New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: April 17, 2012, 8:16 pm - IP Logged

That's because there are more numbers that are not consecutive than numbers that are consecutive.

So any specific combo is not affected by your statistic. It it irrelevent, if your goal is to win prizes more often. Seems like a silly goal to me, though, because spending lots of money to win small prizes doesn't seem like something productive.

And consecutive numbers can be randomly drawn, and are drawn, very close to how often probability dictates they should.

Of course it's more likely to have some high and some low, but that's because more combinations exist that are both than just one. For example, in the Pick 3, there are 125 all high, 125 all low, 750 that have both. You'r logic would dictate that it's better to pick from the group that has both, but the reason this logic is flawed is because even though you're "group" will come out 75% of the time, and those times you have a "1 in 750" shot of winning, 25% of the time you have no chance of winning, and this works out so that no matter what number you pick, all high, all low, some of each, your odds of winning are exactly 1 in 1000.

This same math can be applied to the big jackpot games, to show that every single combination is just as likely as any other, but it is much more complex, so I don't want to work it out, especially something that any mathmetician or even average person, can tell you. A random event has no regard for whether it picks numbers consecutively. It just picks.... randomly. The sums, the high/low, the spread, all of this information is irrelevent. (Well, you could increase expected value by picking numbers that you don't think other people would, to decrease your probability of sharing the jackpot, if you win)

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: April 17, 2012, 8:55 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on April 17, 2012

That's because there are more numbers that are not consecutive than numbers that are consecutive.

So any specific combo is not affected by your statistic. It it irrelevent, if your goal is to win prizes more often. Seems like a silly goal to me, though, because spending lots of money to win small prizes doesn't seem like something productive.

And consecutive numbers can be randomly drawn, and are drawn, very close to how often probability dictates they should.

Of course it's more likely to have some high and some low, but that's because more combinations exist that are both than just one. For example, in the Pick 3, there are 125 all high, 125 all low, 750 that have both. You'r logic would dictate that it's better to pick from the group that has both, but the reason this logic is flawed is because even though you're "group" will come out 75% of the time, and those times you have a "1 in 750" shot of winning, 25% of the time you have no chance of winning, and this works out so that no matter what number you pick, all high, all low, some of each, your odds of winning are exactly 1 in 1000.

This same math can be applied to the big jackpot games, to show that every single combination is just as likely as any other, but it is much more complex, so I don't want to work it out, especially something that any mathmetician or even average person, can tell you. A random event has no regard for whether it picks numbers consecutively. It just picks.... randomly. The sums, the high/low, the spread, all of this information is irrelevent. (Well, you could increase expected value by picking numbers that you don't think other people would, to decrease your probability of sharing the jackpot, if you win)

The object is to match winning lines as closely as possible. If 70% of winning lines can be categorized by parameters, the question on everyone's mind should be how many lines are in that pool compared to the whole universe of that game. As I said earlier, if the pool is 70% of the total in order to win 70% of the time it is obviously meaningless. But if the pool is as low as 30% of the total it would be a valuable tool.

In other words, even though you give up winning 30% of the time, you would be betting on 70% fewer lines. On a 175,000 line bet you would effectively increase your odds from 1 in 1000 to around 1 in 300. minus the fact of losing a given 30% of the time would still keep the odds down around 1 in 400. Twice to projected wins betting the same number of lines. Not the same lines, but the same number of lines.

New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: April 17, 2012, 9:49 pm - IP Logged

There is no pool of 30% of lottery combinations that show a 70% probability of occuring. That's because of the nature of the game, where each ball has equal chances, and unless you can prove that there are extra of certain balls, certain balls are missing, or there is some non-random chacterisitic of the drawing process, then all of the combinations must have the same probability.

I don't know what pool of numbers you're talking about that only contain 30% of the combinations, but occur 70% of the time. That's inconsistent.

Texas United States Member #86154 January 30, 2010 1649 Posts Offline

Posted: April 17, 2012, 10:32 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on April 17, 2012

There is no pool of 30% of lottery combinations that show a 70% probability of occuring. That's because of the nature of the game, where each ball has equal chances, and unless you can prove that there are extra of certain balls, certain balls are missing, or there is some non-random chacterisitic of the drawing process, then all of the combinations must have the same probability.

I don't know what pool of numbers you're talking about that only contain 30% of the combinations, but occur 70% of the time. That's inconsistent.

This is where it's at. There's no prejudice when it comes to these drawings strictly due to the nature of the process by which it's done. One theory tells a person that with (56) balls involved with this game, not one of them could be drawn again in the next draw...and in the same position. Guess what? It happens all the time, right? Even better, look at how the very lowest and highest number is drawn, and, this is with soooo many balls to choose from. When those balls are tumbling 'round and 'round, absolutely anything can and does happen.

This is why Lucky has a nice light little drink, then heads to the store and says, "Five Quick Picks, please...and give me the payments." When I've left the store, I'm very comfortable knowing I've done everything I can to win and have just as good of a shot at it as the guy in front me that spent $325...literally.

New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: April 18, 2012, 11:30 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on April 17, 2012

That's not stupidty. That's math. The odds of getting four kings in 4 cards is 1[(4/52)(3/51)(2/50)(1/49)/24] or 1 in 6,497,400. The odds of drawing a 7 of clubs, 10 of diamonds, Ace of Spades and 4 of hearts is also 1 in 6,497,400.

Of course, if you're saying that the odds of drawing the specific hand of 4 kings is less likely than a hand that looks random and has no value, then yes you're right. But what's the point in that statement? It's like saying that if you buy 50 lottery tickets that only use 10 numbers, you're not likely to win the Jackpot. It's true, but you're not likely to win the Jackpot no matter what you do, and you didn't make it any less likely no matter how you played (unless you bought repeat tickets).

The only way you can conjure up "high frequency" sets of lotto numbers, is by including more numbers in those sets. Therefore, the individual combos within those sets have no higher probability of coming up as any other combo. Of course 1-2-3-4-5/6 is not likely to hit, but since when have you bought a lottery ticket and thought "those numbers look like winners, so I think I'm gonna win"?

That's a logical fallacy, because 1-2-3-4-5/6 is just as likely as 2-14-19-33-42/17, and they are both exetremely unlikely.

I did the math wrong, I did the math wrong. It would be 1/[24/(52/51/50/49)] or 1 in 270,725. Still unlikely.

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: April 19, 2012, 1:21 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on April 17, 2012

There is no pool of 30% of lottery combinations that show a 70% probability of occuring. That's because of the nature of the game, where each ball has equal chances, and unless you can prove that there are extra of certain balls, certain balls are missing, or there is some non-random chacterisitic of the drawing process, then all of the combinations must have the same probability.

I don't know what pool of numbers you're talking about that only contain 30% of the combinations, but occur 70% of the time. That's inconsistent.

Great, I'm glad your absolutely certain. Does this mean you can show me the 2 graph charts that look exactly the same? You know, the first graph chart showing the line total distribution of all 3.9 million lines in the 5/56 MM game. And the second graph chart showing the line total distribution of the MM drawing results from May, 2002 until the present. With almost 1000 lines drawn, the sample size should be plenty big enough. If the odds and probabilities are exactly the same in both groups, then the charts will both look exactly the same.

PS. line total = total of all numbers in a line. 1,2,3,4,5 = 15..... 52,53,54,55,56 = 270..... 146 = the mean

The Ville, FL United States Member #95879 August 19, 2010 1708 Posts Offline

Posted: April 19, 2012, 4:00 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on April 15, 2012

I want to spend around $500. on a single Mega drew. Should I use 500 different sets of numbers with a single favorite Mega number, or use 10 sets of numbers and all 46 mega numbers with each?

The person who would probably be happy to give an opinion on this would be "Thrifty"...Thrifty LOVES spending his entire paycheck on every lottery draw.

NEW YORK United States Member #90535 April 29, 2010 11982 Posts Offline

Posted: April 19, 2012, 5:23 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on April 15, 2012

I want to spend around $500. on a single Mega drew. Should I use 500 different sets of numbers with a single favorite Mega number, or use 10 sets of numbers and all 46 mega numbers with each?

THE LOTTERY 50/50 RULE=PLAYING THE LOTTERY IS A WIN/LOSE SITUATION NO MATTER HOW MANY TICKETS WE BUY.

New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: April 19, 2012, 11:50 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on April 19, 2012

Great, I'm glad your absolutely certain. Does this mean you can show me the 2 graph charts that look exactly the same? You know, the first graph chart showing the line total distribution of all 3.9 million lines in the 5/56 MM game. And the second graph chart showing the line total distribution of the MM drawing results from May, 2002 until the present. With almost 1000 lines drawn, the sample size should be plenty big enough. If the odds and probabilities are exactly the same in both groups, then the charts will both look exactly the same.

PS. line total = total of all numbers in a line. 1,2,3,4,5 = 15..... 52,53,54,55,56 = 270..... 146 = the mean

That's not true. With odds near 175 million, even most characteristics wouldn't be at a sufficient sample size to expect it to match the probability. I'm not doing the math for how long it would take to be 99% certain that the sample mean should match the theoreitical mean, unless something was wrong. It'd take to long, and I know it's a fruitless effort. It'd probably be 10s of thousands of draws, if not more.

In any case, my advice to you is simple. If you don't mind risking the money, try to INCREASE your variance, by picking one, or a few mega balls. That way, if you win, it'll likely be a more substancial amount. Instead of winning a sure 40ish back, you will have a smaller chance of actually making money on this one draw.

If the draws are random the charts, shouldn't look exactly the same, but after enough drawings, they should be close.

I'm not going to argue about whether or not the lottery is random. Good lucking trying to find out it isn't. I just hope you don't blow a bunch of money trying to find that. Even if you did prove it, bankroll growth would take some math to find, so do your research. I think if you do, you'd find there are gambles that actually have a net positive expected gain, but they are almost never lottery related.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3474 Posts Offline

Posted: April 20, 2012, 1:26 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on April 17, 2012

The object is to match winning lines as closely as possible. If 70% of winning lines can be categorized by parameters, the question on everyone's mind should be how many lines are in that pool compared to the whole universe of that game. As I said earlier, if the pool is 70% of the total in order to win 70% of the time it is obviously meaningless. But if the pool is as low as 30% of the total it would be a valuable tool.

In other words, even though you give up winning 30% of the time, you would be betting on 70% fewer lines. On a 175,000 line bet you would effectively increase your odds from 1 in 1000 to around 1 in 300. minus the fact of losing a given 30% of the time would still keep the odds down around 1 in 400. Twice to projected wins betting the same number of lines. Not the same lines, but the same number of lines.

"The object is to match winning lines as closely as possible"

That's among the stupidest things that lottery players believe, and that's saying a lot. The object is to match winning numbers exactly. You don't win squat for having numbers that are close, or have similar parameters. The odds of drawing a 1 are exactly the same as drawing a 34, the odds of drawing a 2 are exactly the same as drawing a 26, and soon. Every combination has exactly the same chance of being drawn, whetehr you understand how it works or not.

On the upside, since every combination has exactly the same odds making your choices based on your failure to understand the math won't reduce your chances.

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: April 20, 2012, 10:50 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on April 20, 2012

"The object is to match winning lines as closely as possible"

That's among the stupidest things that lottery players believe, and that's saying a lot. The object is to match winning numbers exactly. You don't win squat for having numbers that are close, or have similar parameters. The odds of drawing a 1 are exactly the same as drawing a 34, the odds of drawing a 2 are exactly the same as drawing a 26, and soon. Every combination has exactly the same chance of being drawn, whetehr you understand how it works or not.

On the upside, since every combination has exactly the same odds making your choices based on your failure to understand the math won't reduce your chances.

Not everyone has an obsession to "match the winning numbers exactly" on one single ticket or has a "stop limit" of 5 tickets. Some of us can see that certain number combinations are FEWER and therefore are LESS LIKELY to be drawn.

For example: one and only one line adds up to 16. There are 1.8 million lines that add up to 166.

I suppose if you had 40,000 years to play the game, "Every combination has exactly the same chance of being drawn" and if you were betting on that one lone line you may have to wait for the cycle 2-3 times before it actually is drawn, so you could be waiting 120,000 years for that one lone line while the MORE LIKELY lines are repeating themselves.

In reality it would take 10,000 years for higher probability lines to start repeating, but they change the game every few years just to be on the safe side.

Its ok though, just keep taking your medication and you will be fine.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3474 Posts Offline

Posted: April 20, 2012, 2:17 pm - IP Logged

"one and only one line adds up to 16. There are 1.8 million lines that add up to 166."

How much do you win for playing a line that adds up to 166 when not a single number matches the numbers that are drawn?

"Some of us can see that certain number combinations are FEWER and therefore are LESS LIKELY to be drawn."

And those of us who are smarter can see that there is exactly one instance of each combination. Another strings of numbers may add up to the same sum, but it will be a different, and unique, combination. For MM there are a total of 175,711,536 unique combinations, and each one has a 1 in 175,711,536 chance of being drawn, regardless of what the individual numbers add up to.

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

Posted: April 20, 2012, 7:38 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie316,

Here is a very small lottery game. Do you think you have more of a chance by selecting one of the "lines" listed under "10" then a line selected under "3" or "17"?

Do you think the lines listed under "10" have a better chance of winning than any other line?

The "10" corresponds to the "143" in the MM game.

Here is a "sums chart" for a drop ball Lottery Game using 9 balls. 2/9 odds 1:36. The sums chart list all 36 combinations.