mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19830 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 8:06 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Cautious on March 13, 2012

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.

Sorry I don't remember any of those sources, just general reading about lotteries. Didn't seem worthy of knowing at the time since I never play such a combination.

I do however remember reading that 70-80% of all lottery tickets are quick picks in the Q&A section on the PB website and consequently so are the winners.

Players picking their own numbers have successful strategies that some times make no sense like the two guys from W.Va who recently picked a PB combination, played it seven times with powerplay, matched 5of5 and won $14M.

* 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, 8:54 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on March 13, 2012

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.

garyo1954,

It's not clear to me what you are suggesting. I was saying that if you pick a large set of numbers your odds of being correct are higher than if you pick a small set of numbers. But to play all those in the large set of numbers it will cost you more $$$. Ever dollar played increases your chances of winning. What don't you agree with here?

Using the mega millions lotto as an example, the calculated odds of winning are posted as 1 in 175,711,536. Are you trying to tell us that the odds are different depending on which numbers you pick, because a given play can be arbitrarily categorized into a large or small set? The only set that matters is the 175,711,536 different possible plays. Remember that all the lotto numbers could be replaced with pictures of things and the picture-lotto game odds of picking the right pictures would still be 1 in 175,711,536, no mattter which pictures you picked or how you could categorize them. That's the nature and definition of random selections.

Dallas, Texas United States Member #4549 May 2, 2004 1732 Posts Online

Posted: March 13, 2012, 9:38 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on March 13, 2012

Sorry I don't remember any of those sources, just general reading about lotteries. Didn't seem worthy of knowing at the time since I never play such a combination.

I do however remember reading that 70-80% of all lottery tickets are quick picks in the Q&A section on the PB website and consequently so are the winners.

Players picking their own numbers have successful strategies that some times make no sense like the two guys from W.Va who recently picked a PB combination, played it seven times with powerplay, matched 5of5 and won $14M.

RJOh,

There are several references online.

Ian Saliu wrote an in depth discussion on this combination to describe the difference between probability and degree of certainty.

Camelot, the corporation who operates the UK National Lottery released the most common combinations played. No surprise. 1,2,3,4,5,6 was, quoting from an online source (which can be found by typing 1-2-3-4-5-6 into any search engine), "if I recall correctly, at some stage there were about 10,000 tickets purchased for each Lotto draw containing this combination."

That article goes on to list two reasons that combination is one you should never play.

That's two.

Cautious,

I don't know know how to make it any clearer. As long as you are comparing camels to camels, in other words, a combination against the matrix, your premise works.

When you break the matrix into subsets you change the rules. You are comparing camels (small set) versus kangaroos (large set). Your small set has 48 combinations.

Your large set has (13,983,815 - 48).

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!"

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

Posted: March 13, 2012, 9:48 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on March 13, 2012

RJOh,

There are several references online.

Ian Saliu wrote an in depth discussion on this combination to describe the difference between probability and degree of certainty.

Camelot, the corporation who operates the UK National Lottery released the most common combinations played. No surprise. 1,2,3,4,5,6 was, quoting from an online source (which can be found by typing 1-2-3-4-5-6 into any search engine), "if I recall correctly, at some stage there were about 10,000 tickets purchased for each Lotto draw containing this combination."

That article goes on to list two reasons that combination is one you should never play.

That's two.

Cautious,

I don't know know how to make it any clearer. As long as you are comparing camels to camels, in other words, a combination against the matrix, your premise works.

When you break the matrix into subsets you change the rules. You are comparing camels (small set) versus kangaroos (large set). Your small set has 48 combinations.

Your large set has (13,983,815 - 48).

garyo1954,

Maybe we actually agree. The calculated odds of winning Mega Million Lotto are posted as 1 in 175,711,536. How we define arbitrarily categorize doesn't matter. The only category that matters is the able.one with 175,711,536 possibilities. Those are the real odds when you put down your $ or $$$. There are no camels, only 175,711,536 choices - each and every one is equally a probable winner.

Zeta Reticuli Star System United States Member #30470 January 17, 2006 10353 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 9:49 pm - IP Logged

Cautious,

Yeah, I'm very aware of what casino owners would do. (17 years in Vegas and five on river boats). If you think they're that 'sporting' consider Caribbean Stud. What are the odds of being dealt a five card royal, and what's the average progressive jackpot?

As for the sequential nnumbers, posted by garyo1954:

Camelot, the corporation who operates the UK National Lottery released the most common combinations played. No surprise. 1,2,3,4,5,6 was, quoting from an online source (which can be found by typing 1-2-3-4-5-6 into any search engine), "if I recall correctly, at some stage there were about 10,000 tickets purchased for each Lotto draw containing this combination."

I don't think the idea of playing lotto is to split winnings like that.

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.

NASHVILLE, TENN United States Member #33372 February 20, 2006 1044 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 10:12 pm - IP Logged

Everyone here knows what the "odds" are and that odds never change. That is (or should be) a given.

What most of us do here is go beyond the odds. We go beyond the math and statistics. We go where angels fear to tread. We do into the unknown and the unprovable.

When we do, we tend to twist the meaning of words because there are no words to describe where we are or where we might be going.

So when a poster says " eliminate 5 numbers and your odds will move away from zero and toward one", we are not dismissing the mathematical odds. We are simply trying to describe why we are doing what we did.

cleveland ohio United States Member #65897 October 9, 2008 275 Posts Offline

Posted: March 13, 2012, 10:30 pm - IP Logged

using another post I in probably in 10 minutes of looking at some numbers the distribution of those numbers hit 2 of 5 in a 3/39 game on this site late last night today in a 5/39 game. The odds were the same every ticket yes as the odds of 1-2-3-4-5 being drawn the difference was I won money with the pair 3-19 the player using 1-2-3-4-5 lost.

Your assumtion is based on the fact that a player would make 1 (one) single pick per draw which isnt the normal case for most players that pick their own numbers. So you have stated that 1=1 whats the purpose or point?

Here lets make this more interesting Ill bet you 1 free play on the Ohio Rolling cash 5 its a 5/39 game no bonus.

You get the numbers 1-2-3-4-5

I get the numbers 4-16-27-32-36

Odds are the same we should win close to the same amount so if you end up ahead after a years draws Ill buy you the ticket 1-2-3-4-5 in the amount of draws you are ahead of me by.

If I end up ahead you pay me the amount Im over you by or buy me the tickets and we get to keep the winnings.

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

Posted: March 14, 2012, 12:01 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by nickbrownsfan on March 13, 2012

using another post I in probably in 10 minutes of looking at some numbers the distribution of those numbers hit 2 of 5 in a 3/39 game on this site late last night today in a 5/39 game. The odds were the same every ticket yes as the odds of 1-2-3-4-5 being drawn the difference was I won money with the pair 3-19 the player using 1-2-3-4-5 lost.

Your assumtion is based on the fact that a player would make 1 (one) single pick per draw which isnt the normal case for most players that pick their own numbers. So you have stated that 1=1 whats the purpose or point?

Here lets make this more interesting Ill bet you 1 free play on the Ohio Rolling cash 5 its a 5/39 game no bonus.

You get the numbers 1-2-3-4-5

I get the numbers 4-16-27-32-36

Odds are the same we should win close to the same amount so if you end up ahead after a years draws Ill buy you the ticket 1-2-3-4-5 in the amount of draws you are ahead of me by.

If I end up ahead you pay me the amount Im over you by or buy me the tickets and we get to keep the winnings.

nickbrownsfan,

Thanks for the offer, but you missed my point.

My point is that each and every playis equally a probable winner, and placing numbers into arbitrary subsets has no impact on the odds.

Here's an example. The numbers you would select 4-16-27-32-36 = 115. If we take all the plays that would add up to 115 we could call them a subset; an arbitrary subset that we defined, which has no impact on the odds. But we could also say you are less likely to win with this subset than with numbers that are not in this subset, because there are more numbers that are not in this 115 subset. So if you want better odds you should pick all of the plays that don't add up to 115. We can arbitrarily make up a subset for any numbers you want to choose, and it will have less numbers in it than the plays that are not in the subset. Buy more plays and you increase the probability of a win, it's that simple.

So if you can logically explain why you think your picks are exceptional and better than any other picks I'd like to hear it. Think of the numbers as random pictures of squiggly lines. Then ask yourself, why would the squiggly lines that look like12345be less likely to win than the squiggly lines that look like416273236? Certainly the lotto selection process doesn't know one from the other.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7318 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2012, 2:39 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Cautious on March 14, 2012

nickbrownsfan,

Thanks for the offer, but you missed my point.

My point is that each and every playis equally a probable winner, and placing numbers into arbitrary subsets has no impact on the odds.

Here's an example. The numbers you would select 4-16-27-32-36 = 115. If we take all the plays that would add up to 115 we could call them a subset; an arbitrary subset that we defined, which has no impact on the odds. But we could also say you are less likely to win with this subset than with numbers that are not in this subset, because there are more numbers that are not in this 115 subset. So if you want better odds you should pick all of the plays that don't add up to 115. We can arbitrarily make up a subset for any numbers you want to choose, and it will have less numbers in it than the plays that are not in the subset. Buy more plays and you increase the probability of a win, it's that simple.

So if you can logically explain why you think your picks are exceptional and better than any other picks I'd like to hear it. Think of the numbers as random pictures of squiggly lines. Then ask yourself, why would the squiggly lines that look like12345be less likely to win than the squiggly lines that look like416273236? Certainly the lotto selection process doesn't know one from the other.

"My point is that each and every playis equally a probable winner, and placing numbers into arbitrary subsets has no impact on the odds."

You're making it sound like people are just playing to beat the odds when their eye is on the prize. Gary mentioned 10,000 players picked 1-2-3-4-5+6 so it's reasonable to expect 200 tickets will have that combo in the next $200 million MM drawing. Nobody is saying any other one combo has better odds of winning, but everyone of them will get a better payoff.

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

Posted: March 14, 2012, 4:10 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on March 14, 2012

"My point is that each and every playis equally a probable winner, and placing numbers into arbitrary subsets has no impact on the odds."

You're making it sound like people are just playing to beat the odds when their eye is on the prize. Gary mentioned 10,000 players picked 1-2-3-4-5+6 so it's reasonable to expect 200 tickets will have that combo in the next $200 million MM drawing. Nobody is saying any other one combo has better odds of winning, but everyone of them will get a better payoff.

Stack47. Thank you. I agree with the first part of your post.

Knowing that some numbers are often played, we could avioid those numbers and have a better chance of not having to split the pot if we do win. Does anyone have a list of the most popular plays?

Re your comment that "Nobody is saying any other one combo has better odds of winning". I think you'll find in this chain at least one posting saying that one number combo has better odds, for example nickbrownsfan post below. He sure sounds like he thinks a sequence of numbers is less likely to win than his pick. I guess he also doesn't understand that the results of a few draws will not prove anything, if he won or I won.

Here lets make this more interesting Ill bet you 1 free play on the Ohio Rolling cash 5 its a 5/39 game no bonus.

You get the numbers 1-2-3-4-5

I get the numbers 4-16-27-32-36

Odds are the same we should win close to the same amount so if you end up ahead after a years draws Ill buy you the ticket 1-2-3-4-5 in the amount of draws you are ahead of me by.

If I end up ahead you pay me the amount Im over you by or buy me the tickets and we get to keep the winnings.

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

Posted: March 14, 2012, 4:13 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by GASMETERGUY on March 13, 2012

Everyone here knows what the "odds" are and that odds never change. That is (or should be) a given.

What most of us do here is go beyond the odds. We go beyond the math and statistics. We go where angels fear to tread. We do into the unknown and the unprovable.

When we do, we tend to twist the meaning of words because there are no words to describe where we are or where we might be going.

So when a poster says " eliminate 5 numbers and your odds will move away from zero and toward one", we are not dismissing the mathematical odds. We are simply trying to describe why we are doing what we did.

When you can't eliminate or select your numbers, then mix them all in the blender and poor them into a form. All the winning numbers will be in that form.

Appleton, Wi United States Member #118178 October 24, 2011 199 Posts Offline

Posted: March 14, 2012, 5:51 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.

A Very Small Lottery Game: 2/12 odds 1:66

Choose 2 different numbers from 1 through 12.

No QUICK PICK available at this time.

Choose how many draws you want. Each ticket costs nothing

No BusterBall available but always double check playslip.

To help here is a "SUMS CHART" starting at "3" and ending at "23". Under each are listed all possible winning combinations.