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

Posted: October 22, 2012, 10:59 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on October 21, 2012

Since your wheel is guaranteed to have 1 two number match and uses every number, your odds are 18 to 1 (3 chances out of 54). 46 QPs could have up to 460 three number combos so divide the number of possible three digit matches (27,720) by 460, The odds of 46 QPs having a three number match are about 60 to 1.

Thanks for helping me clear this up Stack........

mcginnin56 and I had a challenge on the predictions forum for one draw and I tried to explain to him that my 46 lines had much BETTER ODDS of hitting a 3 of 5 than did his smelly QP lines........

My cursory observations was that my odds were around 3 times BETTER......

The contention is still quite sharp as (after losing) he went on to post in his signature that

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7479 Posts Online

Posted: October 23, 2012, 6:43 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on October 22, 2012

Thanks for helping me clear this up Stack........

mcginnin56 and I had a challenge on the predictions forum for one draw and I tried to explain to him that my 46 lines had much BETTER ODDS of hitting a 3 of 5 than did his smelly QP lines........

My cursory observations was that my odds were around 3 times BETTER......

The contention is still quite sharp as (after losing) he went on to post in his signature that

"QP ODDS ARE THE SAME AS SELF-PICK ODDS"........

I believe I made a mistake by reducing the odds to the lowest common denominator when the true odds are much higher. It's really doing "Harry Potter math" by pretending many of the chances against winning magically don't exist. The odds against matching three numbers are 306 to 1 so the usual approach is to divide 306 by the number of tickets played. In this example it would be 306 divided by 46 or 6.65 to 1. Odds should be expressed as chances to lose compared to chances to win so the odds might be expressed as 260 divided by 46 or 5.65 to 1. By doing that we're pretending over 250 of those combos don't exist.

We did the same thing with the 28 number groups saying the odds were 39 to 1. A group of 28 numbers has 98,280 combos but only one of those combos can match the drawing so we can't divide 3,904,701 by 98,280. There is an accumulative value because each of those combos reduces the chances against, but only by one for each combo. The true odds of a group of 28 numbers is 3,806,421 to 1.

The odds of 46 QPs having a five number match is usually done by division too making over 3 million combos against winning magically disappear. If any 46 combos have 46 different lines, only one of those combos can match the drawing, the odds are always "to 1" and the true odds are determined by subtracting 46 from 3,904,701 or 3,904,655 to 1. Thrifty tried to point that out months ago but explained it wrong.

To get a three number match, you must match any one of three numbers but only one so the odds against are 51 to 1 but still slightly better than 60 to 1.

A couple of years ago we had a similar contest of 46 QPs against the 46 combo wheel which proved absolutely nothing because they used the LP RNG and not the real lottery terminal generated QPs. They were trying to prove why QPs were better than self picks based on the 70% to 80% PB stats by using 46 combos that would be self picks if they were played.

They even cheated by using all 46 bonus numbers. I have ten real QPs with two sets of multiple bonus numbers. A player would have to buy 75 QPs before they could expect to get all 46 bonus numbers. There is a good possibility 46 QPs could have all 56 numbers but there is no guarantee. The odds of four or five number matches are slightly lower using the wheel because of the guaranteed two number match too.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7479 Posts Online

Posted: October 23, 2012, 6:36 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on October 23, 2012

I believe I made a mistake by reducing the odds to the lowest common denominator when the true odds are much higher. It's really doing "Harry Potter math" by pretending many of the chances against winning magically don't exist. The odds against matching three numbers are 306 to 1 so the usual approach is to divide 306 by the number of tickets played. In this example it would be 306 divided by 46 or 6.65 to 1. Odds should be expressed as chances to lose compared to chances to win so the odds might be expressed as 260 divided by 46 or 5.65 to 1. By doing that we're pretending over 250 of those combos don't exist.

We did the same thing with the 28 number groups saying the odds were 39 to 1. A group of 28 numbers has 98,280 combos but only one of those combos can match the drawing so we can't divide 3,904,701 by 98,280. There is an accumulative value because each of those combos reduces the chances against, but only by one for each combo. The true odds of a group of 28 numbers is 3,806,421 to 1.

The odds of 46 QPs having a five number match is usually done by division too making over 3 million combos against winning magically disappear. If any 46 combos have 46 different lines, only one of those combos can match the drawing, the odds are always "to 1" and the true odds are determined by subtracting 46 from 3,904,701 or 3,904,655 to 1. Thrifty tried to point that out months ago but explained it wrong.

To get a three number match, you must match any one of three numbers but only one so the odds against are 51 to 1 but still slightly better than 60 to 1.

A couple of years ago we had a similar contest of 46 QPs against the 46 combo wheel which proved absolutely nothing because they used the LP RNG and not the real lottery terminal generated QPs. They were trying to prove why QPs were better than self picks based on the 70% to 80% PB stats by using 46 combos that would be self picks if they were played.

They even cheated by using all 46 bonus numbers. I have ten real QPs with two sets of multiple bonus numbers. A player would have to buy 75 QPs before they could expect to get all 46 bonus numbers. There is a good possibility 46 QPs could have all 56 numbers but there is no guarantee. The odds of four or five number matches are slightly lower using the wheel because of the guaranteed two number match too.

For clarity, there is only one combo that will match five numbers so no matter how many tickets are played, the "to 1" can't be changed. If you play 10,000 tickets without multiples there is still only one way you can get a five number match. There are five ways to match four numbers and the "to 5" can't be changed, but can be reduced to the lowest common denominator as the "to 10" for two and three number matches.

There are 3825 different ways the two number match the wheel guarantees can get a three number match, but only one combo will match.

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

Posted: November 3, 2012, 11:50 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on October 23, 2012

I believe I made a mistake by reducing the odds to the lowest common denominator when the true odds are much higher. It's really doing "Harry Potter math" by pretending many of the chances against winning magically don't exist. The odds against matching three numbers are 306 to 1 so the usual approach is to divide 306 by the number of tickets played. In this example it would be 306 divided by 46 or 6.65 to 1. Odds should be expressed as chances to lose compared to chances to win so the odds might be expressed as 260 divided by 46 or 5.65 to 1. By doing that we're pretending over 250 of those combos don't exist.

We did the same thing with the 28 number groups saying the odds were 39 to 1. A group of 28 numbers has 98,280 combos but only one of those combos can match the drawing so we can't divide 3,904,701 by 98,280. There is an accumulative value because each of those combos reduces the chances against, but only by one for each combo. The true odds of a group of 28 numbers is 3,806,421 to 1.

The odds of 46 QPs having a five number match is usually done by division too making over 3 million combos against winning magically disappear. If any 46 combos have 46 different lines, only one of those combos can match the drawing, the odds are always "to 1" and the true odds are determined by subtracting 46 from 3,904,701 or 3,904,655 to 1. Thrifty tried to point that out months ago but explained it wrong.

To get a three number match, you must match any one of three numbers but only one so the odds against are 51 to 1 but still slightly better than 60 to 1.

A couple of years ago we had a similar contest of 46 QPs against the 46 combo wheel which proved absolutely nothing because they used the LP RNG and not the real lottery terminal generated QPs. They were trying to prove why QPs were better than self picks based on the 70% to 80% PB stats by using 46 combos that would be self picks if they were played.

They even cheated by using all 46 bonus numbers. I have ten real QPs with two sets of multiple bonus numbers. A player would have to buy 75 QPs before they could expect to get all 46 bonus numbers. There is a good possibility 46 QPs could have all 56 numbers but there is no guarantee. The odds of four or five number matches are slightly lower using the wheel because of the guaranteed two number match too.

I happened to like Harry Potter, any math that's good enough for him is good enough for me.......

Old Town, Fl United States Member #132822 September 13, 2012 6 Posts Offline

Posted: November 5, 2012, 9:22 pm - IP Logged

I played 300 qps on the 1 dollar power ball and didn't win anything.. I was pretty stupid to buy 300 qps though and expect to win something. I pick my own numbers in cash 3 and play 4, and get lucky sometimes! I was thinking 3 of 5 on the roller of 10 lol :))

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

Posted: November 6, 2012, 10:39 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by LuckyFloridian on November 5, 2012

I played 300 qps on the 1 dollar power ball and didn't win anything.. I was pretty stupid to buy 300 qps though and expect to win something. I pick my own numbers in cash 3 and play 4, and get lucky sometimes! I was thinking 3 of 5 on the roller of 10 lol :))

I don't think it was stupidLuckyFloridian. Your timing was just off a bit when you walked up to the machine.

I have played 100 QPs and had two 3 of 5s...... Its all in the timing..........

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 20041 Posts Offline

Posted: November 7, 2012, 3:49 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by LuckyFloridian on November 5, 2012

I played 300 qps on the 1 dollar power ball and didn't win anything.. I was pretty stupid to buy 300 qps though and expect to win something. I pick my own numbers in cash 3 and play 4, and get lucky sometimes! I was thinking 3 of 5 on the roller of 10 lol :))

Buying 300 QP and winning nothing is almost as hard as buying 1 QP and winning something.

Buying 300 QP and winning only a couple of dollars is more likely but probably feels like winning nothing.

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

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7479 Posts Online

Posted: November 8, 2012, 10:44 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on November 7, 2012

Buying 300 QP and winning nothing is almost as hard as buying 1 QP and winning something.

Buying 300 QP and winning only a couple of dollars is more likely but probably feels like winning nothing.

"Buying 300 QP and winning nothing is almost as hard as buying 1 QP and winning something."

Statistically there should be at least five tickets winning something so I'm guessing the 300 tickets weren't bought for just one drawing. Even 30 at tickets a drawing for ten drawings should produce five winning tickets. The overall odds were higher with the $1 ticket. but that's still a 80% chance 30 tickets should have at least one winner of something in each of the ten drawings.

It would be incredibly unlucky not to get any winning tickets at 3 tickets a drawing for a year.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA United States Member #4924 June 3, 2004 6069 Posts Online

Posted: November 8, 2012, 11:01 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on November 8, 2012

"Buying 300 QP and winning nothing is almost as hard as buying 1 QP and winning something."

Statistically there should be at least five tickets winning something so I'm guessing the 300 tickets weren't bought for just one drawing. Even 30 at tickets a drawing for ten drawings should produce five winning tickets. The overall odds were higher with the $1 ticket. but that's still a 80% chance 30 tickets should have at least one winner of something in each of the ten drawings.

It would be incredibly unlucky not to get any winning tickets at 3 tickets a drawing for a year.

Stack,

If I were to buy 5 QP each draw, 7 draws per week, 5/36 tkts. How many times can I expect to win something in one year?

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7479 Posts Online

Posted: November 8, 2012, 11:53 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on November 3, 2012

I happened to like Harry Potter, any math that's good enough for him is good enough for me.......

The Harry Potter math I'm talking about is when someone believes buying 5000 MM will give them 35,000 to 1 odds of winning the jackpot; as if the over 175 million losing combos magically disappear. On paper it looks much better than their actual 0.00285% chance of winning.

The odds against 5000 QPs having a five number match are about 780 to 1 but a group of 28 numbers played in 4 if 4 wheel with at least 5 four number matches (when 5 of the numbers are drawn), has 4.6 to 1 odds of matching five numbers. Even if you played any 5000 combos out of the full 98,280 wheel, the odds are 19.6 to 1 compared to 780 to 1. We still have to factor in the 39 to 1 odds of a group of 28 numbers matching five but the overall odds against are still better than 5000 QPs.

Because in that 1 drawing out of 39 when the 28 number group matches five numbers, the 4 if 4 wheel has over 12 times a better chance of having a five number match than a like number of QPs. The QPs have a 1 in 3 chance of having one four number match and the wheel guarantees as least 5 so the chances of having 4 + 1 are 15 times better.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7479 Posts Online

Posted: November 8, 2012, 12:50 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by CARBOB on November 8, 2012

Stack,

If I were to buy 5 QP each draw, 7 draws per week, 5/36 tkts. How many times can I expect to win something in one year?

Assuming the 5/36 game pays off $1 for a two number match, 5 QPs have about a 66% chance of winning something every drawing so they should win something in about 240 of the drawings. If it's Florida Fantasy 5, the majority of those wins will be free tickets so the actual number of wins is much smaller because to win something, those free ticket have to win something.

Last time I was in Florida, I played the Grouper and won a F5 free ticket that won free tickets in the next four drawings. Had five chances to win something for a $1 and won nothing.

You should get at least 3 three number matches, hopefully a four or better yet the jackpot.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA United States Member #4924 June 3, 2004 6069 Posts Online

Posted: November 8, 2012, 1:18 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on November 8, 2012

Assuming the 5/36 game pays off $1 for a two number match, 5 QPs have about a 66% chance of winning something every drawing so they should win something in about 240 of the drawings. If it's Florida Fantasy 5, the majority of those wins will be free tickets so the actual number of wins is much smaller because to win something, those free ticket have to win something.

Last time I was in Florida, I played the Grouper and won a F5 free ticket that won free tickets in the next four drawings. Had five chances to win something for a $1 and won nothing.

You should get at least 3 three number matches, hopefully a four or better yet the jackpot.

Thank you!! My wife once had 4/5 QP. Missed position 1, draw was a 2, she had a 3.