Welcome Guest
You last visited January 21, 2017, 5:35 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 4 of 38
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 14, 2013, 7:59 pm - IP Logged

That was a bit sleezy.

Quote Blocked: You are blocking posts by jimmy4164

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 15, 2013, 12:00 am - 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.

Stack47 said, "Mathematically, by playing more lines, we're slightly improving our chances of winning a jackpot compared to playing 1 line."

So I posted the above.  Was my post an unfair paraphrase?

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19901 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 15, 2013, 1:46 am - IP Logged

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.

I wasn't talking about any particular game but lottery games in general when I used the 2.5% figure because in Ohio we have Rolling Cash5 in which the overall odds of winning something is 1:9 which is better than 10%.

In every lottery game I've ever played a winning ticket paid at least the cost of the ticket and in MM and PB a winning tickets pays more than the cost of the ticket.  It's the losing tickets that drag you down.

* 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 15, 2013, 6:56 am - IP Logged

Stack47 said, "Mathematically, by playing more lines, we're slightly improving our chances of winning a jackpot compared to playing 1 line."

So I posted the above.  Was my post an unfair paraphrase?

• One combination isn't the next.
• You didn't say distinct/different combinations. You can fill ten tickets using the same combinaton over and over again.
• You didn't specify the composition.

Basically you said nothing.

Looking at the payout,
you just might say,
I stick to 0 tickets.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 15, 2013, 1:09 pm - IP Logged

I wasn't talking about any particular game but lottery games in general when I used the 2.5% figure because in Ohio we have Rolling Cash5 in which the overall odds of winning something is 1:9 which is better than 10%.

In every lottery game I've ever played a winning ticket paid at least the cost of the ticket and in MM and PB a winning tickets pays more than the cost of the ticket.  It's the losing tickets that drag you down.

The Rolling Cash5 1 in 9 means 11.1% of all the combinations match at least 2 numbers and if QPs are sold like raffle tickets, 63,973 tickets will match at least 2 numbers for every 575,757 tickets they sell. It also means if you purchase 18 QPs every day for a week, you should average 2 wins per day. Of those 14 "wins", you'll probably match 2 numbers 13 times and have one 3 number match and a net loss.

"It's the losing tickets that drag you down."

If the 1 in 9 ratio is the best you can get, you'll have 112 losing tickets every week. It's possible one of the 14 winning QPs will match 4 or 5 numbers and show a profit, but you'll probably average 13 two number matches and 1 three number match for every 126 QPs you purchase. The logic a co-worker used to win a jackpot was to play 3 numbers in combinations with at least two of the remaining 36 numbers on 18 lines. If only one of his numbers matched, he was guaranteed to have 4 two number matches and if matched two numbers, he was guaranteed 3 three number matches, 15 two number matches, and have no losing tickets.

His logic was to raise the quanity of hits by matching one of his 3 numbers and the quality of some of his hits by matching two or three of his numbers. Another way to raise the quanity of hits on 18 lines is to use a 2 if 2 of 18 number wheel; matching 3 numbers should get 4 two number matches. There is no guarantee of having a three number match by matching 5 numbers so the quality of those hits would be much less. The logic behind my co-worker's bet did not change the odds against him winning his bet, but he proved he could win a jackpot using that method.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19901 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 15, 2013, 4:53 pm - IP Logged

The Rolling Cash5 1 in 9 means 11.1% of all the combinations match at least 2 numbers and if QPs are sold like raffle tickets, 63,973 tickets will match at least 2 numbers for every 575,757 tickets they sell. It also means if you purchase 18 QPs every day for a week, you should average 2 wins per day. Of those 14 "wins", you'll probably match 2 numbers 13 times and have one 3 number match and a net loss.

"It's the losing tickets that drag you down."

If the 1 in 9 ratio is the best you can get, you'll have 112 losing tickets every week. It's possible one of the 14 winning QPs will match 4 or 5 numbers and show a profit, but you'll probably average 13 two number matches and 1 three number match for every 126 QPs you purchase. The logic a co-worker used to win a jackpot was to play 3 numbers in combinations with at least two of the remaining 36 numbers on 18 lines. If only one of his numbers matched, he was guaranteed to have 4 two number matches and if matched two numbers, he was guaranteed 3 three number matches, 15 two number matches, and have no losing tickets.

His logic was to raise the quanity of hits by matching one of his 3 numbers and the quality of some of his hits by matching two or three of his numbers. Another way to raise the quanity of hits on 18 lines is to use a 2 if 2 of 18 number wheel; matching 3 numbers should get 4 two number matches. There is no guarantee of having a three number match by matching 5 numbers so the quality of those hits would be much less. The logic behind my co-worker's bet did not change the odds against him winning his bet, but he proved he could win a jackpot using that method.

I'm assuming if your co-worker proved he could win a jackpot then he must have eventually won one.  The only way to prove you can win one is to do it.

* 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 15, 2013, 8:11 pm - IP Logged
• One combination isn't the next.
• You didn't say distinct/different combinations. You can fill ten tickets using the same combinaton over and over again.
• You didn't specify the composition.

Basically you said nothing.

Looking at the payout,
you just might say,
I stick to 0 tickets.

It doesn't really matter SergeM.

Stack47 is quite astute when it comes to clearly describing the many nuances of combinatorics and their associated probabilities.  One of my earliest posts at this website contained a casual reference to the fact that by choosing certain distributions in your betting you could, if you chose to, spread your winnings out over more frequent smaller hits.  I've brought it up several times since then too.  Nobody commented at the time, apparently because I was also making it clear that overall long term winnings would remain the same.  This is ALL that Stack47's truisms are going to accomplish!

Here's another excerpt from the post I quoted earlier that you objected to as being out of context.

"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'."

Ah, yes, "CONDITIONS" and "IF."  (Those words are used often in situations involving UNCERTAINTY, aren't they?)  Stack47 delights in using the "n if m" construction.  Realistically, it should read...
n  IF  m .
He says, "By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match..."  Now, that's quite a mouthful.  IF he had a way to guarantee that "3 of the 15 numbers will match," he would not be posting here, he would be sunbathing on the Riviera!  The fact is, his mostly true mathematical assertions about the probabilities that WOULD hold IF he was guaranteed a 3/15 match are of absolutely NO value, because he has no way of guaranteeing this "condition."  His methods of reducing sets of 56 or 59 numbers to 15 involve the long debunked approaches of choosing "HOT" or "DUE" numbers, or meaningless. and often silly, "patterns."  The balls are not aware of patterns.

Several proponents of these approaches claim to be computer programmers.  If they are, they should know how easy it would be to write the necessary [simple] code to simulate their methods using Monte Carlo Methods and prove, or disprove, once and for all, their assertions.

IF they feel it is too complex a task to simulate the counting of previously drawn numbers to generate their sets of 15, cycling through all the historical results available, THEN I'm here to tell them it's time they sign up for an introductory programming course at their local college.

Of course, now they will claim there is much more than HOT and DUE involved - there are all the other patterns to consider, including the DIGIT frequencies, layed out by the digit man.  Believe me, even as you read this, there are countless simulations running with extreme complexity in economics, sociology, the physical sciences, and many other fields.  Most are using vast amounts of actual data intertwined with data generated with random number generators.  To claim that the SIMPLICITIES of Lotto gaming "Systems" can not be reliably simulated, is a Royal Cop Out!

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 15, 2013, 10:08 pm - IP Logged

I'm assuming if your co-worker proved he could win a jackpot then he must have eventually won one.  The only way to prove you can win one is to do it.

He won a Buckeye 5 jackpot for \$100,000 on his third try. Not saying it's the best way to play because you're only betting on three numbers.

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 16, 2013, 5:33 am - IP Logged

It doesn't really matter SergeM.

Stack47 is quite astute when it comes to clearly describing the many nuances of combinatorics and their associated probabilities.  One of my earliest posts at this website contained a casual reference to the fact that by choosing certain distributions in your betting you could, if you chose to, spread your winnings out over more frequent smaller hits.  I've brought it up several times since then too.  Nobody commented at the time, apparently because I was also making it clear that overall long term winnings would remain the same.  This is ALL that Stack47's truisms are going to accomplish!

Here's another excerpt from the post I quoted earlier that you objected to as being out of context.

"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'."

Ah, yes, "CONDITIONS" and "IF."  (Those words are used often in situations involving UNCERTAINTY, aren't they?)  Stack47 delights in using the "n if m" construction.  Realistically, it should read...
n  IF  m .
He says, "By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match..."  Now, that's quite a mouthful.  IF he had a way to guarantee that "3 of the 15 numbers will match," he would not be posting here, he would be sunbathing on the Riviera!  The fact is, his mostly true mathematical assertions about the probabilities that WOULD hold IF he was guaranteed a 3/15 match are of absolutely NO value, because he has no way of guaranteeing this "condition."  His methods of reducing sets of 56 or 59 numbers to 15 involve the long debunked approaches of choosing "HOT" or "DUE" numbers, or meaningless. and often silly, "patterns."  The balls are not aware of patterns.

Several proponents of these approaches claim to be computer programmers.  If they are, they should know how easy it would be to write the necessary [simple] code to simulate their methods using Monte Carlo Methods and prove, or disprove, once and for all, their assertions.

IF they feel it is too complex a task to simulate the counting of previously drawn numbers to generate their sets of 15, cycling through all the historical results available, THEN I'm here to tell them it's time they sign up for an introductory programming course at their local college.

Of course, now they will claim there is much more than HOT and DUE involved - there are all the other patterns to consider, including the DIGIT frequencies, layed out by the digit man.  Believe me, even as you read this, there are countless simulations running with extreme complexity in economics, sociology, the physical sciences, and many other fields.  Most are using vast amounts of actual data intertwined with data generated with random number generators.  To claim that the SIMPLICITIES of Lotto gaming "Systems" can not be reliably simulated, is a Royal Cop Out!

--Jimmy4164

Well it does matter for your price ratio.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19901 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 16, 2013, 9:09 am - IP Logged

Well it does matter for your price ratio.

Yes it does matter to players who have a realistic budget for twenty or fewer lines per drawing.  Too many players think in terms of grand schemes that can include a hundred lines of more which is not realistic.

* 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 16, 2013, 12:47 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.

"In most lotteries I've looked at, buying 2 different tickets doubled my chances."

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19901 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 16, 2013, 1:46 pm - IP Logged

"In most lotteries I've looked at, buying 2 different tickets doubled my chances."

Buying two tickets in any lottery doubles my chances and if I'm responding with other serious lottery players I assume they know I'm not talking about two tickets with the same combination.

Maybe I'm wrong but I assume players coming to LP have graduated beyond the casual lottery player buying some quick picks and doesn't care about the mix of combinations on them.

* 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 16, 2013, 1:48 pm - IP Logged

Well it does matter for your price ratio.

When are you going to address my discussion of simulations above?

This is getting boring.

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 16, 2013, 1:53 pm - IP Logged

When are you going to address my discussion of simulations above?

This is getting boring.

What do you want to simulate?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 16, 2013, 2:20 pm - IP Logged

It doesn't really matter SergeM.

Stack47 is quite astute when it comes to clearly describing the many nuances of combinatorics and their associated probabilities.  One of my earliest posts at this website contained a casual reference to the fact that by choosing certain distributions in your betting you could, if you chose to, spread your winnings out over more frequent smaller hits.  I've brought it up several times since then too.  Nobody commented at the time, apparently because I was also making it clear that overall long term winnings would remain the same.  This is ALL that Stack47's truisms are going to accomplish!

Here's another excerpt from the post I quoted earlier that you objected to as being out of context.

"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'."

Ah, yes, "CONDITIONS" and "IF."  (Those words are used often in situations involving UNCERTAINTY, aren't they?)  Stack47 delights in using the "n if m" construction.  Realistically, it should read...
n  IF  m .
He says, "By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match..."  Now, that's quite a mouthful.  IF he had a way to guarantee that "3 of the 15 numbers will match," he would not be posting here, he would be sunbathing on the Riviera!  The fact is, his mostly true mathematical assertions about the probabilities that WOULD hold IF he was guaranteed a 3/15 match are of absolutely NO value, because he has no way of guaranteeing this "condition."  His methods of reducing sets of 56 or 59 numbers to 15 involve the long debunked approaches of choosing "HOT" or "DUE" numbers, or meaningless. and often silly, "patterns."  The balls are not aware of patterns.

Several proponents of these approaches claim to be computer programmers.  If they are, they should know how easy it would be to write the necessary [simple] code to simulate their methods using Monte Carlo Methods and prove, or disprove, once and for all, their assertions.

IF they feel it is too complex a task to simulate the counting of previously drawn numbers to generate their sets of 15, cycling through all the historical results available, THEN I'm here to tell them it's time they sign up for an introductory programming course at their local college.

Of course, now they will claim there is much more than HOT and DUE involved - there are all the other patterns to consider, including the DIGIT frequencies, layed out by the digit man.  Believe me, even as you read this, there are countless simulations running with extreme complexity in economics, sociology, the physical sciences, and many other fields.  Most are using vast amounts of actual data intertwined with data generated with random number generators.  To claim that the SIMPLICITIES of Lotto gaming "Systems" can not be reliably simulated, is a Royal Cop Out!

--Jimmy4164

SergeM, I'm surprised you needed to ask, "What do you want to simulate?"

I have no need to simulate/backtest lotto game systems because I know what the results will reveal.  But if you need help deciding, for starters, why not backtest playing wheels of 15 numbers in MM, discarding 41 HOT (or DUE) numbers by looking back at past results? The backtest code should be written to allow for easy conversion to a simulation by replacing past actual draws with computer generated ones.  This way, there need be no limit on the number of draws looked at for statistical purposes.

I published computer code and results of simulations/backtests several times here in the past.  What we need is a believer who can also write programs that he/she is willing to publish source code of for public scrutiny, as I did.

--Jimmy4164

p.s.  Let the excuses begin!

 Page 4 of 38