Lottery is a bit crap

[Mr Trophy]

Pork said:

Mr Trophy said:

See for the tickets that go "unclaimed" are these where people have bought a ticket, rather than going online to get a ticket? IE, walked into a shop!?

Something like 90% of tickets are 'retail', I.e. Shops, not on line. If you win online and don't claim, they call you. A lady recently won £1m online and didn't check so had a call from Camelot. It's on their website.

Thank you - I've just updated my number

[KingNothing]

Not a lucky dip according to the photo on daily mail.

Why would someone go out and chose those particular numbers? I know you can say that about any jackpot winner who wins, but two ascending numbers in the 20's, and 40's, then two more numbers in the 50's. Also the only thing left in the ticket to do with the date is the 16, Hmmmmmmm.

[Digger]

There could well be 100's more before the 6 months is up.

[Pork]

KingNothing said:

Not a lucky dip according to the photo on daily mail.

Why would someone go out and chose those particular numbers? I know you can say that about any jackpot winner who wins, but two ascending numbers in the 20's, and 40's, then two more numbers in the 50's. Also the only thing left in the ticket to do with the date is the 16, Hmmmmmmm.

As I've said above, if she's on the fiddle, I think they should throw the book at her. If it's genuine, I hope she gets her money. Camelot will know if it was sold in the shop she's claimed and if someone has bought a line with those numbers since. I suspect that's why they're still telling people to keep looking for the ticket!

Re consecutive numbers, I read about lottery numbers for a subject at Uni and consecutive numbers are very common. Selecting them is one of many ways of improving your chances of winning, apparently.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Pork said:

Re consecutive numbers, I read about lottery numbers for a subject at Uni and consecutive numbers are very common. Selecting them is one of many ways of improving your chances of winning, apparently.

No it isn't. And there aren't many ways to improve your chances, short of buying more tickets. And choosing higher numbers, which does not improve your chances of winning, but reduces your chances of sharing the win.

[SpeckledJim]

KingNothing said:

Why would someone go out and chose those particular numbers? I know you can say that about any jackpot winner who wins, but two ascending numbers in the 20's, and 40's, then two more numbers in the 50's.

You're saying you wouldn't have chosen those numbers? Presumably because you think they are unlikely to win?

All you've concluded is an unknown someone is better at guessing random numbers than you are.

[SpeckledJim]

Pork said:

Re consecutive numbers, I read about lottery numbers for a subject at Uni and consecutive numbers are very common. Selecting them is one of many ways of improving your chances of winning, apparently.

But did you pass the re-sit?

[Pork]

SpeckledJim said:

But did you pass the re-sit?

You'll be surprised to learn I didn't need to re-sit, I passed first time with 187%.

Note the 'apparently' at the end of my sentence, above.

[SpeckledJim]

Pork said:

SpeckledJim said:

But did you pass the re-sit?

You'll be surprised to learn I didn't need to re-sit, I passed first time with 187%.

Note the 'apparently' at the end of my sentence, above.

See what you mean. It doesn't read like that. It reads like you're another lottery nutcase.

But you're not.

[KingNothing]

SpeckledJim said:

KingNothing said:

Why would someone go out and chose those particular numbers? I know you can say that about any jackpot winner who wins, but two ascending numbers in the 20's, and 40's, then two more numbers in the 50's.

You're saying you wouldn't have chosen those numbers? Presumably because you think they are unlikely to win?

All you've concluded is an unknown someone is better at guessing random numbers than you are.

26 and 27, and 46 and 47 are just as likely to come out as X & Y, they have the same chance to come out of a random number generator, such as a lottery machine. The fact that they came out of the machine is proof that any pattern of numbers is possible. But I'd only hazard a guess and say that majority of people given the choice would not chose two sets of consecutive numbers, through a misguided notion that the machine wouldn't chuck out consecutive numbers, even though to the machine the numbers printed on the balls are irrelevant to it. I just think it's slightly fishy; the free number choices, the fact it was only one line when people were pumping dozens of pounds into the draw each, and the fact the date is wiped out, expect for the 16. I've also washed a lottery ticket before, didn't come out nearly as pristine as the one in the photo, it's was a crumpled shred of soggy paper, illegible.

[TTmonkey]

KingNothing said:

Not a lucky dip according to the photo on daily mail.

Why would someone go out and chose those particular numbers? I know you can say that about any jackpot winner who wins, but two ascending numbers in the 20's, and 40's, then two more numbers in the 50's. Also the only thing left in the ticket to do with the date is the 16, Hmmmmmmm.

So if there's enough info for Camelot to prove that its at least the remains of a genuine ticket, all they would need to do is search their records for a ticket being bought after the draw (in the area where the woman claims to have bought it) with those number, and this would prove that she's likely bought it post draw and is a scammer. If theres no such ticket bought with those numbers, and they say the remains are genuine, QED, its the missing ticket. No?

That's if they can prove its a genuine ticket. Which I would guess is easy enough for them to do?

Even though the ticket is damaged, I would suggest that she's unable to totally fake a genuine ticket, she would have to start her scam with a genuine ticket that's bought after the event with the right numbers on, and damage it so that the draw date is not recognisable. As all ticket purchases are recorded, they would have a record of a ticket with these numbers and be able to tie her to a fake purchase.

[TTmonkey]

KingNothing said:

SpeckledJim said:

KingNothing said:

Why would someone go out and chose those particular numbers? I know you can say that about any jackpot winner who wins, but two ascending numbers in the 20's, and 40's, then two more numbers in the 50's.

You're saying you wouldn't have chosen those numbers? Presumably because you think they are unlikely to win?

All you've concluded is an unknown someone is better at guessing random numbers than you are.

26 and 27, and 46 and 47 are just as likely to come out as X & Y, they have the same chance to come out of a random number generator, such as a lottery machine. The fact that they came out of the machine is proof that any pattern of numbers is possible. But I'd only hazard a guess and say that majority of people given the choice would not chose two sets of consecutive numbers, through a misguided notion that the machine wouldn't chuck out consecutive numbers, even though to the machine the numbers printed on the balls are irrelevant to it. I just think it's slightly fishy; the free number choices, the fact it was only one line when people were pumping dozens of pounds into the draw each, and the fact the date is wiped out, expect for the 16. I've also washed a lottery ticket before, didn't come out nearly as pristine as the one in the photo, it's was a crumpled shred of soggy paper, illegible.

What must be remembered is that the balls (to the machine) are identical. We see that they have colours and numbers on them, but the machine does not. therefore when drawn the machine draws 6 identical balls. It has no idea that they have numbers and colours. In fact, they must be identical in weight, size, shape, density etc etc. That's the lottery rules and these are tested regularly.

Only humans looking at the balls see the numbers and only we recognise that they have numbers that may be next to each other in a sequence. So the chance of any ball being drawn is identical.

The machine also has no memory. It has no memory of the last draw and whether or not the same ball has been drawn 2 weeks running or more. Only we have the ability to link this weeks draw with last weeks.

[Rich_W]

Hmmm.

[Pork]

Sky news washed three tickets on different washes, two were totally destroyed one was in tatters but not convenient tatters like the above.

They also stated that National Lottery had been offered CCTV from the shop where she claimed the winning ticket was bought and hadn't taken up the offer. That's pretty telling (or a red herring!) National Lottery underlined that that would take all appropriate legal action against anyone fraudulently claiming the win.

[anonymous-user]

massive coincidence that all identifying marks has rubbed off/disappeared. The raffle would identify as well.

As much as want to believe her, unfortunately 'people' like her, yes a bit council, have this air of shameless about them, I just can't stop thinking about the 'Kidnapping of Shannon Matthews' saga, and her coming up with this 'scheme', considering she has had about 2 weeks to perfect it.

it would be funny as the lottery hasn't released the purchased shop, the women thought she could con them and the ticket was actually bought elsewhere.

edit just noticed this story

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/susanne-hinte...

Edited by The Spruce goose on Wednesday 27th January 23:36

[kev1974]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3419584/Lo...

"Lottery investigators 'have decided grandmother who claimed £33million ticket was ruined in the wash is NOT the jackpot winner' "

[p1stonhead]

kev1974 said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3419584/Lo...

"Lottery investigators 'have decided grandmother who claimed £33million ticket was ruined in the wash is NOT the jackpot winner' "

Surprise Surprise. Another idiot thinking they can cheat the system. Did she really think she would get the money given to her when so much is at stake? They would have wanted to be 45005005% sure it was her before getting close to agreeing. A conveniently washed ticket was never going to work.

[KingNothing]

Didn't spot that coming

[Butter Face]

Hopefully she gets prosecuted for attempted fraud!

[V8LM]

SpeckledJim said:

Pork said:

Re consecutive numbers, I read about lottery numbers for a subject at Uni and consecutive numbers are very common. Selecting them is one of many ways of improving your chances of winning, apparently.

But did you pass the re-sit?

I think there are only 270 725 numbers out of the 45M that do not have consecutive numbers.