Welcome Guest
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

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 ]
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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!

It sure appears to be fact at this point.

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 Dec 24th Christmas Eve

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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...lol

I liked it the other way.

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.

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

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...lol

????????????????

have WE WON yet>>\$\$\$

Texas
United States
Member #55889
October 23, 2007
5756 Posts
Online
 Posted: September 28, 2014, 12:49 pm - IP Logged

### 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)

 Page 6 of 7