Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 19, 2017, 7:50 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

What state will win the powerball jackpot?

Topic closed. 90 replies. Last post 2 years ago by pickone4me.

Page 6 of 7
3.84
PrintE-mailLink

What state will win the powerball jackpot?

California [ 12 ]  [21.05%]
Florida [ 3 ]  [5.26%]
New York [ 4 ]  [7.02%]
Iowa [ 2 ]  [3.51%]
Michigan [ 3 ]  [5.26%]
New Jersey [ 2 ]  [3.51%]
Texas [ 4 ]  [7.02%]
Some other state not listed [ 27 ]  [47.37%]
Total Valid Votes [ 57 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 1 ]  
LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
Happyland
United States
Member #146344
September 1, 2013
1131 Posts
Offline
Posted: September 25, 2014, 2:32 pm - IP Logged

Goteki's figure refers only to JACKPOT-WINNING DRAWS, you're including all LOSING draws where there was no winner in your figure. 

So you're comparing apples to oranges.

It's actually fallacious not to include the losing drawings; here's why:

Say California buys 1 billion tickets (extreme example) over the course of several losing drawings. Every other states only buys a few millions.

Then the jackpot gets hit, and California is the winner. But in this draw they only bought about as many tickets as the other states.

Would it then be accurate for you to say that California wins disproportionately more often?

At first thought, you could say, "Every draw is independent so the sales during the other draws don't matter." While this is technically true, since we are looking at the winners over a period of time (multiple trials), then you can't just pick out 8 draws. That's basically using confirmation bias. By only focusing on those draws, you're ignoring all the other trials that take place. So to get the most accurate calculation you should include ALL drawings.

Now, can you use just winning drawings? I guess, since every draw is independent. However, because there is a very small sample of winning drawings, your results will be skewed. To make the best of this you have to use the entire history....can't just focus on X winners this year or since last year. Like I said earlier, it is most accurate to use both winning and losing drawings; have to look at the cumulative winners with cumulative sales.

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?

2017: 0% (0 tickets)
P&L % = Total Win($)/Total Wager($) - 1

    Avatar
    California
    United States
    Member #141204
    April 7, 2013
    280 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: September 25, 2014, 2:42 pm - IP Logged

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you're still making an invalid comparison.

    CA has won 4 of the 9 jackpot-winning draws this year. You trying to throw all the losing draws into the mix is a MAJOR FAIL. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.

    you are not a conspiracy theorist but you are sticking up for that 44% figure Goteki54 brought up. 

    My point is the same as it always has been, California is not winning a disproportionate amount of jackpots based on the number of tickets bought in the state.

    If you want to refute my point, then I would like to see your evidence.

      Avatar

      United States
      Member #135804
      November 29, 2012
      332 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: September 25, 2014, 2:42 pm - IP Logged

      It's actually fallacious not to include the losing drawings; here's why:

      Say California buys 1 billion tickets (extreme example) over the course of several losing drawings. Every other states only buys a few millions.

      Then the jackpot gets hit, and California is the winner. But in this draw they only bought about as many tickets as the other states.

      Would it then be accurate for you to say that California wins disproportionately more often?

      At first thought, you could say, "Every draw is independent so the sales during the other draws don't matter." While this is technically true, since we are looking at the winners over a period of time (multiple trials), then you can't just pick out 8 draws. That's basically using confirmation bias. By only focusing on those draws, you're ignoring all the other trials that take place. So to get the most accurate calculation you should include ALL drawings.

      Now, can you use just winning drawings? I guess, since every draw is independent. However, because there is a very small sample of winning drawings, your results will be skewed. To make the best of this you have to use the entire history....can't just focus on X winners this year or since last year. Like I said earlier, it is most accurate to use both winning and losing drawings; have to look at the cumulative winners with cumulative sales.

      In that case, you need to do California's fraction of tickets sold over the overall odds of winning based on number of tickets sold t. Your denominator is incorrect.

       

      If it's a single drawing it would be: California's share of tickets sold * tickets sold for N in the equation Prob = COMBIN(N,K) x (Pwin^K) x (Pnotwin^(N-K))

      Where K is the number of tickets winning.

        LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
        Happyland
        United States
        Member #146344
        September 1, 2013
        1131 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: September 25, 2014, 3:25 pm - IP Logged

        In that case, you need to do California's fraction of tickets sold over the overall odds of winning based on number of tickets sold t. Your denominator is incorrect.

         

        If it's a single drawing it would be: California's share of tickets sold * tickets sold for N in the equation Prob = COMBIN(N,K) x (Pwin^K) x (Pnotwin^(N-K))

        Where K is the number of tickets winning.

        I never provided a "denominator" or even any formula for doing this, therefore I cannot be incorrect. LOL

        The probability of California having a winner(s) is easily approximated using 1-exp(-t/N), where t represents the tickets sold and N represents the combinations. If California sold 5,000,000 tickets every drawing for 10 drawings, their probability of having a winner(s) in any of those drawings would be about 25%.

        Formula/Proof using Poisson Distribution:

        P(k) = (exp(-λ )*λ^k)/(k!) where λ (lambda) = t/N and k equals number of winners

        or to find probability of "any" winner simply use 0 for k and subtract equation from 1 (Rule of Complements)

        λ = 50000000/175223510 = 0.285349837 (result is same if you use 5,000,000 in formula to the power of 10 or 50,000,000)

        P(0) = (exp(-0.285349837)*0.285349837^0)/0! = 0.75175

        1 - P(0) = 0.24825 ≈ 25%

        In the recent Powerball cycle, California sold about 23 million tickets. So using the above, their probability of any winner during the cycle was about 12.3%

        Coincidentally, they have won 12% of drawings.

        Thanks for your contribution Thumbs Up

        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?

        2017: 0% (0 tickets)
        P&L % = Total Win($)/Total Wager($) - 1

          LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
          Happyland
          United States
          Member #146344
          September 1, 2013
          1131 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: September 25, 2014, 3:53 pm - IP Logged

          Correction, California has only won 4 Powerball drawings this year, and there have been 77 draws (what I get for not checking myself) Conehead

          Can't include Mega Millions with those because it's entirely separate

          Still pretty certain that their win rate falls in line with their sales. If I get time I will do the calculations

          Edit:

          Big surprise here.

          Assuming my data source is correct, California has sold about 140.5 million tickets for Powerball this year. That means we can expect close to at least 1 winner.

          BUT, using the formulas I posted earlier, the probability of them having 4 winners so far is only 1% (0.8% if you want to get technical). Skeptical

          Now that may sound unlikely, but it comes out to odds of about 1 in 129. And keep in mind that last year they only hit once, albeit they joined 1/3 of the way into the year. With this data I would expect that they will have few winners the rest of this year. However, randomness can surprise LOL

          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?

          2017: 0% (0 tickets)
          P&L % = Total Win($)/Total Wager($) - 1

            LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
            Happyland
            United States
            Member #146344
            September 1, 2013
            1131 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: September 25, 2014, 4:24 pm - IP Logged

            2nd correction, the probability of them having at least 4 winners is 0.92% or odds of 1 in 109. Not that anyone cares

            I'm sure this may trigger the conspiracy theorists in full storm, but you can't focus on the short term. Some states will win more, some less, but over time their win rates will match up with their sales. Just because a state exceeds their "expected" win rate doesn't mean the game is rigged. The lottery's balls do this all the time, "hot" and "cold" but over the long term will align with their expected value. It's simple math and understanding probability really.

            That being said, I am looking forward to the next 'big one', whenever that will be Dance

            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?

            2017: 0% (0 tickets)
            P&L % = Total Win($)/Total Wager($) - 1

              Avatar

              United States
              Member #135804
              November 29, 2012
              332 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: September 25, 2014, 5:03 pm - IP Logged

              You should take a 5 year sample of their Mega, not just year-by-year. It's been ridiculous! Which makes the .92% all the more supported

                pickone4me's avatar - 021414tvlies zpsa453b327.jpg
                Wisconsin
                United States
                Member #104962
                January 23, 2011
                1075 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: September 25, 2014, 7:19 pm - IP Logged

                Welcome to the NEW California Powerball Game where most other states all have excellent odds in assisting California residents in winning new jackpots!

                Buy early, buy now and you too can be a part of this exciting event!

                LOL

                 Thumbs Up  It sure appears to be fact at this point.

                  Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
                  Zeta Reticuli Star System
                  United States
                  Member #30470
                  January 17, 2006
                  10390 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: September 25, 2014, 7:30 pm - IP Logged

                  Let it Roll for 28 more Draws Hurray!Dec 24th Christmas Eve Noel 

                  Well that was a WHAMMY!

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

                  Lep

                  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.

                    Marilyn222's avatar - thumb 350-286546.jpg
                    Denver
                    United States
                    Member #117684
                    October 12, 2011
                    552 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: September 25, 2014, 7:59 pm - IP Logged

                    They can all go to h**l for all I care!Green laugh

                    I take that back...they can all go to heaven for all I care...lolLOL

                    White Bounce


                      United States
                      Member #106134
                      February 13, 2011
                      806 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: September 25, 2014, 8:47 pm - IP Logged

                      California should be banned from all MUSL games because it is too overpopulated.

                      Like I said, they can have their own state lottery where thousands of players win each drawing and split the change.

                        pickone4me's avatar - 021414tvlies zpsa453b327.jpg
                        Wisconsin
                        United States
                        Member #104962
                        January 23, 2011
                        1075 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: September 25, 2014, 9:40 pm - IP Logged

                        I take that back...they can all go to heaven for all I care...lolLOL

                        I liked it the other way.

                          noise-gate's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcR91HDs4UJhjxO7cmeMQWZ5lB_FOcMLOGicau4V74R45tDgPWrr
                          Bay Area - California
                          United States
                          Member #136477
                          December 12, 2012
                          4145 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: September 27, 2014, 12:12 pm - IP Logged

                          California should be banned from all MUSL games because it is too overpopulated.

                          Like I said, they can have their own state lottery where thousands of players win each drawing and split the change.

                          We do have our "Own State Lottery". As for kicking California out of MUSL because it's too as you put it " overpopulated" is funny- tried looking at the population of Wyoming whose  joined the MUSL?

                          With that thinking, I can see why you looking forward to "Expendables 4"

                            psykomo's avatar - animal shark.jpg

                            United States
                            Member #4877
                            May 30, 2004
                            5143 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: September 28, 2014, 10:51 am - IP Logged

                            I take that back...they can all go to heaven for all I care...lolLOL

                                 ????????DanceHyperDance????????

                            have WE WON yet>>$$$

                                        PartyPartyParty

                              rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
                              Texas
                              United States
                              Member #55889
                              October 23, 2007
                              5756 Posts
                              Online
                              Posted: September 28, 2014, 12:49 pm - IP Logged

                              We do have our "Own State Lottery". As for kicking California out of MUSL because it's too as you put it " overpopulated" is funny- tried looking at the population of Wyoming whose  joined the MUSL?

                              With that thinking, I can see why you looking forward to "Expendables 4"

                              jj is ignoring the fact that CA has their own state lottery.

                              CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

                              A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)