Welcome Guest
You last visited December 7, 2016, 9:19 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Will we ever see a double win?

Topic closed. 46 replies. Last post 2 years ago by DamGod.

 Page 3 of 4
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 8:47 pm - IP Logged

Help me out here and explain the difference.

Even if the probability of winning yesterday's jackpot is 1.0, the probability that you win today's jackpot too is conditional on the fact that you won yesterday's jackpot. It doesn't matter that you win "after;" the probability is the same as if you win "at the same time."

Example, if MM and PB draws at the exact same time, there is no difference in probability compared to if they draw 5 minutes between one another or a day after one another because each event is completely independent. We're talking about consecutive/simultaneous hits so order and duration doesn't matter.

Or are you just pointing out a technicality that after an event has happened, its individual probability is 1?

What are the odds against the same five numbers and the same bonus number drawn back to back?

I never got an answer from Poo Nanny, but never clarified that when I explained why the calculations are different. I believe the odds of having jackpot winning tickets in the next two drawings is different than the odds against consecutive jackpots in any two drawings in the infinite future.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 8:51 pm - IP Logged

Okay I think I get what you're saying.

If someone buys a PB ticket, the odds of them hitting the jackpot are 1 in 175,223,510 regardless whether they also bought a MM ticket and won/lost. Yet the odds of hitting PB given that you also hit MM if you only buy 1 ticket each (as you say, starting now) would be 1 in 45.4 quadrillion. It's almost paradoxical.

I've seen retrospective oohs and aahs here over people who had multiple big hits spread over years.

Similar to how the experts quote Ginther's odds of hitting 4 jackpots at 1 in 18 septillion, even though the odds for most of her wins were only one in a million+ each, and we know for a fact she didn't just buy 1 ticket in each game...she purchased thousands. If you factor in the number of trials that take place between wins, the odds are not so extreme after all.

Exactly!

In a subtle way, the tendency of humans to make this mistake is close to the crux of Innumeracy.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 9:01 pm - IP Logged

I agree.  When you ask about the probability of winning two games, back to back, BEFORE either are drawn, the odds get extremely high.  However, just be sure to remember that this differs from the case where someone asks, as an afterthought, AFTER they have won yesterdays jackpot, "What is the probability of winning today's jackpot?"  The formula is the same, P(winning yesterday's jackpot) Multiplied By P(winning today's jackpot).    The difference here is that the probability of winning yesterday's jackpot is 1.0, because it has already happened.

"When you ask about the probability of winning two games, back to back, BEFORE either are drawn, the odds get extremely high."

The odds depend on how many tickets are bought and if 1000 of the total combinations are purchased in each game the odds are reduced to about 4,515,000,000,000 to 1.

United States
Member #125766
March 30, 2012
63 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 10:04 pm - IP Logged

I have no idea. Not likely to happen but it could happen.  The odds are probably close to winning back to back jackpots.

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 10:15 pm - IP Logged

But if you ask what the probability of flipping a coin heads is for the next flip only, no matter what occurred previously, the answer is 1/2.

I disagree. Whether the successions occur consecutively, or with skips of days, weeks months or years apart, at the end of the day, they're still "piling up" for a lack of a better term. True, after 50 consecutive reds on Roulette, the 51st spin has a 50/50 chance of red or black, but what would you bet on?

There's a tendency for everything in life to balance out. This is why planets, stars, and comets are always in a battle to be as circular as possible. All forces equally pressing on the outside, like a soap bubble floating in the air.

Furthermore, my point above has nothing to do with a system working or not. It's a simple FACT. Even you'd agree that in time, each of the 1,000 p-3 combinations will eventually have an average number of wins that are relatively close to each other.

The smart money would begin progressive wagering just about after the 10th or 12th red or black in a row, and bet the opposite along with the progressive wagering. It's possible, been done, being done by professional gamblers in lottery, slots, or any game that has one side and the other. Now when you get into more complicated arenas like multiple choice, then you'd need a computer program for that.

Happyland
United States
Member #146344
September 1, 2013
1129 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 10:22 pm - IP Logged

But if you ask what the probability of flipping a coin heads is for the next flip only, no matter what occurred previously, the answer is 1/2.

I disagree. Whether the successions occur consecutively, or with skips of days, weeks months or years apart, at the end of the day, they're still "piling up" for a lack of a better term. True, after 50 consecutive reds on Roulette, the 51st spin has a 50/50 chance of red or black, but what would you bet on?

There's a tendency for everything in life to balance out. This is why planets, stars, and comets are always in a battle to be as circular as possible. All forces equally pressing on the outside, like a soap bubble floating in the air.

Furthermore, my point above has nothing to do with a system working or not. It's a simple FACT. Even you'd agree that in time, each of the 1,000 p-3 combinations will eventually have an average number of wins that are relatively close to each other.

The smart money would begin progressive wagering just about after the 10th or 12th red or black in a row, and bet the opposite along with the progressive wagering. It's possible, been done, being done by professional gamblers in lottery, slots, or any game that has one side and the other. Now when you get into more complicated arenas like multiple choice, then you'd need a computer program for that.

What you describe is a perfect example of the Gambler's fallacy. If it "worked," everyone would simply sit out until the opportune moment to jump in and bet. And betting systems can't work if you don't have an edge in the first place.

If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the potential payoff does.
If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?

2016: -48.28% (13 tickets) ||
P&L % = Total Win(\$)/Total Wager(\$) - 1

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 10:35 pm - IP Logged

What you describe is a perfect example of the Gambler's fallacy. If it "worked," everyone would simply sit out until the opportune moment to jump in and bet. And betting systems can't work if you don't have an edge in the first place.

That's your opinion and the person who wrote the "Gambler's Fallacy", not mine. Life is much too fluid to create boundries.

The reason most don't win is because it takes discipline, a hefty bankroll, and a little luck. But that luck won't show it's head unless the first two criteria are met. (exception to that rule is TOTAL luck, like a PB or MM JP winner for no apparent reason).

It's a fact that there are professional gamblers. What do they know that the 97% don't?

What does Peter St. Pierre know that we don't?

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 10:58 pm - IP Logged

The Balance,

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 11:02 pm - IP Logged

That's your opinion and the person who wrote the "Gambler's Fallacy", not mine. Life is much too fluid to create boundries.

The reason most don't win is because it takes discipline, a hefty bankroll, and a little luck. But that luck won't show it's head unless the first two criteria are met. (exception to that rule is TOTAL luck, like a PB or MM JP winner for no apparent reason).

It's a fact that there are professional gamblers. What do they know that the 97% don't?

What does Peter St. Pierre know that we don't?

"It's a fact that there are professional gamblers. What do they know that the 97% don't? What does Peter St. Pierre know that we don't?"

For starters they know enough not to believe they will win PB and MM jackpots back to back. And I really doubt many professional gamblers make their living exclusively playing lottery games.

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2014, 11:08 pm - IP Logged

"It's a fact that there are professional gamblers. What do they know that the 97% don't? What does Peter St. Pierre know that we don't?"

For starters they know enough not to believe they will win PB and MM jackpots back to back. And I really doubt many professional gamblers make their living exclusively playing lottery games.

We agree on the PB and MM, but I guess you and I disagree on your second sentence.

I like agreeing more than not, but life isn't perfect.

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10351 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 8, 2014, 12:39 am - IP Logged

This is from  book called50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need to Know by Ben Dupre.

Ironically it's in the chapter titled the Gambler's Fallacy!

Here goes:

If you're in a lottery start digging.....

What are the chances of the same six numbers coming up twice in a row in the UK national lottery? About 1 in 200,000,000,000,000 (200 million million). Not great odds so you would have to be a real mug to choose last week's numbers again.... Well perhaps, but no more of a mug than if you chose any other six numbers. It's just another case of the gambler's fallacy, once a given set of numbers has already come up the chances of those numbers coming up again are no better or worse than any other selection - a much more tempting 14 million to 1. So for people wondering if the best strategy is to stick with one set of numbers or change them each week, there's no difference - but even better is to dig a hole in the garden and look for buried treasure.

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 8, 2014, 1:01 am - IP Logged

This is from  book called50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need to Know by Ben Dupre.

Ironically it's in the chapter titled the Gambler's Fallacy!

Here goes:

If you're in a lottery start digging.....

What are the chances of the same six numbers coming up twice in a row in the UK national lottery? About 1 in 200,000,000,000,000 (200 million million). Not great odds so you would have to be a real mug to choose last week's numbers again.... Well perhaps, but no more of a mug than if you chose any other six numbers. It's just another case of the gambler's fallacy, once a given set of numbers has already come up the chances of those numbers coming up again are no better or worse than any other selection - a much more tempting 14 million to 1. So for people wondering if the best strategy is to stick with one set of numbers or change them each week, there's no difference - but even better is to dig a hole in the garden and look for buried treasure.

What are the chances of the same six numbers coming up twice in a row in the UK national lottery? About 1 in 200,000,000,000,000 (200 million million). Not great odds so you would have to be a real mug to choose last week's numbers again.... Well perhaps, but no more of a mug than if you chose any other six numbers. It's just another case of the gambler's fallacy, once a given set of numbers has already come up the chances of those numbers coming up again are no better or worse than any other selection - a much more tempting 14 million to 1. So for people wondering if the best strategy is to stick with one set of numbers or change them each week, there's no difference - but even better is to dig a hole in the garden and look for buried treasure.

Sounds like Ben Dupre doesn't think there is much different in playing a combinations with odds of 1 in 200,000,000,000,000 and ones with 1 in 14,000,000 when playing lotteries.  After observing nearly 17000 Ohio Classic Lotto (6/49) drawings without any combinations repeating, I favor the latter.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 8, 2014, 1:44 am - IP Logged

But if you ask what the probability of flipping a coin heads is for the next flip only, no matter what occurred previously, the answer is 1/2.

I disagree. Whether the successions occur consecutively, or with skips of days, weeks months or years apart, at the end of the day, they're still "piling up" for a lack of a better term. True, after 50 consecutive reds on Roulette, the 51st spin has a 50/50 chance of red or black, but what would you bet on?

There's a tendency for everything in life to balance out. This is why planets, stars, and comets are always in a battle to be as circular as possible. All forces equally pressing on the outside, like a soap bubble floating in the air.

Furthermore, my point above has nothing to do with a system working or not. It's a simple FACT. Even you'd agree that in time, each of the 1,000 p-3 combinations will eventually have an average number of wins that are relatively close to each other.

The smart money would begin progressive wagering just about after the 10th or 12th red or black in a row, and bet the opposite along with the progressive wagering. It's possible, been done, being done by professional gamblers in lottery, slots, or any game that has one side and the other. Now when you get into more complicated arenas like multiple choice, then you'd need a computer program for that.

"True, after 50 consecutive reds on Roulette, the 51st spin has a 50/50 chance of red or black, but what would you bet on?"
I would flip a coin.

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10351 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 8, 2014, 2:24 am - IP Logged

RJOh,

Yeah...for all the theories about the possibility of identical back to back drawings how often has it happened, if ever?

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

Happyland
United States
Member #146344
September 1, 2013
1129 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 8, 2014, 2:33 am - IP Logged

Off the top of my head, Bulgaria in 2009. But the odds of it happening for that game were only like 1 in 4.2 million and it took 52 years.

If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the potential payoff does.
If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?

2016: -48.28% (13 tickets) ||
P&L % = Total Win(\$)/Total Wager(\$) - 1

 Page 3 of 4