Welcome Guest
You last visited December 11, 2016, 8:42 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Can math and logic improve chances of winning a jackpot?

Topic closed. 557 replies. Last post 3 years ago by sflottolover.

 Page 3 of 38
Massachusetts
United States
Member #37433
April 14, 2006
2747 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2013, 9:58 pm - IP Logged

I think if you buy many tickets with different powerball or megaball numbers then you are guaranteed of winning some money back. Lol thats the extent of my wisdom.

That money's gone fo ever

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2013, 11:34 pm - IP Logged

It depends on how confident you want to be in your conclusion.  If your method produces wins more often than what's expected by chance at least 95% of the time over the necessary number of trials, you could say you are winning with skill with 95% confidence.  There are well established mathematical methods for making these calculations.  You can find them by...

Clicking HERE.

Can math and logic improve chances of winning a jackpot?

No.

If you disagree with this answer and believe you have found a systematic way of winning that proves the answer is "Yes," please refer to my earlier post quoted above.  It was posted in response to the question, "How many wins constitute proof of skill rather than luck?"   It gives you an explanation and the tools necessary to calculate the LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE you can claim for your system.

I will give you a hint:  If you use the tools found in the above link to analyse all the wins and losses involved, you will find that none of the wins reported here, including RJOh's two 5/6 hits, come even remotely near proving that anything beyond randomness caused them, unless you are impressed with a ridiculously low level of confidence.   If you were a backer of gamblers and I told you I had a system that allowed me to triple my money during the last month and that I could prove, scientifically, that you could be CONFIDENT, at the 4% level, that these winnings were NOT just from luck, how much would you be willing to back me with?

If this post makes you angry, and/or you are unwilling to investigate my suggestions further, you really need to ask yourself - WHY?

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 12:10 am - IP Logged

Can math and logic improve chances of winning a jackpot?

No.

If you disagree with this answer and believe you have found a systematic way of winning that proves the answer is "Yes," please refer to my earlier post quoted above.  It was posted in response to the question, "How many wins constitute proof of skill rather than luck?"   It gives you an explanation and the tools necessary to calculate the LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE you can claim for your system.

I will give you a hint:  If you use the tools found in the above link to analyse all the wins and losses involved, you will find that none of the wins reported here, including RJOh's two 5/6 hits, come even remotely near proving that anything beyond randomness caused them, unless you are impressed with a ridiculously low level of confidence.   If you were a backer of gamblers and I told you I had a system that allowed me to triple my money during the last month and that I could prove, scientifically, that you could be CONFIDENT, at the 4% level, that these winnings were NOT just from luck, how much would you be willing to back me with?

If this post makes you angry, and/or you are unwilling to investigate my suggestions further, you really need to ask yourself - WHY?

--Jimmy4164

I think RJOh (and everyone else) understood my question to be light heartedly asking his opinion, not seeking a math formula.

We've got plenty of formulas already.

In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19831 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 1:35 am - IP Logged

Can math and logic improve chances of winning a jackpot?

No.

If you disagree with this answer and believe you have found a systematic way of winning that proves the answer is "Yes," please refer to my earlier post quoted above.  It was posted in response to the question, "How many wins constitute proof of skill rather than luck?"   It gives you an explanation and the tools necessary to calculate the LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE you can claim for your system.

I will give you a hint:  If you use the tools found in the above link to analyse all the wins and losses involved, you will find that none of the wins reported here, including RJOh's two 5/6 hits, come even remotely near proving that anything beyond randomness caused them, unless you are impressed with a ridiculously low level of confidence.   If you were a backer of gamblers and I told you I had a system that allowed me to triple my money during the last month and that I could prove, scientifically, that you could be CONFIDENT, at the 4% level, that these winnings were NOT just from luck, how much would you be willing to back me with?

If this post makes you angry, and/or you are unwilling to investigate my suggestions further, you really need to ask yourself - WHY?

--Jimmy4164

I don't know to whom your question was directed since you responded to your own post but no one has any reason to be angry about your post, you answered the question asked and posted a link for anyone wishing to follow up on the reasons for your opinion and that's as much as anyone could expect.

* 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 14, 2013, 4:27 am - IP Logged

I guess that it stays an uncertainty.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 12:44 pm - IP Logged

Can math and logic improve chances of winning a jackpot?

No.

If you disagree with this answer and believe you have found a systematic way of winning that proves the answer is "Yes," please refer to my earlier post quoted above.  It was posted in response to the question, "How many wins constitute proof of skill rather than luck?"   It gives you an explanation and the tools necessary to calculate the LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE you can claim for your system.

I will give you a hint:  If you use the tools found in the above link to analyse all the wins and losses involved, you will find that none of the wins reported here, including RJOh's two 5/6 hits, come even remotely near proving that anything beyond randomness caused them, unless you are impressed with a ridiculously low level of confidence.   If you were a backer of gamblers and I told you I had a system that allowed me to triple my money during the last month and that I could prove, scientifically, that you could be CONFIDENT, at the 4% level, that these winnings were NOT just from luck, how much would you be willing to back me with?

If this post makes you angry, and/or you are unwilling to investigate my suggestions further, you really need to ask yourself - WHY?

--Jimmy4164

RJOh,

In your response this morning to my above quoted post, you said,

"I don't know to whom your question was directed since you responded to your own post but no one has any reason to be angry about your post, you answered the question asked and posted a link for anyone wishing to follow up on the reasons for your opinion and that's as much as anyone could expect."

As you can see above, the primary purpose of my post was to respond to the Topic Question.  As for MY question, I presume you are referring to my somewhat rhetorical one, "If you were a backer of gamblers and I told you I had a system that allowed me to triple my money during the last month and that I could prove, scientifically, that you could be CONFIDENT, at the 4% level, that these winnings were NOT just from luck, how much would you be willing to back me with?"  It was meant to give pause to anyone who happened to be reading it.

As for anger, I'm glad it didn't effect you that way.

--Jimmy4164

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19831 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 1:03 pm - IP Logged

If you were a backer of gamblers and I told you I had a system that allowed me to triple my money during the last month and that I could prove, scientifically, that you could be CONFIDENT, at the 4% level, that these winnings were NOT just from luck, how much would you be willing to back me with?

I would back a gambler that told me that as I would back myself and that would be buying 10-20 lines using his system as that what I usually buy when I play any way.  I would only be looking to better my odds for the number of lines I normally play, not to spend more money on a system

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 1:12 pm - IP Logged

If you were a backer of gamblers and I told you I had a system that allowed me to triple my money during the last month and that I could prove, scientifically, that you could be CONFIDENT, at the 4% level, that these winnings were NOT just from luck, how much would you be willing to back me with?

I would back a gambler that told me that as I would back myself and that would be buying 10-20 lines using his system as that what I usually buy when I play any way.  I would only be looking to better my odds for the number of lines I normally play, not to spend more money on a system

You must realize that what you're saying here is that even if you were convinced scientifically that my system had a 96% chance of FAILING, you would still invest in it.  Are you sure?

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19831 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 1:22 pm - IP Logged

You must realize that what you're saying here is that even if you were convinced scientifically that my system had a 96% chance of FAILING, you would still invest in it.  Are you sure?

People buy lottery tickets all the time knowing that only 2.5% of the combinations will win anything, are you suggesting that if they can only improve their chances to 4% they should stop playing?

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 1:57 pm - IP Logged

People buy lottery tickets all the time knowing that only 2.5% of the combinations will win anything, are you suggesting that if they can only improve their chances to 4% they should stop playing?

RJOh,

I'm sorry.  You have completely missed my point[s] here.  4% was not referring to the ODDS of winning.  For the sake of discussion, 4% was offered as an arbitrary CONFIDENCE LEVEL for the efficacy of an unspecified "system."  You apparently are not carefully reading my posts and/or seriously studying the articles and research reports I've linked to.

Your best answer to my rhetorical question above would have been that it would make absolutely no difference what means you used to generate your 10-20 lines, as long as you avoided the known pitfalls in Parimutuel games.  Your system, my 96% Random "System," State Lottery Quickpicks, or the output at http://www.random.org would all do equally as well.

Good luck!

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7325 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 2:04 pm - IP Logged

Is this a rhetorical question?  Are you going to prove it on this thread?

Logic is mostly a 'if this then that" scenario.  So if 18 hits tonite in take five then I will play 11 tommorrow and the 18 again.

Every game probably has its "own" special logic formulas, and what works for NY will not always work well for OH.

However I am sure some of the underlying random principles apply for both states.

Abbreviated wheels are mathematically designed to arrange a group of numbers into lines that guarantees secondary prizes. The logic of using a 3 if 3 wheel is to match 3 of the numbers and have a 3 number match. There is also the possibility of matching 4 or 5 numbers and having more 3 number matches, a 4 number match and/or a 5 number match.

"Logic is mostly a 'if this then that" scenario."

The logic is the conditions we set and the math is what we should expect by meeting the conditions. A 3 if 3 of 15 numbers wheel has 57 lines so that must be compared to other 57 line bets. The odds against any 57 lines having a 3 number match in MM is 5.37 to 1. By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match by "if this then that". Since only 18.6% of any 57 lines will have a 3 number match, the 3 if 3 wheel will slightly improve the chance of winning a jackpot over 81.4% of any 57 lines.

"Every game probably has its "own" special logic formulas, and what works for NY will not always work well for OH. However I am sure some of the underlying random principles apply for both states."

If both are 5/39 games, a 2 if 5 of 39 numbers wheel eliminates the random factor. The results of a like number of drawings probably shows about same amount of numbers being drawn more than average. By successfully using some of those numbers in smaller groups of numbers, the effect would be slightly improving the chances of winning a jackpot in either game.

The answer to "Can math and logic improve chances of winning a jackpot?" depends on what we are comparing it with.

Mathematically, by playing more lines, we're slightly improving our chances of winning a jackpot compared to playing 1 line. By playing a 2 if 5 of 56 numbers wheel, there is always a 2 number match so that in effect slightly improves the chances of winning a jackpot compared to any 46 lines and certainly more than by just playing 1 line. Use each of the 46 bonus numbers and the 46 lines are guaranteed to be part of the 2.5% of all tickets winning a prize. That effect lowers the cost of play by at least \$2. Doesn't sound like much, but the same bet can be made 24 times for the same cost of making 23 bets.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 2:16 pm - IP Logged

The wisdom here is apparently that buying 2 tickets only "slightly" improves your chances of winning.  In most lotteries I've looked at, buying 2 different tickets doubled my chances.  It must be a local phenomena, local to a certain player's neighborhood.  I wouldn't be surprised if turnips bleed in that neighborhood too.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19831 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 2:35 pm - IP Logged

RJOh,

I'm sorry.  You have completely missed my point[s] here.  4% was not referring to the ODDS of winning.  For the sake of discussion, 4% was offered as an arbitrary CONFIDENCE LEVEL for the efficacy of an unspecified "system."  You apparently are not carefully reading my posts and/or seriously studying the articles and research reports I've linked to.

Your best answer to my rhetorical question above would have been that it would make absolutely no difference what means you used to generate your 10-20 lines, as long as you avoided the known pitfalls in Parimutuel games.  Your system, my 96% Random "System," State Lottery Quickpicks, or the output at http://www.random.org would all do equally as well.

Good luck!

--Jimmy4164

I see your point(s) and you're entitled to your opinions as am I.

Playing lottery is a personal choice.  I like picking combinations using a system and it's my opinion that gives me an advantage.  When I buy lottery tickets for myself the only opinion that counts is mine.

* 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 14, 2013, 4:14 pm - IP Logged

The wisdom here is apparently that buying 2 tickets only "slightly" improves your chances of winning.  In most lotteries I've looked at, buying 2 different tickets doubled my chances.  It must be a local phenomena, local to a certain player's neighborhood.  I wouldn't be surprised if turnips bleed in that neighborhood too.

That was a bit sleezy.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7325 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 7:55 pm - IP Logged

People buy lottery tickets all the time knowing that only 2.5% of the combinations will win anything, are you suggesting that if they can only improve their chances to 4% they should stop playing?

The 2.5% is based on 1 ticket out of every 40 tickets winning something, but the percentage of any of those tickets winning enough to show a profit is considerablyconsiderably smaller. In the last MM drawing, 2.4% of the tickets sold won something or 410,360 winning tickets. Of those "winners", 99% "won" \$10 or less and only 0.01% of those "winners" won more than \$150.

One fact that was ignored when someone else replied to your question is that 17,051,325 tickets were purchased trying to win \$41 million or at least be part of the 0.01% winning more than \$150 as a nice consolation prize.

 Page 3 of 38