Ventura California United States Member #124382 March 12, 2012 12 Posts Offline

Posted: March 12, 2012, 7:30 pm - IP Logged

Much misinformation has been posted about the odds of winning the lotto with specific strategies. A common mistake, seen many times, promotes the false idea that the odds of winning the lotto by selecting a sequence of numbers (2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 7) is lower than selecting non-sequenced numbers (8, 15, 24, 31, 48; 5). This idea is false. Any numbers you pick, sequenced or not, have exactly the same probability of winning. This statistical fact seems to be counter intuitive to many people. I’ve seen posts on lotto websites claiming that you will not see a sequence of numbers win the lotto in your life time. That is true, but it’s also true for any non-sequenced set of numbers – the odds are exactly the same.

Let’s look at this issue another way. Suppose the lottery was based on a set of pictures of things. Each number would be replaced by a picture. To play, you’d pick pictures instead of numbers. With pictures of things there would be no illusion of any sequences being somehow special and unlikely to win, so I guess most people would understand that all picture picks would have exactly the same odds of winning. Now consider that the numbers we use to play lotto are just symbols; they have no numeric value as far as the lottery process is concerned. The lottery would work exactly the same with any symbols or pictures. The lottery selection of a winner wouldn’t operate any differently if we used pictures of trees, people, animals, dots, dashes, or other symbols; and there’s no difference when we use those marks that we see as mathematic symbols. Those marks that we see as numbers could just as well be chicken scratchings as far as the lottery process is concerned – for lottery purposes there’s no sequence to those numbers, they’re all just random pictures.

bgonÃ§alves Brasil Member #92564 June 9, 2010 2134 Posts Offline

Posted: March 12, 2012, 8:00 pm - IP Logged

Hello.cautions, I agree withyour opinion, but, buthow everythingis80/20, becauseweget20%?Orisitonlylooking at thebell curveis whereitscentral rangeof80%of the draws, becausegoing againstThe tide?, Playsequencenumbers1,2,3,4,5,6, playwell, it's likeinindianapolisrace against thedirection of the race,we also havepositions,example ofa lottery49/6The numbers01,02,03,04numcawill never bethe 5th and6th place,understand!80%of the repetitionsAre within thecentral beltof the highestprobabilities, nowsmall segments ofsequencetype1,2,3,good itcan be used,but thesequence1,2,3,4,5,6,I will notplay

N.C. United States Member #59229 March 9, 2008 327 Posts Offline

Posted: March 12, 2012, 10:25 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Cautious on March 12, 2012

Much misinformation has been posted about the odds of winning the lotto with specific strategies. A common mistake, seen many times, promotes the false idea that the odds of winning the lotto by selecting a sequence of numbers (2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 7) is lower than selecting non-sequenced numbers (8, 15, 24, 31, 48; 5). This idea is false. Any numbers you pick, sequenced or not, have exactly the same probability of winning. This statistical fact seems to be counter intuitive to many people. I’ve seen posts on lotto websites claiming that you will not see a sequence of numbers win the lotto in your life time. That is true, but it’s also true for any non-sequenced set of numbers – the odds are exactly the same.

Let’s look at this issue another way. Suppose the lottery was based on a set of pictures of things. Each number would be replaced by a picture. To play, you’d pick pictures instead of numbers. With pictures of things there would be no illusion of any sequences being somehow special and unlikely to win, so I guess most people would understand that all picture picks would have exactly the same odds of winning. Now consider that the numbers we use to play lotto are just symbols; they have no numeric value as far as the lottery process is concerned. The lottery would work exactly the same with any symbols or pictures. The lottery selection of a winner wouldn’t operate any differently if we used pictures of trees, people, animals, dots, dashes, or other symbols; and there’s no difference when we use those marks that we see as mathematic symbols. Those marks that we see as numbers could just as well be chicken scratchings as far as the lottery process is concerned – for lottery purposes there’s no sequence to those numbers, they’re all just random pictures.

Great first post! Since you don't believe that winning is possible is it safe to say that this will be your last post on this forum? I hope so.....

Whiskey Island United States Member #90216 April 24, 2010 12808 Posts Online

Posted: March 12, 2012, 10:37 pm - IP Logged

The Odds does not Matter . All that matters is if you have the Winning Set of Numbers . Winning is possible its just a matter of the right system and right wheel and filters ..

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19901 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 3:09 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Cautious on March 12, 2012

Much misinformation has been posted about the odds of winning the lotto with specific strategies. A common mistake, seen many times, promotes the false idea that the odds of winning the lotto by selecting a sequence of numbers (2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 7) is lower than selecting non-sequenced numbers (8, 15, 24, 31, 48; 5). This idea is false. Any numbers you pick, sequenced or not, have exactly the same probability of winning. This statistical fact seems to be counter intuitive to many people. I’ve seen posts on lotto websites claiming that you will not see a sequence of numbers win the lotto in your life time. That is true, but it’s also true for any non-sequenced set of numbers – the odds are exactly the same.

Let’s look at this issue another way. Suppose the lottery was based on a set of pictures of things. Each number would be replaced by a picture. To play, you’d pick pictures instead of numbers. With pictures of things there would be no illusion of any sequences being somehow special and unlikely to win, so I guess most people would understand that all picture picks would have exactly the same odds of winning. Now consider that the numbers we use to play lotto are just symbols; they have no numeric value as far as the lottery process is concerned. The lottery would work exactly the same with any symbols or pictures. The lottery selection of a winner wouldn’t operate any differently if we used pictures of trees, people, animals, dots, dashes, or other symbols; and there’s no difference when we use those marks that we see as mathematic symbols. Those marks that we see as numbers could just as well be chicken scratchings as far as the lottery process is concerned – for lottery purposes there’s no sequence to those numbers, they’re all just random pictures.

While it's true any set of numbers can hit, a player picking his own numbers needs a strategy for eliminating some combinations since he can't play them all. Eliminating combinations with all sequential numbers seems like a good place to start since the odds of such a combination ever hitting is way less than 0.1%.

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

Ventura California United States Member #124382 March 12, 2012 12 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 1:24 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on March 13, 2012

While it's true any set of numbers can hit, a player picking his own numbers needs a strategy for eliminating some combinations since he can't play them all. Eliminating combinations with all sequential numbers seems like a good place to start since the odds of such a combination ever hitting is way less than 0.1%.

RJOh, You've hit on a key misunderstanding about the odds of winning. Lets start with something concrete; the odds of winning the Mega Million lotto is 1 in 175,711,536.

The odds don't change if you pick a sequence of numbers (7,8,9,10,11; 12 for example), or pick random numbers (19, 25, 29, 33, 51; 18 for example). This is not my opinion, it is fact and reality. If you'd like to hear it from an authority I suggest you check with a casino in Los Vegas - they do not loose money, that's because they understand the odds.

However, there might be a very very small advantage to picking sequences of numbers. A sequence will not change your odds of winning, but it might improve the odds a tiny bit that if you win you'll not have to share the pot. That's because many people have the same misbelief that the odds are not as good if you pick sequences, so few people probably pick them. You'll likely be the only winner if you hit on 1,2,3,4,5;6, (or any other sequence), and your odds of winning are still the same as any non-sequence picks; it's always 1 in 175,711,536.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19901 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 2:18 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Cautious on March 13, 2012

RJOh, You've hit on a key misunderstanding about the odds of winning. Lets start with something concrete; the odds of winning the Mega Million lotto is 1 in 175,711,536.

The odds don't change if you pick a sequence of numbers (7,8,9,10,11; 12 for example), or pick random numbers (19, 25, 29, 33, 51; 18 for example). This is not my opinion, it is fact and reality. If you'd like to hear it from an authority I suggest you check with a casino in Los Vegas - they do not loose money, that's because they understand the odds.

However, there might be a very very small advantage to picking sequences of numbers. A sequence will not change your odds of winning, but it might improve the odds a tiny bit that if you win you'll not have to share the pot. That's because many people have the same misbelief that the odds are not as good if you pick sequences, so few people probably pick them. You'll likely be the only winner if you hit on 1,2,3,4,5;6, (or any other sequence), and your odds of winning are still the same as any non-sequence picks; it's always 1 in 175,711,536.

I've read from several sources the combination 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 is the most popular combination played in most lotteries and if it ever hits, there could be hundreds of winners.

I don't eliminate combinations based on their numbers because numbers aren't important the way I generate combinations to play, they are only used to mark the play slips. I doubt if a 5 or 6 sequential numbers combination would ever be generated, but if it was I would probably play it because I've been happy with the results of picking combinations this way up to now.

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

Economy class Belgium Member #123700 February 27, 2012 4035 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 2:54 pm - IP Logged

Where does the strategy come from? Comparing odds to history, or using the history and simply analyse it? The non lotteryposter will probably play quickpicks only, or just the same combinations until death puts him apart from the lottery.

Some believe in math and statistics so much, that they are unable to imagine a different outcome than E(X). Let met put this straight, odds are averages!

If you check out the Belgian Keno, you will find 1 to 6 several times, in pick 6 it would have paid 200 every time. Combined with a different number for pick 7th, it would have brought 15*3000 plus the 6/7's, every time. So far for Gail Howard's book tip not to play 1 to 6. Same for hot groups or playing only cold odd numbers for example.

Every combination has a chance, some pay off more often!

Ventura California United States Member #124382 March 12, 2012 12 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 3:03 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on March 13, 2012

I've read from several sources the combination 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 is the most popular combination played in most lotteries and if it ever hits, there could be hundreds of winners.

I don't eliminate combinations based on their numbers because numbers aren't important the way I generate combinations to play, they are only used to mark the play slips. I doubt if a 5 or 6 sequential numbers combination would ever be generated, but if it was I would probably play it because I've been happy with the results of picking combinations this way up to now.

That is certainly possible, but I could not find any such info on the web. I did find a statement on a State Lotto website that indicates that few people pick their own numbers, most use quick pick. Winners using self pick or quick pick are proportional to how many tickets each buys. So if 1 thousand people buy a quick pick for every 1 that buys a self pick, over time there will be 1 self pick winner for every 1000 quick pick winners. The odds are simple statistics.

Would you please identify your sources re 1,2,3,4,5 and 6.

Ventura California United States Member #124382 March 12, 2012 12 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 3:09 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Scott311 on March 12, 2012

Great first post! Since you don't believe that winning is possible is it safe to say that this will be your last post on this forum? I hope so.....

I never said that I don't believe winning is possible. Obviously there are winners. I'm sorry if facts and reality upset you. Don't take it personally, it's just life.

Ventura California United States Member #124382 March 12, 2012 12 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 6:21 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on March 13, 2012

Cautious,

How about a wager between you and me.

You pick the game and the state, Pick 5, 6, or multi-state 5 + 1.

I'll pay you $1 every time all numbers in sequence hit, you pay me $1 every time the winning numbers are not in sequence.

Bet?

Naw, I didn't think so.

PS,

Almost everybody here at LP knows not to play 1 2 3 4 5 6 because if it did hit it would indeed bre split many ways.

Coin Toss,

The casino owners would laugh at you for suggesting such a bet. They understand that there are far more non-sequenced numbers. The bet you're suggesting is like asking that someone bet on 10 numbers for $1 and you'll bet on a 100,000 numbers for $1. Let's see now who should win most often - daa?

The casinos would suggest that you pay proportional to the number of plays; $100,000 for your bet on 100,000 numbers and they pay $10 for their bet on 10 numbers. Then they only need to win 1 in every 10,000 bets to break even. They understand the odds. In the real lotto world, your odds of winning increase based on the number of plays you pay for. You're suggesting that you should get 10s of thousands of free plays compared to what your offering me.

What I've been saying is that the odds of any one play, is the same odds as any other one play, regardless of the sequence non-sequence of the numbers. Ditto for 100,000 plays.

Dallas, Texas United States Member #4549 May 2, 2004 1838 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 7:20 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Cautious on March 13, 2012

Coin Toss,

The casino owners would laugh at you for suggesting such a bet. They understand that there are far more non-sequenced numbers. The bet you're suggesting is like asking that someone bet on 10 numbers for $1 and you'll bet on a 100,000 numbers for $1. Let's see now who should win most often - daa?

The casinos would suggest that you pay proportional to the number of plays; $100,000 for your bet on 100,000 numbers and they pay $10 for their bet on 10 numbers. Then they only need to win 1 in every 10,000 bets to break even. They understand the odds. In the real lotto world, your odds of winning increase based on the number of plays you pay for. You're suggesting that you should get 10s of thousands of free plays compared to what your offering me.

What I've been saying is that the odds of any one play, is the same odds as any other one play, regardless of the sequence non-sequence of the numbers. Ditto for 100,000 plays.

You've just explained why your point it moot.

You suggest breaking the entire matrix into two subsets.

Set one being consecutive sequence combinations/permutations.

Set two being non-consecutive sequence combinations/permutations.

At this point you defeat the purpose of deriving the subsets by stating the odds of the overall matrix.

Like RJOh and CT have both stated, once you divide the matrix into a large pool (non-consecutive), and a small pool (consecutive sequence) the odds changed.

Are the odds the same for any combination?

Yes, as long as you compare one combination/permutation to the entire matrix.

Are the odds the same for any combination of either set?

No. The larger set (non-consecutive) has a greater probability of occurring.

Mathematically you are comparing camels and kangaroos.

Breaking the matrix into smaller sets changes the odds for each set. Especially when one set like, non-consecutive, vastly outnumber the smaller set, consecutivesequences.

My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"