LOTTERY........EVER WON??????
05 November 2002, 05:55 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, with my limited understanding of probability, it's all down to the difference between picking the numbers in the order that they are drawn and when they have been sorted numerically.
Take the dice. If you rolled a dice six times, the odds of the first roll being 1 are just the same as rolling 6. In fact, the odds of you rolling any sequence of numbers is the same as you rolling any other.
The difference comes when you sort your six rolls in ascending order. The odds of the lowest number you roll being 1 are much higher than the odds of it being 6. If you sort the rolls, you will find that 1 is the most common lowest number and 6 is the most common highest. The other four positions will be spread in a similar (but more open) distribution.
Download the National Lottery results, leaving the ball order in ascending order. Look at the values for the highest number drawn. Since 1994 the highest number drawn has never been lower than 19. If you combine all the highest numbers, then the most frequent highest number is 49, with the frequency curve dropping away sharply below 40. Therefore, someone whose highest number is 6 is less likely to win than someone whose highest number is 49.
The same applies to the lowest number drawn. The number that appears most frequently as the lowest number drawn is 1 and the lowest number drawn has never been higher than 30.
It's all in the ordering. Now shoot me down!
Take the dice. If you rolled a dice six times, the odds of the first roll being 1 are just the same as rolling 6. In fact, the odds of you rolling any sequence of numbers is the same as you rolling any other.
The difference comes when you sort your six rolls in ascending order. The odds of the lowest number you roll being 1 are much higher than the odds of it being 6. If you sort the rolls, you will find that 1 is the most common lowest number and 6 is the most common highest. The other four positions will be spread in a similar (but more open) distribution.
Download the National Lottery results, leaving the ball order in ascending order. Look at the values for the highest number drawn. Since 1994 the highest number drawn has never been lower than 19. If you combine all the highest numbers, then the most frequent highest number is 49, with the frequency curve dropping away sharply below 40. Therefore, someone whose highest number is 6 is less likely to win than someone whose highest number is 49.
The same applies to the lowest number drawn. The number that appears most frequently as the lowest number drawn is 1 and the lowest number drawn has never been higher than 30.
It's all in the ordering. Now shoot me down!
05 November 2002, 06:15 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under your bonnet
Posts: 9,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a mate won £76,000 in a big syndicate at work (DHL)
buggered off round the world for a year and turned up at my workshop with a fit Ozzie lass ....bastid
he's my "best mate" now
Andy
buggered off round the world for a year and turned up at my workshop with a fit Ozzie lass ....bastid
he's my "best mate" now
Andy
05 November 2002, 07:02 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm happy for the bloke who won 9 million! I'm certain it will destroy him. He wont know how to deal with it. He'll lose friends as he wont trust any of his low life mates. He'll drink himself into oblivion (alcoholic?).........probably turn to drugs too.
......and if he buys an Impreza he'll probably stuff it within 3 months when he can't cope with lift off oversteer
......and if he buys an Impreza he'll probably stuff it within 3 months when he can't cope with lift off oversteer
06 November 2002, 07:29 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heh heh. DavidRB shows the classic 'general public' misunderstanding of probability which causes them to think that somehow they have a better chance of winning than the 1:14,000,000-odd that is the reality.
Play roulette instead. If you start with a pound, double up every time, and put all your winnings back on every time, you're about 2,000 times more likely to win a million quid than you are on the lottery....
If I ever did play, I'd buy 5 tickets all with the same set of numbers on. The chances of winning would still only be 5:14,000,000 (i.e., to all intents and purposes the same as if I bought one ticket) but at least if I did win the jackpot, I'd be guaranteed a decent share of it if some other ******* picked the same numbers.
Play roulette instead. If you start with a pound, double up every time, and put all your winnings back on every time, you're about 2,000 times more likely to win a million quid than you are on the lottery....
If I ever did play, I'd buy 5 tickets all with the same set of numbers on. The chances of winning would still only be 5:14,000,000 (i.e., to all intents and purposes the same as if I bought one ticket) but at least if I did win the jackpot, I'd be guaranteed a decent share of it if some other ******* picked the same numbers.
06 November 2002, 09:49 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't understand why it is true, then you wouldn't understand the proof. Each ball selection is an independent event. If you throw a die six times you're just as likely to get 6,6,6,6,6,6 as you are to get 6,4,2,4,5,3
06 November 2002, 10:27 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The probability in number selections obviously takes into account that the draw is truly random...
If it isnt (look at how many times 38 is drawn - is it slightly more massive) then the probability calculations do not work as you are more likely to get one ball over another
If it isnt (look at how many times 38 is drawn - is it slightly more massive) then the probability calculations do not work as you are more likely to get one ball over another
06 November 2002, 11:00 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The probability in number selections obviously takes into account that the draw is truly random... If it isnt (look at how many times 38 is drawn - is it slightly more massive)
If, on the other hand, you're saying that the draw is not random because the number of times 38 has been drawn is more massive than that of the other *****, then you are wrong. You are assuming that just because something is random, that the distribution curve for the results will be precisely equal along all eventualities. Clearly, this isn't the case, as that would imply that the longer a particular sequence of numbers is absent from a lottery draw, the more likely it is to appear.
What a lot of people seem to fail to understand is that random means exactly that - totally random. If the numbers for the last 50 lottery draws had ended up being 1,2,3,4,5,6 with a bonus ball of 7, many people would claim that it's a 'fix'. However, standard laws of statistical probability state that it would be perfectly possible, since each ball selection is a distinct and unrelated event.
In the same way, it's perfectly possible for me to randomly roll double-six on a pair of die, 50 times in a row. If it happened it wouldn't mean the dice throw wasn't random....
06 November 2002, 12:07 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never understand all this "number 18: this is a popular one as it's its 54th time as a main ball." announcements. The ***** don't have 'memories'. They don't sit in the machine and think "F*ck me, I've been drawn quite a few times now, I'd better keep quiet and not pop out or the draw won't be random" 
I read an article once (I think it was by Ian Stewart) about how the world would be if randomness was like that. Cricket teams would keep 'special pennies' that had had tails loads of times and then call 'heads' at the toss
I read an article once (I think it was by Ian Stewart) about how the world would be if randomness was like that. Cricket teams would keep 'special pennies' that had had tails loads of times and then call 'heads' at the toss
06 November 2002, 01:26 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One ball must be the highest, mustn't it? However, just because it's come up more than any other ball doesn't mean it'll continue that trend in the future.
06 November 2002, 01:39 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've been through this -- it's because there's one combination where 6 is the highest, but zillions where 49 is the highest. The chance of any one combination is the same, though.
06 November 2002, 01:46 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple thing is this -- it's just entropy. If you take all the combinations of 6 from 49, there are more disordered states than ordered states. So it follows that a disorded state is more likely. You see a disordered set of numbers come up on the telly, and assume you're going to be better off by picking a disordered set of numbers. But you're only picking one combination of numbers, which in effect is 'your' ordered state. So it's just as likely as 1,2,3,4,5,6.
BTW if 1,2,3,4,5,6 come up I will have won the jackpot
BTW if 1,2,3,4,5,6 come up I will have won the jackpot
06 November 2002, 01:50 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trouble is, if 1,2,3,4,5,6 come up and you win the jackpot, you won't actually win very much as there are lots of other smartarses like you who are trying to prove a point, and so playing those numbers, hence you are better off choosing a different combination for that very reason alone
06 November 2002, 01:51 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTOH, there are a lot of people who think that 1,2,3,4,5,6 won't ever come up, so don't choose that combination.
I could change to 2,3,4,5,6,7, but then if 1,2,3,4,5,6 comes up I'll have to kill you
I could change to 2,3,4,5,6,7, but then if 1,2,3,4,5,6 comes up I'll have to kill you
06 November 2002, 01:52 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a bet, you pay me £10 every time 49 is the highest number in the jackpot and I pay you £10 every time 6 is the highest. If we had started this on the first draw, you'd owe me £810, I'd owe you nothing
06 November 2002, 01:54 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trouble is, if 1,2,3,4,5,6 come up and you win the jackpot, you won't actually win very much as there are lots of other smartarses like you who are trying to prove a point
06 November 2002, 02:11 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you mean you disagree, merkin? It's fact! The winnings are based on the ticket, not the winner.
Let's assume a £6m jackpot, and there are 3 winners including me. If I buy one ticket, I get to keep £2m, since each winning ticket takes a £2m share of the jackpot.
However, if I buy 6 identical tickets, then there are 8 winning tickets in total. Each ticket's share is £750k, but since I've got 5 tickets, I get £4.5m The other two winners get a measly £750k each. Therefore, for an extra expenditure of £5, I get a massive increase in potential winnings.
And if you're going to question the odds, it works like this. If I buy one ticket, I have a 1 in 14,000,000 chance of winning the jackpot. If, however, I buy 5 tickets with different numbers on, the odds are 5 in 14,000,000.
Now, most people think that the latter set of odds is equivalent to 1 in 2,800,000 - but it isn't. Buying another ticket doesn't make you twice as likely to win the jackpot, since each ticket does not have an effect on the other. Therefore, buying 5 tickets with different numbers on has an almost insignificant effect on my chances of winning.
So by buying 5 identical tickets, the effect on the odds of winning isn't really changed, but the prize I'll win if I do strike lucky is hugely inflated.
Many people are under the impression that if you bought 7 million tickets, all different, that you'd have a 50:50 chance of winning. This isn't the case. It's a common misunderstanding about chance and probability.
Let's assume a £6m jackpot, and there are 3 winners including me. If I buy one ticket, I get to keep £2m, since each winning ticket takes a £2m share of the jackpot.
However, if I buy 6 identical tickets, then there are 8 winning tickets in total. Each ticket's share is £750k, but since I've got 5 tickets, I get £4.5m The other two winners get a measly £750k each. Therefore, for an extra expenditure of £5, I get a massive increase in potential winnings.
And if you're going to question the odds, it works like this. If I buy one ticket, I have a 1 in 14,000,000 chance of winning the jackpot. If, however, I buy 5 tickets with different numbers on, the odds are 5 in 14,000,000.
Now, most people think that the latter set of odds is equivalent to 1 in 2,800,000 - but it isn't. Buying another ticket doesn't make you twice as likely to win the jackpot, since each ticket does not have an effect on the other. Therefore, buying 5 tickets with different numbers on has an almost insignificant effect on my chances of winning.
So by buying 5 identical tickets, the effect on the odds of winning isn't really changed, but the prize I'll win if I do strike lucky is hugely inflated.
Many people are under the impression that if you bought 7 million tickets, all different, that you'd have a 50:50 chance of winning. This isn't the case. It's a common misunderstanding about chance and probability.
06 November 2002, 02:18 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I agree that you would win more of a share of that jackpot, and I agree that you have a tiny statistical increased probability if you were to spend your 5 pounds on buying 5 different tickets, BUT i disagree the net statistical result of doing that increases your ultimate chance of winning any more money (i.e. basically put you have as much chance if not more of winning 6million (or a given sum) choosing 5 random sets of numbers, as you do buying 5 tickets of the same numbers, can expand later.
06 November 2002, 02:22 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm only talking about winning the outright jackpot. If you start including the odds of winning smaller amounts, and totalling them up, the maths gets extremely complicated (and it also depends on the size of that week's prize fund, etc). So I'll agree that you're probably right.
06 November 2002, 02:31 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never done stats, and only struggled through my pure maths course in my degree. But IMO this kind of stats stuff is fairly obvious and self-evident. It scares me that a lot of people don't understand how it works, and therefore have over-inflated expectations of actually winning big on the lotto.
