Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 18, 2017, 11:21 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Do some number combinations have better odds?

Topic closed. 5280 replies. Last post 4 years ago by rdgrnr.

Page 232 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 10, 2013, 10:48 am - IP Logged

That Insidious Innumeracy is bothering me again.........


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 10, 2013, 11:31 am - IP Logged

    If I give up my chances of winning on some draws to get BETTER ODDS on others, is it still BETTER ODDS?

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      19898 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 10, 2013, 11:39 am - IP Logged

      If I give up my chances of winning on some draws to get BETTER ODDS on others, is it still BETTER ODDS?

      If you've been tracking your results then the sums of your wins compared with the amounts you spent should tell you even if you haven't won a jackpot yet.

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

        Avatar
        Kentucky
        United States
        Member #32652
        February 14, 2006
        7342 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 10, 2013, 4:20 pm - IP Logged

        If you bet on 5 numbers, then you can win on any of those 5.

         

        The odds of you winning are 5/38 or 33 to lose and 5 to win.

         

        For example, betting individually on the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 is 32 to 6 and pays out 5 to 1 (which is the same as 30 to 6.)  This gives an edge of 5.26%.  The math is simple, and sound.  There is no difference between placing 1 dollar on each of these individually or betting on the 6 by placing your bet on the outer edge of the field of numbers.  That should be common sense.

         

        I didn't use 5 numbers for the example because the 5 number bet on a roulette wheel gets shortpaid due to rounding.  The principle is the same.  Sure, only one of your bets can win, but you've placed five.  So the correct way to calculate the odds are 33 lose and 5 win for you.  So 33:5 against you winning, which will be paid at 31:5 if you win.

        "Sure, only one of your bets can win, but you've placed five."

        First you said it's impossible to change the odds but after I demonstrated how making four additional bets lowers the number of chances against and does change the odds against winning, you're now saying if I make two bets, the odds are lowered to 18 to 1 as if 18 of the possible losing outcomes magically disappeared. It's an accumulative effect because the odds against any of the five numbers winning is still 37 to 1. The reduction can only be on the number of losing outcomes because only one number can win. Five players individually won't get better odds making the same five $1 bets.

        By making that type of bet, four of those bets will always lose. The odds against the first bet winning are 37 to 1 and the odds against the second bet becomes 36 to 1 because even though the first bet eliminated one of the losing outcomes, there is still only one way the second bet can win. Because the second bet eliminated one of the losing outcomes against the first bet, those odds against winning are reduced to 36 to 1 too. By making five bets, the odds against any one of the five bets winning is 33 to 1.

        "So 33:5 against you winning, which will be paid at 31:5 if you win."

        The house determines the payoff odds by the accumulative effect whether it's by five players each making five different $1 bets each having odds of 37 to 1 or one player making five different $1 bets. The probability of house winning that bet is the number of chances to win (33) compared to the total number of losing chances (5) and a 84.8% chance of winning. The house pays off at 6.2 to 1 when the payoff should be 6.6 to 1 and the difference becomes the house edge.

        If one player bets $5 on the first five numbers (0, 00, 1, 2, and 3) and wins, they are paid off at 6 to 1 or a net win of $30. If another player puts $1 on each of those 5 numbers and wins, they are paid off at 35 to 1 or a net win of $31. The first five numbers is the one bet on a roulette layout the house will gladly accept all day long because it raises the house edge from 5.26% to 7.89%.

        I'm not disputing your numbers, just pointing out while the accumulative bets changes the overall effect, it doesn't make any of the 33 losing chances magically disappear. I'm sure Jimmy can't wait to jump in with his presentation of the Gambler's Fallacy.


          United States
          Member #124493
          March 14, 2012
          7023 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 10, 2013, 5:08 pm - IP Logged

          "Sure, only one of your bets can win, but you've placed five."

          First you said it's impossible to change the odds but after I demonstrated how making four additional bets lowers the number of chances against and does change the odds against winning, you're now saying if I make two bets, the odds are lowered to 18 to 1 as if 18 of the possible losing outcomes magically disappeared. It's an accumulative effect because the odds against any of the five numbers winning is still 37 to 1. The reduction can only be on the number of losing outcomes because only one number can win. Five players individually won't get better odds making the same five $1 bets.

          By making that type of bet, four of those bets will always lose. The odds against the first bet winning are 37 to 1 and the odds against the second bet becomes 36 to 1 because even though the first bet eliminated one of the losing outcomes, there is still only one way the second bet can win. Because the second bet eliminated one of the losing outcomes against the first bet, those odds against winning are reduced to 36 to 1 too. By making five bets, the odds against any one of the five bets winning is 33 to 1.

          "So 33:5 against you winning, which will be paid at 31:5 if you win."

          The house determines the payoff odds by the accumulative effect whether it's by five players each making five different $1 bets each having odds of 37 to 1 or one player making five different $1 bets. The probability of house winning that bet is the number of chances to win (33) compared to the total number of losing chances (5) and a 84.8% chance of winning. The house pays off at 6.2 to 1 when the payoff should be 6.6 to 1 and the difference becomes the house edge.

          If one player bets $5 on the first five numbers (0, 00, 1, 2, and 3) and wins, they are paid off at 6 to 1 or a net win of $30. If another player puts $1 on each of those 5 numbers and wins, they are paid off at 35 to 1 or a net win of $31. The first five numbers is the one bet on a roulette layout the house will gladly accept all day long because it raises the house edge from 5.26% to 7.89%.

          I'm not disputing your numbers, just pointing out while the accumulative bets changes the overall effect, it doesn't make any of the 33 losing chances magically disappear. I'm sure Jimmy can't wait to jump in with his presentation of the Gambler's Fallacy.

          If you can win a jackpot following something fallacious, then so be it.

          There is no measuring the intuitive mind.  You either know fully, partially, or you dont know at all.

          Lotto Flag formation=gamblers fallacy.

          But statistically speaking 100 independent quick picks, have less of a chance of trapping the 5 correct numbers, then do

          two 17 number wheels, that wheels a total of 22 numbers.

          Someone do the math on that one please.


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 10, 2013, 7:52 pm - IP Logged

            If you can win a jackpot following something fallacious, then so be it.

            There is no measuring the intuitive mind.  You either know fully, partially, or you dont know at all.

            Lotto Flag formation=gamblers fallacy.

            But statistically speaking 100 independent quick picks, have less of a chance of trapping the 5 correct numbers, then do

            two 17 number wheels, that wheels a total of 22 numbers.

            Someone do the math on that one please.

            I proved the power of the wheel when I challenged MC using a 46 line 2 if 5 of 56 wheel.

            My wheel has a 3 in 54 chance of hitting a third winning number on the winning line.

            While the QPs have a static 46 in 306 chance of hitting 3 of 5.

              Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
              New Jersey
              United States
              Member #99032
              October 18, 2010
              1439 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 10, 2013, 8:22 pm - IP Logged

              "Sure, only one of your bets can win, but you've placed five."

              First you said it's impossible to change the odds but after I demonstrated how making four additional bets lowers the number of chances against and does change the odds against winning, you're now saying if I make two bets, the odds are lowered to 18 to 1 as if 18 of the possible losing outcomes magically disappeared. It's an accumulative effect because the odds against any of the five numbers winning is still 37 to 1. The reduction can only be on the number of losing outcomes because only one number can win. Five players individually won't get better odds making the same five $1 bets.

              By making that type of bet, four of those bets will always lose. The odds against the first bet winning are 37 to 1 and the odds against the second bet becomes 36 to 1 because even though the first bet eliminated one of the losing outcomes, there is still only one way the second bet can win. Because the second bet eliminated one of the losing outcomes against the first bet, those odds against winning are reduced to 36 to 1 too. By making five bets, the odds against any one of the five bets winning is 33 to 1.

              "So 33:5 against you winning, which will be paid at 31:5 if you win."

              The house determines the payoff odds by the accumulative effect whether it's by five players each making five different $1 bets each having odds of 37 to 1 or one player making five different $1 bets. The probability of house winning that bet is the number of chances to win (33) compared to the total number of losing chances (5) and a 84.8% chance of winning. The house pays off at 6.2 to 1 when the payoff should be 6.6 to 1 and the difference becomes the house edge.

              If one player bets $5 on the first five numbers (0, 00, 1, 2, and 3) and wins, they are paid off at 6 to 1 or a net win of $30. If another player puts $1 on each of those 5 numbers and wins, they are paid off at 35 to 1 or a net win of $31. The first five numbers is the one bet on a roulette layout the house will gladly accept all day long because it raises the house edge from 5.26% to 7.89%.

              I'm not disputing your numbers, just pointing out while the accumulative bets changes the overall effect, it doesn't make any of the 33 losing chances magically disappear. I'm sure Jimmy can't wait to jump in with his presentation of the Gambler's Fallacy.

              The logic in the first two paragraphs is very, very, very flawed.  You can't assume that your odds reduced (per bet) b/c only one will win.  That's simply wrong because the ball only lands once, and then stops.  If it was such that there were multiple, non repeatable results, then your logic would be fine.

               

              I really don't feel like I can explain it any clearer.  The odds of you winning are 5/38 with your example.  That's the same as 33 to 5, not 33 to 1.  There is no difference between putting a chip on 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 or putting 6 chips on the 6way.  No difference at all.

               

              There's the execption for 0,00,1,2 and 3 getting shor paid, so then it'd be better off for you to bet them individually, but that's the only exception.

               

              How can you possibly claim that a 3 dollar bet on 1st Street is any different than 3 1 dollar bets on 1,2 and 3?  (I realize you didn't use those specific details, but mathemtically it's all the same, just smaller numers)

               

              But I'll repeat the point one more time.  It's 33 to 5 because there are 33 ways to lose and 5 to win.  In my example, it is 35 to 3.  I don't see how you could possibly dispute that at all.  And I don't see how you can tell me that I misunderstand the game, when quite clearly 5/38 is 33 to 5 not 33 to 1.

                Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                New Jersey
                United States
                Member #99032
                October 18, 2010
                1439 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 10, 2013, 8:23 pm - IP Logged

                If I give up my chances of winning on some draws to get BETTER ODDS on others, is it still BETTER ODDS?

                No.

                 

                It's exactly the same.  But something tells me you were looking to just post that same sentence for the 150th time in an effort the be the "boss" of Lottery Post.


                  United States
                  Member #116268
                  September 7, 2011
                  20244 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 10, 2013, 8:24 pm - IP Logged

                  The logic in the first two paragraphs is very, very, very flawed.  You can't assume that your odds reduced (per bet) b/c only one will win.  That's simply wrong because the ball only lands once, and then stops.  If it was such that there were multiple, non repeatable results, then your logic would be fine.

                   

                  I really don't feel like I can explain it any clearer.  The odds of you winning are 5/38 with your example.  That's the same as 33 to 5, not 33 to 1.  There is no difference between putting a chip on 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 or putting 6 chips on the 6way.  No difference at all.

                   

                  There's the execption for 0,00,1,2 and 3 getting shor paid, so then it'd be better off for you to bet them individually, but that's the only exception.

                   

                  How can you possibly claim that a 3 dollar bet on 1st Street is any different than 3 1 dollar bets on 1,2 and 3?  (I realize you didn't use those specific details, but mathemtically it's all the same, just smaller numers)

                   

                  But I'll repeat the point one more time.  It's 33 to 5 because there are 33 ways to lose and 5 to win.  In my example, it is 35 to 3.  I don't see how you could possibly dispute that at all.  And I don't see how you can tell me that I misunderstand the game, when quite clearly 5/38 is 33 to 5 not 33 to 1.

                  Wow, thats THREE very-s Stack. Someone here is quite FLAWED............


                    United States
                    Member #116268
                    September 7, 2011
                    20244 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 10, 2013, 8:26 pm - IP Logged

                    No.

                     

                    It's exactly the same.  But something tells me you were looking to just post that same sentence for the 150th time in an effort the be the "boss" of Lottery Post.

                    Is that what I am.... The boss of LP. I never thought of it that way but thanks........Yes Nod


                      United States
                      Member #116268
                      September 7, 2011
                      20244 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 10, 2013, 8:27 pm - IP Logged

                      No.

                       

                      It's exactly the same.  But something tells me you were looking to just post that same sentence for the 150th time in an effort the be the "boss" of Lottery Post.

                      Im sure somehow the odds are the same, but it sure seemed like lots of chances to hit 3 of 5 with my wheel.


                        United States
                        Member #116268
                        September 7, 2011
                        20244 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 10, 2013, 8:41 pm - IP Logged

                        No.

                         

                        It's exactly the same.  But something tells me you were looking to just post that same sentence for the 150th time in an effort the be the "boss" of Lottery Post.

                        I guess I have to take your word for it on this one boney........ 3 in 54 sound BETTER than 46 in 306.

                          RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                          mid-Ohio
                          United States
                          Member #9
                          March 24, 2001
                          19898 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 10, 2013, 8:50 pm - IP Logged

                          If you can win a jackpot following something fallacious, then so be it.

                          There is no measuring the intuitive mind.  You either know fully, partially, or you dont know at all.

                          Lotto Flag formation=gamblers fallacy.

                          But statistically speaking 100 independent quick picks, have less of a chance of trapping the 5 correct numbers, then do

                          two 17 number wheels, that wheels a total of 22 numbers.

                          Someone do the math on that one please.

                          "But statistically speaking 100 independent quick picks, have less of a chance of trapping the 5 correct numbers, then do

                          two 17 number wheels, that wheels a total of 22 numbers.

                          Someone do the math on that one please."

                          If you have the statistics then you have the proof.  There's no way to prove it mathematically.

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


                            United States
                            Member #124493
                            March 14, 2012
                            7023 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 10, 2013, 8:54 pm - IP Logged

                            I want to be boss too!

                            If I give up my chances of winning on some draws to get BETTER ODDS on others, is it still BETTER ODDS?

                             

                            If I give up my chances of winning on some draws to get BETTER ODDS on others, is it still BETTER ODDS? hmm

                            Boney is right.  You cant beat the lottery all the time.  I thank him for pointing out the errors in my ways. I guess I will have better chances at the slot machines.


                              United States
                              Member #124493
                              March 14, 2012
                              7023 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: January 10, 2013, 9:29 pm - IP Logged

                              "But statistically speaking 100 independent quick picks, have less of a chance of trapping the 5 correct numbers, then do

                              two 17 number wheels, that wheels a total of 22 numbers.

                              Someone do the math on that one please."

                              If you have the statistics then you have the proof.  There's no way to prove it mathematically.

                              The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913),[1][2] and also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely.

                                 
                                Page 232 of 353