Probability experts..
Discussion
Some Gump said:
OK, to clarify,
I have asked for 2 lucky dips twice.
Both times, the numbers went along the lines of:
7, 15, 20, 35, 47, 49
5, 8, 20, 35, 40, 49
For lucky dips, they actually pick numbers that are not going to win the lottery. You can calculate this by seeing how many times the numbers have come up in any given 12 months to date; each number will be drawn no more than 5 times on average in any such 12 month period - that's how probability works. Fact. So if since 4th December 2009, the number 3 has only come twice then it will be 50% more likely to occur than any of the numbers that has come up 5 times in a completely random draw; as another example, if the number 7 has been drawn 8 times, then the number 3 would be 128% more likely. This is how probability works in the real world rather than theoretical mathematics nonsense that is being bandied about in the previous posts. And so, it is 8 times more likely that you will have 2 lucky dips matching than you would stand a chance of winning the lottery. Using this method, because I record the numbers each week using a bar graph, I've won the £100k+ prize three times with 8 month gaps (given the distribution of numbers over a 12 month period) as you can see which numbers will be drawn simply because the bars for those particular numbers will be smaller. It is really easy when you know how.I have asked for 2 lucky dips twice.
Both times, the numbers went along the lines of:
7, 15, 20, 35, 47, 49
5, 8, 20, 35, 40, 49
Hear that puff in the distance? That was SC7's head exploding with rage. Ok, I made up the above; SC7 is correct.
Edited by ShadownINja on Saturday 4th December 20:40
SC7 said:
Oh, and I'm not a puff; it's just the way I dress.
Did you feel the red mist descend as you were reading that?
PS I added a graph stolen from the web for added craziness. Speaking of which, that graph IS the result of someone recording the numbers.
Edited by ShadownINja on Saturday 4th December 20:43
Not really: the two things are completely different kinds of probability.
To win the lotto, you want to pick exactly the right set of six from 49 - very long odds. Hold more than one set of six numbers barely changes this they are all sets of six from 48, ie they don't interact or 'help each other' to any degree. You get the same long odds on each set of six.
But if you start picking 12, 18, 24,30 numbers or more from the same set of 48 in sets of six, the chance these are all unique numbers drops dramatically.
If you pick 8 rows of 6 from 48, how often should each number turn up..? Hint, its not 1:1, but much much more likely - in fact the 1:1 chance happens on picking the seventeenth number ...
As for week to week and variance - you have exactly the same chance in each draw. A random pick has no memory, just because you expect certain things does not mean the draw will follow. Long term , yes, probability should hold - , - but look at it this way, 12.2million weekly draws is about a 200,000years - you have to expect the unexpected meanwhile
.
To win the lotto, you want to pick exactly the right set of six from 49 - very long odds. Hold more than one set of six numbers barely changes this they are all sets of six from 48, ie they don't interact or 'help each other' to any degree. You get the same long odds on each set of six.
But if you start picking 12, 18, 24,30 numbers or more from the same set of 48 in sets of six, the chance these are all unique numbers drops dramatically.
If you pick 8 rows of 6 from 48, how often should each number turn up..? Hint, its not 1:1, but much much more likely - in fact the 1:1 chance happens on picking the seventeenth number ...
As for week to week and variance - you have exactly the same chance in each draw. A random pick has no memory, just because you expect certain things does not mean the draw will follow. Long term , yes, probability should hold - , - but look at it this way, 12.2million weekly draws is about a 200,000years - you have to expect the unexpected meanwhile
.ShadownINja said:
each number will be drawn no more than 5 times on average in any such 12 month period - that's how probability works. Fact. So if since 4th December 2009, the number 3 has only come twice then it will be 50% more likely to occur than any of the numbers that has come up 5 times in a completely random draw; as another example, if the number 7 has been drawn 8 times, then the number 3 would be 128% more likely. This is how probability works in the real world rather than theoretical mathematics nonsense that is being bandied about in the previous posts.
I am trying to understand this.If something is random then what has gone before can never affect the outcome of the next "play". For instance, if you flip a coin and get 3 "heads" in a row it doesn't increase the probability of getting "tails" next time.
Are you referring to a "double-up" strategy where each time you lose on the flip of the coin you simply double the bet for next time? This would be on the basis that probability HAS TO eventually deliver a "tails" even though you can never tell when it's coming.
All forms of mathematically driven gambling that I know of (for instance, Roulette) put a cap on the size of your stake in order to defeat "double-up" strategies and guarantee an eventual win for the house.
IMO gambler = loser. Unless you're the bookie/casino!
Ozzie Osmond said:
ShadownINja said:
each number will be drawn no more than 5 times on average in any such 12 month period - that's how probability works. Fact. So if since 4th December 2009, the number 3 has only come twice then it will be 50% more likely to occur than any of the numbers that has come up 5 times in a completely random draw; as another example, if the number 7 has been drawn 8 times, then the number 3 would be 128% more likely. This is how probability works in the real world rather than theoretical mathematics nonsense that is being bandied about in the previous posts.
I am trying to understand this.If something is random then what has gone before can never affect the outcome of the next "play". For instance, if you flip a coin and get 3 "heads" in a row it doesn't increase the probability of getting "tails" next time.
Are you referring to a "double-up" strategy where each time you lose on the flip of the coin you simply double the bet for next time? This would be on the basis that probability HAS TO eventually deliver a "tails" even though you can never tell when it's coming.
All forms of mathematically driven gambling that I know of (for instance, Roulette) put a cap on the size of your stake in order to defeat "double-up" strategies and guarantee an eventual win for the house.
IMO gambler = loser. Unless you're the bookie/casino!
Edited by ShadownINja on Sunday 5th December 14:35
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff