuously changing factor. Am I right to say that it is easier for the numbers to "intersect" each other if only one of the sets keep changing? Then shouldn't we be buying the same numbers all the time(until we strike)?

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 31, 2008, 2:04 am - IP Logged

"Best" depends on you.

If you expect to only win once in your life, stick with one set of numbers.

If you have a system that you think will hit a few jackpots then it will, by the nature of systems, give different sets to play based on the changing history of past drawings.

In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19891 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 1, 2008, 8:49 pm - IP Logged

If you're playing a game like MegaMillions, you can pick any one of 4,405,086 winning combinations each drawing and double your money or better.  With the average 6/49 game you can do the same with 260,624 winning combinations so you have to figure how your strategy work best for those conditions and where the likely payouts are worth the risk.

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

New Member
Garden City
United States
Member #58679
February 23, 2008
20 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 23, 2008, 6:02 pm - IP Logged

look a the standard deviation for perdicting the lottery.

Charles

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19891 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 23, 2008, 11:21 pm - IP Logged

look a the standard deviation for perdicting the lottery.

Charles

Those winning combinations represent less than 3% of the possible combinations.  Avoiding the 97+% that are losers is the challenge.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN
United States
Member #33372
February 20, 2006
1044 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 27, 2008, 10:44 pm - IP Logged

If you have a system that you think will hit a few jackpots then it will, by the nature of systems, give different sets to play based on the changing history of past drawings

Are you thinking that a system should be static and allow the sets to be dynamic?

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 28, 2008, 2:25 am - IP Logged

Parts of a system should be dynamic, otherwise it's just a list.

E.g., if your pick-5 system takes 2 hot numbers and 3 cold numbers, then it must track which numbers are hot, warm, & cold and change your numbers sets to reflect that.

If you do a running frequency-histogram of the numbers, you will find that they change category over time. The hot numbers (and some of the warm ones) cool down, while some of the others are heating up.

In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

New Member
Fayetteville, Arkansas
United States
Member #58962
March 2, 2008
29 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 2, 2008, 2:56 am - IP Logged

Hi, ywchin

I haven't been on these forums for a long time, but I see that old myths die hard.

The first thing you have to know is that those little ping pong balls are like Drew Barrymore in the film "50 First Dates"; each day is a completely new day. They have no memory of anything that happened the previous day, or last week, or last month, or last year. They don't know if they have been winning numbers once, twice, forty-three times, or never. The likelihood of any combination is the same today as it was yesterday and as it will be tomorrow. To put it another way: If the same combination of numbers were drawn 100 times in a row, the chances of it being drawn the 101st time would be exactly the same as those of any other combination.

There are no "hot" or "cold" numbers, except in one sense. Certain numbers and combinations of numbers seem to be picked more often than others by lottery players. If you choose from among these, the chances you will have to share a prize if you win are greater than if you pick the less popular numbers. So, the only "hot" numbers that matter are those that other people don't like. Thus, if lots of people are relying on the chart that shows which numbers haven't won (i.e., the ones they think are "hot"), you should choose the one's they aren't choosing (i.e., the ones they think are "cold"). Your odds of having the winning numbers won't have changed, but your odds of having to share the jackpot will have dropped.

People who promote systems based on hot and cold numbers, based on the idea that numbers which haven't hit very often are more likely to hit in the future, are taking your money, pure and simple.

Long Island, NY
United States
Member #57412
January 3, 2008
419 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 2, 2008, 5:41 am - IP Logged

To answer the original question, unless you can use a little/alot of all methods you need to employ the right strategy to narrow a given nights selection down.  Very challenging.  However, playing the same numbers every day(waiting for them to pop..someday/year) is an expensive option. You gotta keep changing your sets slightly every day.

Seconds to respond to Mikes post....the every day is a new day mindset is so bleak(true as it may be) The voice of reality, I refuse to listen.

I see numbers hit two days in a row but just about never three days in a row.  To some degree you can use a combinaton of methods to determine that it is probable that certain numbers are due soon.  I did this with the NY Take 5 draw tonight 3/1/08.  I knew the 1-2 combo was coming soon.

If I had a lot more money to gamble, I would win alot more wheeling these combos.  Due soon (maybe on 3/2 are 9-10, 5-6, 7-8, 8-9.  Or maybe no single digits or teens at all.

I never feel I am completely at the mercy of randomness.

New Member
Fayetteville, Arkansas
United States
Member #58962
March 2, 2008
29 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 2, 2008, 6:20 am - IP Logged

D&D,

I sympathize. I only spend about \$4 per week. I buy one ticket for each drawing of the Powerball and the state lottery. I have to drive out of state to get them, so I buy a 15-draw multi-draw ticket once every 7 1/2 weeks. On the days that I buy my tickets, I pick up a few scratchers; my wife likes them, but I admit I'd probably buy a few for myself if she didn't. :)

The odds of winning are not good, but they are zero if I don't participate at all; and the difference between good and not good is infinitesimal compared to the difference between not good and none.

Still, it must be admitted ... If you are 20 years old, and spend \$5 per week on lottery tickets, over a 45-year period you'll spend almost \$12,000 on lottery tickets and your chances of winning a major prize are still not good. The same money could be invested in a mutual fund returning 6% after taxes -- which is quite reasonable -- and you'd have about \$55,000.

I don't think that's a reason not to play, unless you only have \$5 and you have to choose between the two. And, for us old fogeys in our 50's, we don't have time to do truly great things with compound interest.

Lastly, I'll never forget the fact that the Pick-3 in New York on the 1st anniversary of the WTC attack was 9-1-1. Call it coincidence if you like, but I'll never believe it. There is a non-quantifiable weirdness factor out there, for sure.

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10388 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 2, 2008, 3:10 pm - IP Logged

In a previous discussion about playing the same numbers (I forget the specific game) it was stated that a set of numbers will hit - if you have 483 years to wait it out.

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.

New Member
Fayetteville, Arkansas
United States
Member #58962
March 2, 2008
29 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 6, 2008, 4:37 am - IP Logged

The chances that a given combination will hit over time equals 1 minus the odds that it will not hit. In the case of Powerball, with 2 drawings per week, the odds that a given combination will hit over the 45-year period I hypothesized in a previous message is roughly 1 in 3122. These are also the odds of winning over the same period with a new combination every draw.

Over 483 years (50,232 draws), the odds don't improve much: 1 in 2909.

For 50/50 odds, you'd need around 100 million draws -- roughly a million years.

 Page 1 of 1