Texas United States
Member #86,151
January 30, 2010
1,889 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by diamondpalace on Feb 20, 2010
Does 1 in 26,334 every 7 days sounds good?
or
1 in 3,003 in every 60 days?
Guarantee odds. Whic would you take and why?
That's very simple. 1:3,003 are the better odds hands down. The prize will be less because of better odds but, you'll have a better chance of hitting again if you can hit once. All about the number count, that's all.
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by diamondpalace on Feb 20, 2010
Does 1 in 26,334 every 7 days sounds good?
or
1 in 3,003 in every 60 days?
Guarantee odds. Whic would you take and why?
Sound like the odds of some events happening and I would have to know about the events before deciding. For example they could be the odds of winning $10 or $500 winner or more, it all depend on the expected events. If you are comparing the odds of winning $500 at 1:3003 every 60 days to the odds of winning $5000 at 1:26334 every 7 days then I might have to do some figuring before answering.
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
United States
Member #60,282
April 12, 2008
3,857 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Feb 20, 2010
Sound like the odds of some events happening and I would have to know about the events before deciding. For example they could be the odds of winning $10 or $500 winner or more, it all depend on the expected events. If you are comparing the odds of winning $500 at 1:3003 every 60 days to the odds of winning $5000 at 1:26334 every 7 days then I might have to do some figuring before answering.
Picking 15 numbers (pick 5, with balls 1-37) and play it for 1 year. Within the year there will be opportunities for these two play style. Which one would you stick with?
- Within 1 year, 10 days you'll have the true odds of 1 in 3,003
or
- Within 1 year, 81 days you'll have the true odds of 1 in 26,338
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
I maintain a file of previous drawings for the games I play so I would probably run a simulation of both options and try the one that did the best.
When I've run similar simulations in the past, I've found playing more lines fewer times have about the same chance of a win as playing a few lines all the time. I realize the closer you are to playing all the possible combinations, the closer you are to having a winner but most games have so many possible winners that any amount of lines that an average player plays will only be a drop in a big bucket.
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
Texas United States
Member #86,151
January 30, 2010
1,889 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Feb 23, 2010
I maintain a file of previous drawings for the games I play so I would probably run a simulation of both options and try the one that did the best.
When I've run similar simulations in the past, I've found playing more lines fewer times have about the same chance of a win as playing a few lines all the time. I realize the closer you are to playing all the possible combinations, the closer you are to having a winner but most games have so many possible winners that any amount of lines that an average player plays will only be a drop in a big bucket.
Now you're talking. If players could just understand the basic concept of proportional ratios and apply them to these games, they'd see the light and play differently. $100 played correctly on Pick 3 at the right time has (10) times better odds, if not more, than that same amount on Cash 5.
Do that on Mega or Power Ball and it truly is only a drop in the bucket!! The less numbers one plays, the less chance they have of a hit and luck plays a 90% role. But, if you are lucky and hit, there's a major profit to be had. Problem is, how often is one that lucky? When or will that same hit be produced again...if you don't run out of money first from playing it all back by trying?
More numbers played right provides substantially increased chances of reproducing that same hit,and, doing so more often at the expense of a lesser but relatively consistent profit. It's been proven time and time again. Good post.