Welcome Guest
You last visited January 21, 2017, 1:14 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Odds on Misinformation

Topic closed. 60 replies. Last post 5 years ago by nickbrownsfan.

 Page 1 of 5
New Member
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 with your opinion, but, but how everything is 80/20, because we get 20%? Or is it only looking at the bell curve is where its central range of 80% of the draws, because going against   The tide?, Play sequence numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6, play well, it's like in indianapolis race against the direction of the race, we also have positions, example of a lottery 49/6 The numbers 01,02,03,04 numca will never be the 5th and 6th place, understand! 80% of the repetitions   Are within the central belt of the highest probabilities, now small segments of sequence type 1,2,3, good it can be used, but the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6, I will not play

N.C.
United States
Member #59229
March 9, 2008
327 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 12, 2012, 10:25 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.

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 ..

New Mexico
United States
Member #86099
January 29, 2010
11166 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 12, 2012, 10:57 pm - IP Logged

Well, I think it was the NM roadrunner cash that had 1 2 3 4 5 .  A couple of years back.  Anything can happen.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19901 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 3:09 am - 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.

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 *

New Member
Ventura California
United States
Member #124382
March 12, 2012
12 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 1:24 pm - IP Logged

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

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!

New Member
Ventura California
United States
Member #124382
March 12, 2012
12 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 3:03 pm - IP Logged

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.

New Member
Ventura California
United States
Member #124382
March 12, 2012
12 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 3:09 pm - IP Logged

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.

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10391 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 5:37 pm - IP Logged

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.

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
Ventura California
United States
Member #124382
March 12, 2012
12 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 6:21 pm - IP Logged

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.

Appleton, Wi
United States
Member #118178
October 24, 2011
199 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 7:11 pm - IP Logged

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:

Wisconsin SuperCash is a 6/39 game with odds of 1:3,904,701. Think this is a list of all possible numerical sequential draws:

1-2-3-4-5-6

6-7-8-9-10-11

11-12-13-14-15-16

17-18-19-20-21-22

22-23-23-25-26-27

28-29-30-31-32-33

34-35-36-37-38-39

All others draws not in sequence.

BlueDuck

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1838 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 7:20 pm - IP Logged

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, consecutive sequences.

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!"

 Page 1 of 5