Taunton, Ma United States Member #123005 February 11, 2012 136 Posts Offline

Posted: March 2, 2012, 6:29 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Bigheadnick on March 2, 2012

@ Thrifty - No one is arguing that an individual ticket's odds increase when purchasing additional tickets. But it is a fact that overall your chances do increase period. I don't even understand what spurred you to create such a post. I will not resort to insults or questions about your intelligence as others have. I will however tell you that you are wrong wrong wrong.

As long as there is a finite number of combinations, In this case 175million then buying more tickets absolutely increase your odds so long as your playing different combinations. Using your logic, the amount of possible combinations would have to increase by 1 with each ticket purchased. This does not happen. I dont know how else I can put it except that with each combination you play you knocking off a potential winner.

A simple experiment- Take a deck of cards and remove 3 of the 4 aces leaving on ace in 49 cards. You and a friend take turns pulling for the ace and shuffling in between turns. Fan the deck and allow him to draw 5 at a time an you draw 1. I can garantee he pulls the ace more than you over a 100 attempts. Your chance of getting the ace would be 2.04 % while his would be 10.2 % Granted each individual attempt he makes is still 2.04 % but overall having 5 pulls instead of 1., his chance of winning increase to 10.2%.

Obviously we're talking much larger numbers with the lotto which in turn means a much smaller increase in raising your odds but the principle remains the same as long as there are a finite number of combinations.

EDIT to my 2nd paragraph, The number of possible combinations would have to double with each ticket purchased for the overall odds to remain constant.

United States Member #79057 August 26, 2009 70 Posts Offline

Posted: March 2, 2012, 6:37 pm - IP Logged

FYI - Thrifty just for clarification when I used the term obtuse I was not making a judgement about your intelligence. What I meant was that on this subject you are being obtuse, because despite all the information expressed to you and the ease of checking it on google you refuse to even consider it as a possibility. Bighead got me rereading my post and if I did offend you, it was unintentional and I appologize. I just meant you seem to be really stubborn on this subject.

United States Member #111442 May 25, 2011 6323 Posts Offline

Posted: March 2, 2012, 6:52 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on March 2, 2012

What's your take on the people posting here? I think they mirror the general population. Most people are near the middle of the curve, and a few are a bit closer to one end or the other.

I made it as simple as the choice between odd an even, but some people still disagree that buying 2 tickets makes you twice as likely to win as buying 1 ticket. It's not a matter of opinion, and it's not advanced math. 1*2 =2., and 2 in 175 million simplifies to 1 in 87.5 million. The numbers are bigger, but it's literally grade school arithmetic.

I think an inability to grasp that demonstrates a substantial defect in the ability to reason and understand simple concepts. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can explain why.

I'm not saying your wrong, I agree. I love mathematics myself, excelled at it in high school and college. Algebra, Geometry, Trig, Calculus, etc.

Just saying be a little less judgemental of those that cannot comprehend as well as you.

Zeta Reticuli Star System United States Member #30470 January 17, 2006 10348 Posts Offline

Posted: March 2, 2012, 7:10 pm - IP Logged

KY Floyd,

"I made it as simple as the choice between odd an even, but some people still disagree that buying 2 tickets makes you twice as likely to win as buying 1 ticket. It's not a matter of opinion, and it's not advanced math. 1*2 =2., and 2 in 175 million simplifies to 1 in 87.5 million. The numbers are bigger, but it's literally grade school arithmetic.

I think an inability to grasp that demonstrates a substantial defect in the ability to reason and understand simple concepts. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can explain why."

Well Floyd, how far back does this go, five, six years? In all that time neither you or anyone else who belives this "advance math" of cutting 175 millin down to 87.5 million, etc...has bought enough tickets for one draw to prove your theory (By hitting a jackpot), nor convince enough people that if you created a pool and went $10 to $100 eac h you would have a lock.

As the sage said, money talks and bs walks.

The only concept to grasp that you are proving over and over is the theory is nothing but a theory, or have you been halving those odds and hitting jackpots left and right?

The odds on a 5/39 game are 575, 757 to one. According to your approach it woul only take $18 to cut those down to 1.098 to one - and hey - $19 would make it 0.54 to one, heck, they'd have to pay you.

Let us know which 5/39 game you win tonight to prove yourself.

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.

I choose to stop responding to such posts, because the writer of such posts defy the constraints of mathematics, and will argue against the facts almost like they are having a religious debate.

If you want to say that your odds of winning are the same whether you buy one ticket or a thousand tickets, then enjoy your dream land.

OK then Todd....with over 123,000 member here surely you could each go a buck and 'halve' the odds 123,000 times.......oh wait, that would only reduce the number of possible combinations by 123,000.

I don't know what kind of 'contraints of mathematics' you are using, but 175,000,000 minus 123,000 will always = 174,877,000.

The point being made is that each ticket is up against the same odds, no matter how many you buy.

We ain't seen a jackpot yet out of anyone that believes otherwise.

Until then, I'm from Missouri on this.

Of course, 'this writer' or 'the writer' isn't selling tickets, or a system, or charging admission.

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.

United States Member #123427 February 20, 2012 89 Posts Offline

Posted: March 2, 2012, 7:32 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on March 1, 2012

Bigheadnick,

Currengtly there are 123,870 members here on LP.

Have them each go $1 for MM or $2 for PB and they would have to hit a jackpot, no?

Using a round number and calling the odds against each game 175,000,000 to one, each line of number plays reduces the number of possible combinations by one combination, that's all it can possibly do.

Using your theory above anyone with a large enough bankroll could whittle the chances down to a 'guaranteed' winner or even a + for them. Doesn't happen.

One and only one line of numbers are drawn, one combination only. Leaving 174,999,999 not drawn. So if you play ten combinations, whooppee! - your chances for each combination are still 1 in 175,000,000.

The only ones who promote such ideas are selling tickets or a system.

And here we go because many here don't believe this.

If there are 123,870 members here and they all buy a qp, then the chances of winning would be nearly zero.

If the sneaky Supercomputer terminals decide to give every ticket the same combination, lets say 5 10 15 25 30 PB 1

then effectively 123,869 dollars were wasted so i should have just played one quick pick...

but 123,870/35=3539

thats means each powerball is played 3539 times...so i already made some money back...logistically it would be too hard to buy that many tickets, so that is why you have to power up....

the logistics are indeed mind boggling...and nobody mentioned the time wasted when the clerk has to change the roll of paper!!!!!i am gonna need those winnings to buy my prescription medication.

i hope this makes some sense...i will leave the math to the mathematicians...visualization is easier for me...

New Jersey United States Member #1 May 31, 2000 23260 Posts Online

Posted: March 2, 2012, 8:28 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on March 2, 2012

OK then Todd....with over 123,000 member here surely you could each go a buck and 'halve' the odds 123,000 times.......oh wait, that would only reduce the number of possible combinations by 123,000.

I don't know what kind of 'contraints of mathematics' you are using, but 175,000,000 minus 123,000 will always = 174,877,000.

The point being made is that each ticket is up against the same odds, no matter how many you buy.

We ain't seen a jackpot yet out of anyone that believes otherwise.

Until then, I'm from Missouri on this.

Of course, 'this writer' or 'the writer' isn't selling tickets, or a system, or charging admission.

Well, the simple fact you are doing subtraction and not division means that you don't know how to calculate odds.

I told myself I would not do this, but heck, I'll give it one more shot.

If the odds of winning something are 1 in 10 (if you buy 1 ticket), and you buy 5 tickets, are your new odds 1 in 5? Because that's what you just said. Subtract 10 - 5 and you get 5. 1 in 5, right?

Of course not. That would be ludicrous. The new odds after buying 5 tickets would be 5 in 10, or (in reduced form) 1 in 2. Maybe with these small numbers it is clear to all that you have 1 chance in 2 of winning, because you own half the possibilities.

So then, back to your example of buying 123,000 tickets. Your odds are not 1 in 174,877,000. The odds are 123,000 in 175,000,000, or (in reduced form) approximately 1 in 1,422.8.

So I tried one more time. Hopefully this time it rubs off. I do not say this with any disrespect.

Also, as I said earlier in this thread, the person I was referring to had "odds" and "chances" mixed up. Your "odds" certainly have improved by buying 123,000 tickets (to 1 in 1,422.8). But your "chances" are still small (you could buy 123,000 tickets every Powerball drawing and it would take an average of 13.7 years to win the jackpot).

When they see 1 in 1.422.8, some people think, "Wow, that's amazing." But they SHOULD be thinking, "Wow, that's still tremendously poor odds of winning, my chances are slim even with buying a fortune worth of tickets."

adelaide sa Australia Member #37136 April 11, 2006 3300 Posts Offline

Posted: March 2, 2012, 9:36 pm - IP Logged

someone on a forum long ago suggested to look at odds not as how likely you are to win, but how likely you are to lose.

i once used this to calculate the percentage chance of losing various games. and came to the stark realization that the only difference is the number of 9's after the decimal point.

go on try it, on a 1 in 1000 draw!

ill help, its 99.9% chance of failure

ok how about 2 in 1000! that is correctly called 1 in 500. but what is the percent chance of failure?

we divided 1 by 500

1/500 = 0.002

and we subtract that from 1 to work out the percent of failure

1-0.002, = .998 , or 99.8%

see that! the fraction 2/1000 is exactly the same as the fraction 1/500!

both have 2 chances in 1000 of success, or 998 in 1000 chances of failure.

ie 99.8%

now for the fun stuff,

1 / 175 000 000 = percent to lose 99.99999942857142857142857142857

2/ 175 000 000 = percent to lose

but 2/175 000 000 can also be expressed as 1 / 87500000

adelaide sa Australia Member #37136 April 11, 2006 3300 Posts Offline

Posted: March 2, 2012, 9:50 pm - IP Logged

oh yeah, i was also demonstrating the point that a 1 In 1000 game isnt much different than a 1 in 175 mill game its just the numbers of 9's after the decimal point on the percentage stat

Taunton, Ma United States Member #123005 February 11, 2012 136 Posts Offline

Posted: March 2, 2012, 10:45 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by savagegoose on March 2, 2012

oh yeah, i was also demonstrating the point that a 1 In 1000 game isnt much different than a 1 in 175 mill game its just the numbers of 9's after the decimal point on the percentage stat

1 in 1000 = 99.9% failure

i in 175M= 99.9999994% failure

This is the best argument for thrifty's case I've seen thus far. Everything you state is correct but it does not disprove my side of the argument that more tickets = better odds. It merely exemplifies how minute the difference is. You're still david vs goliath no matter how many tickets you buy.

upstate NY United States Member #108791 March 31, 2011 549 Posts Offline

Posted: March 3, 2012, 12:05 am - IP Logged

Todd's most recent post has it right, but I'd like to try and restate it anyway.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post links or not, but I'm taking this from the Wikipedia article on probability, "Mathematical Treatment" section.

Independent probability

If two events, A and B are independent then the joint probability is

for example, if two coins are flipped the chance of both being heads is

Mutually exclusive

If either event Aor event Bor both events occur on a single performance of an experiment this is called the union of the events Aand Bdenoted as . If two events are mutually exclusive then the probability of either occurring is

For example, the chance of rolling a 1 or 2 on a six-sided die is

To put it in lottery terms, the odds of hitting the Powerball jackpot is 1 in 175,223,510. How do we get that number? There are 5,006,386 possible white ball combinations and 35 possible red ball outcomes. The odds of having the one correct white ball combination and the correct Powerball are (1 / 5,006,386) x (1 / 35) = (1 / 175,223,510).

If you buy multiple lines, each line has a 1 in 175,223,510 chance of winning, so your overall odds are Q in 175,223,510 with Q being the number of lines purchased. If you buy two lines, there is a 2 in 175,223,510 chance (or you can reduce it to 1 in 87,611,755) that you have the winning numbers. If you buy three lines, there is a 3 in 175,223,510 chance (or 1 in 58,407,836.667) that you have the winning numbers. So on and so forth. It is true that your chances do not significantly increase -- we're still talking some pretty long odds -- but they increase nonetheless.

Zeta Reticuli Star System United States Member #30470 January 17, 2006 10348 Posts Offline

Posted: March 3, 2012, 1:19 am - IP Logged

Todd,

"So then, back to your example of buying 123,000 tickets. Your odds are not 1 in 174,877,000. The odds are 123,000 in 175,000,000, or (in reduced form) approximately 1 in 1,422.8."

Todd,

The point isn't 123,000 tickets would make the odds 1 in 174,877,000. They don't. 123,000 tickets leave 174,877,000 combinations not played.

Earlier on someone said that with 175,000,000 to one odds another tickets reduces them to 87.5 million. This is the 'halving' theory.

But in your example above, if you could reduce the odds to 1 in 1422.8, and even lesser, people with large enough bankrolls, or could form large enough pools, would be doing it and hitting multi-million dollar jackpots constantly.

As we all know that is just not the case.

No matter what anyone thinks they have reduced the odds to, using the 123,000 tickets as an example, with 123,000 combinations covered and 174,877,000 not covered, just which of those groups would those tickets most likely to wind up in?

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 Jersey United States Member #1 May 31, 2000 23260 Posts Online

Posted: March 3, 2012, 1:20 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on March 3, 2012

Todd,

"So then, back to your example of buying 123,000 tickets. Your odds are not 1 in 174,877,000. The odds are 123,000 in 175,000,000, or (in reduced form) approximately 1 in 1,422.8."

Todd,

The point isn't 123,000 tickets would make the odds 1 in 174,877,000. They don't. 123,000 tickets leave 174,877,000 combinations not played.

Earlier on someone said that with 175,000,000 to one odds another tickets reduces them to 87.5 million. This is the 'halving' theory.

But in your example above, if you could reduce the odds to 1 in 1422.8, and even lesser, people with large enough bankrolls, or could form large enough pools, would be doing it and hitting multi-million dollar jackpots constantly.

As we all know that is just not the case.

No matter what anyone thinks they have reduced the odds to, using the 123,000 tickets as an example, with 123,000 combinations covered and 174,877,000 not covered, just which of those groups would those tickets most likely to wind up in?

You really didn't read my post ... or else purposely ignored it. I tried.