Welcome Guest
You last visited February 24, 2018, 3:06 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# To strategize or not to strategize? That is the question

Topic closed. 66 replies. Last post 2 years ago by elios311.

 Page 2 of 5

Slovenia
Member #172924
February 9, 2016
46 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 9, 2016, 3:04 pm - IP Logged

I read another interesting article about consecutive numbers can hurt your chances in the end. The bases for it seems rather straight forward and I think I agree with it. Even though any number is likely, the chance that all consecutive numbers will draw are far less than non-consecutive numbers. The reasoning is there are far more non-consecutive combinations then there are consecutive. So not only do you have to split your winnings if you chose consecutive numbers but you have a decreased draw possibility as well. Interesting

You shouldn't agree with it. It's basically the same logic if someone said that you should go on a road trip on the first week of the month because the majority of car accidents happen in latter weeks of the month. The catch? There are more days in the latter weeks then in the first one so of course there will be a higher count of accidents in that longer period. The same can be said about the second, third and fourth week. So it's a logical fallacy.

And in the lottery example; yes there are far more non-consecutive combinations than consecutive ones. But this plays no role.

Let's do a simpler example. Say you have 3 cups. 2 red ones and one blue. A color blind person places the coin under one of them and it is your job to to make one pick. It is erroneous to think that since there is a 66.6% chance that the coin is under the red cup that you should therefore lift a red one. All three of them have a same 33.3% chance. If however it were you goal to guess under the cup of what color is the coin and then all three would be lifted to see whether you got it right, then yes, you should say red. But the lottery doesn't ask you what will the combination look like. It asks you about a specific combination. And all of them have the same probability regardless of whether you group them together into smaller and larger groups based on their features.

New Member

United States
Member #172564
January 28, 2016
34 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 9, 2016, 3:48 pm - IP Logged

You shouldn't agree with it. It's basically the same logic if someone said that you should go on a road trip on the first week of the month because the majority of car accidents happen in latter weeks of the month. The catch? There are more days in the latter weeks then in the first one so of course there will be a higher count of accidents in that longer period. The same can be said about the second, third and fourth week. So it's a logical fallacy.

And in the lottery example; yes there are far more non-consecutive combinations than consecutive ones. But this plays no role.

Let's do a simpler example. Say you have 3 cups. 2 red ones and one blue. A color blind person places the coin under one of them and it is your job to to make one pick. It is erroneous to think that since there is a 66.6% chance that the coin is under the red cup that you should therefore lift a red one. All three of them have a same 33.3% chance. If however it were you goal to guess under the cup of what color is the coin and then all three would be lifted to see whether you got it right, then yes, you should say red. But the lottery doesn't ask you what will the combination look like. It asks you about a specific combination. And all of them have the same probability regardless of whether you group them together into smaller and larger groups based on their features.

Thanks for the well thought out reply. I would like to 1st say welcome to LP! I guess the word chance was wrong as it means the odds and the odds are the same if you take out combinations or not. I guess I am asking will it increase the frequency of "finding a coin" if there are less cups to dig through to find that coin i.e. a winning ticket.

United States
Member #165541
April 12, 2015
563 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 9, 2016, 3:59 pm - IP Logged

Once again the winning lottery numbers are 01-02-03-04-05-06, there were no winners. Idiocracy (2006)

IMHO
some simple strategies such as wheeling 12 numbers (12,6,4,6)=6 lines have an almost amazing odds reduction of having winning numbers among the 12 compared to among the 6.

BobP

You know, I have watched that movie many times, I have not yet caught that.  I am going to have to watch again, next time during my workout.

Slovenia
Member #172924
February 9, 2016
46 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 9, 2016, 6:31 pm - IP Logged

Thanks for the well thought out reply. I would like to 1st say welcome to LP! I guess the word chance was wrong as it means the odds and the odds are the same if you take out combinations or not. I guess I am asking will it increase the frequency of "finding a coin" if there are less cups to dig through to find that coin i.e. a winning ticket.

Thank you.

If there were less cups then yes, but since the color of the cups does not influence the decision under which cup the person places the coin, it therefore doesn't help you. You still have all three cups to choose from even though two are red. There is a 1/3 chance that the coin is under the blue cup, 1/3 chance that it is under the first red and a 1/3 chance that it is under the second red. Likewise, there is a one in a gazillion chance that the combination will be 123456, and a same one in a gazillion chance that it will be 618745.

Only if you can establish that the color of the cups influenced the persons decision (which it didn't since he is colorblind) can you start eliminating options. Likewise, the drawing machine is a dead piece of hardware and it is blind to the numbers and completely oblivious as to what consecutive sequence means. (unless it is rigged)

You can make a thought experiment by imagining a drawing machine with nothing but white identical balls in it (no numbers on them just pure white balls). You probably agree that any sequence of these balls is equally likely to be drawn. Now imagine we place a dozen high-speed ultra HD cameras that record the drawing machine at thousands of frames per second from all directions. Lets say that we track those balls optically, assigning a number to each one on the slow-mo video recording. It is weird to think that our act of recording the balls and assigning numbers to them only in our heads would now somehow influence the juggling of the balls in such a way that certain combinations would be less likely to occur, even though there is no physical contact. Those balls have no idea what numbers you are imagining that they represent. Now simply replace the cameras with numbers written on the balls and you reach the conclusion that every combination is equally likely. (so long as the draw is random and not rigged of course)

New Member

United States
Member #172564
January 28, 2016
34 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 9, 2016, 7:10 pm - IP Logged

I agree that the numbers have no real significance they could be called apple jello chicken and serve the same function. My rational was purely how many combined ways you can make non consecutive numbers vs consecutive.Non-consecutive have more combinations physically. Thinking that, If there are more ways to make combinations how would this not make sense then that you are more likely to pick one of those many variant combinations vs. a specific sequence limiting your condition to relatively few options. Another way you can think about it is its like wheeling numbers, the more combinations you wheel together have a higher likelihood vs. playing only 5 numbers.

Maybe I'm not seeing it and I am dense haha...definitely a condition that is very plausible.

Slovenia
Member #172924
February 9, 2016
46 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 9, 2016, 7:34 pm - IP Logged

I agree that the numbers have no real significance they could be called apple jello chicken and serve the same function. My rational was purely how many combined ways you can make non consecutive numbers vs consecutive.Non-consecutive have more combinations physically. Thinking that, If there are more ways to make combinations how would this not make sense then that you are more likely to pick one of those many variant combinations vs. a specific sequence limiting your condition to relatively few options. Another way you can think about it is its like wheeling numbers, the more combinations you wheel together have a higher likelihood vs. playing only 5 numbers.

Maybe I'm not seeing it and I am dense haha...definitely a condition that is very plausible.

It is of course true that it is more likely that a non-consecutive combination will be drawn. But that is simply because there are more non-consecutive combinations to be had. Think again about the car accidents. The majority of them happen after the first week of the month. But you are no safer in the first week as opposed to in the second one. The majority of them happen outside of the second week, and the majority happen outside of the third week, and the majority happen outside of the fourth week. So it doesn't help you at all.

Suppose you make a list of all consecutive combinations out of a more that a hundred million that the lottery has. That list will represent the minority of all combinations. Now make another list of all combinations made out of even numbers and another one out of only odd numbers, and another one out of prime numbers and keep doing the lists with different criteria until each and every one possible combination that the lottery offers belongs to one list. Each and every list will contain millions of combinations that all share the same criteria. If your criteria was stringent enough, then every list is only a minority of all combinations. Therefore using the logic that you should keep away from minorities is a fallacy as every list is a minority.

It only seems natural to you that a list of consecutive combinations is more significant than say a list of fibonnacci numbers or whatever other combinations. But in reality, all different criteria of grouping them together is equally significant. You could just as easily say to stay away from fibonacci sequences because they are a tiny minority and will probably not be drawn. But you can say the exact same thing about every other combination. A mathematician will always find a formula for every combination and put it in that small group.

You only know about more common groups such as odd, even, consecutive, prime numbers etc, but there are potentially infinite ways to group numbers in ways that are not commonly known so it helps not with lottery at all.

New Member

United States
Member #172564
January 28, 2016
34 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 9, 2016, 8:30 pm - IP Logged

"It is of course true that it is more likely that a non-consecutive combination will be drawn. But that is simply because there are more non-consecutive combinations to be had."

That is what I was saying from the start haha I get what you are saying about applying stringent criteria. That is my point, we are talking about 1 specific criteria. similar to saying ill play all high numbers or all odd numbers or all numbers ending in 1. Basically variety is the spice of life.

~Wait...can I wheel the spice of life? yummy

United States
Member #165541
April 12, 2015
563 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 9, 2016, 9:49 pm - IP Logged

Six or Seven, I hear a few people play those numbers every drawings.

Six or seven?  Or Six or Seven hundred?

Dump Water Florida
United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
3190 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2016, 10:23 am - IP Logged

You shouldn't agree with it. It's basically the same logic if someone said that you should go on a road trip on the first week of the month because the majority of car accidents happen in latter weeks of the month. The catch? There are more days in the latter weeks then in the first one so of course there will be a higher count of accidents in that longer period. The same can be said about the second, third and fourth week. So it's a logical fallacy.

And in the lottery example; yes there are far more non-consecutive combinations than consecutive ones. But this plays no role.

Let's do a simpler example. Say you have 3 cups. 2 red ones and one blue. A color blind person places the coin under one of them and it is your job to to make one pick. It is erroneous to think that since there is a 66.6% chance that the coin is under the red cup that you should therefore lift a red one. All three of them have a same 33.3% chance. If however it were you goal to guess under the cup of what color is the coin and then all three would be lifted to see whether you got it right, then yes, you should say red. But the lottery doesn't ask you what will the combination look like. It asks you about a specific combination. And all of them have the same probability regardless of whether you group them together into smaller and larger groups based on their features.

While the lottery does not pay off on anything but correct winning numbers, getting close shows you're on the right track.

For example, you walk up to the counter and order a pizza.  You have a better chance of getting that pizza if you're in a pizza parlor then a dry cleaner.  Being in the right place doesn't guarantee a prize, it's a starting point in problem solving.  Solve enough problems (filters) and you can win a jackpot.

BobP

New Member

United States
Member #172564
January 28, 2016
34 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2016, 10:50 am - IP Logged

While the lottery does not pay off on anything but correct winning numbers, getting close shows you're on the right track.

For example, you walk up to the counter and order a pizza.  You have a better chance of getting that pizza if you're in a pizza parlor then a dry cleaner.  Being in the right place doesn't guarantee a prize, it's a starting point in problem solving.  Solve enough problems (filters) and you can win a jackpot.

BobP

Agreed, unless some new hipster in town opens up a dry cleaner that offers pizza service. Think of it, while you wait and eat your pizza you stain your shirt. More business! Now all I have to do is win a Jackpot to fund this idea.

Slovenia
Member #172924
February 9, 2016
46 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 10, 2016, 5:56 pm - IP Logged

While the lottery does not pay off on anything but correct winning numbers, getting close shows you're on the right track.

For example, you walk up to the counter and order a pizza.  You have a better chance of getting that pizza if you're in a pizza parlor then a dry cleaner.  Being in the right place doesn't guarantee a prize, it's a starting point in problem solving.  Solve enough problems (filters) and you can win a jackpot.

BobP

But that doesn't count here. While the pizza has a higher probability of being in the pizza parlor as opposed to somewhere else, the numbers 123456 however have the same probability of being drawn as numbers 608713.

Dump Water Florida
United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
3190 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 11, 2016, 6:08 am - IP Logged

But that doesn't count here. While the pizza has a higher probability of being in the pizza parlor as opposed to somewhere else, the numbers 123456 however have the same probability of being drawn as numbers 608713.

That's why we refer to these techniques as strategies.  This is why we can plow millions of equally likely combinations out of our glide path.

Take a step back from the pizza counter.  What part of the city are we more likely to encounter a pizza parlor, Little China or Little Italy?

Every combination is representative of multiple combinational populations.

For example: When we filter out all but 3 low 3 high millions of combinations are taken out of our play book including: 01-02-03-04-05-06

Yes, many millions of combinations remain, but as we continue the filtering process their numbers dwindle to thousands, hundreds, dozens and it's pizza time or not and if not what have we done but wasted a little time because what is the alternative, buy Quick Picks?

The win is ours to filter away provided we start with all the possible combinations before filtering down to what we believe the winning draw will look like much the way a sculptor chips away to the image hidden in the rock.

New Member

United States
Member #172564
January 28, 2016
34 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 11, 2016, 8:22 am - IP Logged

Are you kidding me with yesterday's Powerball numbers? Pretty darn close to consecutive. 2,3,40,50,62 (5)

Slovenia
Member #172924
February 9, 2016
46 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 11, 2016, 8:24 am - IP Logged

That's why we refer to these techniques as strategies.  This is why we can plow millions of equally likely combinations out of our glide path.

Take a step back from the pizza counter.  What part of the city are we more likely to encounter a pizza parlor, Little China or Little Italy?

Every combination is representative of multiple combinational populations.

For example: When we filter out all but 3 low 3 high millions of combinations are taken out of our play book including: 01-02-03-04-05-06

Yes, many millions of combinations remain, but as we continue the filtering process their numbers dwindle to thousands, hundreds, dozens and it's pizza time or not and if not what have we done but wasted a little time because what is the alternative, buy Quick Picks?

The win is ours to filter away provided we start with all the possible combinations before filtering down to what we believe the winning draw will look like much the way a sculptor chips away to the image hidden in the rock.

Oh, so what you're saying is is that you're only doing it because it's more fun than QuickPicks? Odds remain the same or not it's just fun to do it? Ok then. I just thought that people assume that if a lottery has say one against a million chance of a win but that you have one against a billion if you play with 123456.

Dump Water Florida
United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
3190 Posts
Offline
 Posted: February 11, 2016, 4:27 pm - IP Logged

Oh, so what you're saying is is that you're only doing it because it's more fun than QuickPicks? Odds remain the same or not it's just fun to do it? Ok then. I just thought that people assume that if a lottery has say one against a million chance of a win but that you have one against a billion if you play with 123456.

Well no, because the choices you make will determine whether you win or lose rather then a RNG code in a machine.  Give your skills a chance.   It's much easier to correctly select from six filter choices then 53 numbers.  Especially when you can pick more then one for some filters and still narrow down to budget. Hey, if someone can win six coin flips in a row, anything is possible!

Every unique combination has the same odds, the overall odds never change, but odds of a reduced field do with each size change.

I think most people know the reason not to play 123456 is the sharing risk, not that it won't eventually be drawn.

BobP

 Page 2 of 5