lottery question....

jon1981

hi,

a quick one are you increasing your probability of winning the lotto by sticking with your own numbers each week?

if you do a quick pick where sides are random i.e. the lotto machine in the shop generates random numbers each time and so does the lotto machine in the studio...

just curious does keeping one side of the probability equation constant even increase your chance of winning slightly?

Fremen

No, there's nothing you can do to increase your chances of winning, they're the same regardless of whether you use quick-pick or stick to the same numbers.

The best you can do is to pick numbers which other people are less likely to pick, which decreases the chance you'll split the jackpot.

Kippure

Also, why is the lotto never won coming up to a bank hoilday weekend ? Like 3 to 6 roll overs. I find that very suspect.

HAs anyone not noticed that. I can remember only one time it has been won the wednesday before a bank hoilday.

RafoLordOfWars

I dont realy mind the roll-overs, I'd only give it my money if it were over 5 million, but as it goes.... IF YOUR NOT IN.... la de da de da.....:p

Kippure

RafoLordOfWars wrote: »

I dont realy mind the roll-overs, I'd only give it my money if it were over 5 million, but as it goes.... IF YOUR NOT IN.... la de da de da.....:p

Does it not remind you of the old style mafai scams in the late 40,s in chicargo and other americian countrys.

RafoLordOfWars

Kippure wrote: »

Does it not remind you of the old style mafai scams in the late 40,s in chicargo and other americian countrys.

It can be done alright ( e-voting in America anyone!!! ) Dont know about lotto but Im sure as hell that millionaires draw 25euro thingy is a complete scam... a Tralee winner durning the Rose compatition;););)

Sam Kade

Kippure wrote: »

Also, why is the lotto never won coming up to a bank hoilday weekend ? Like 3 to 6 roll overs. I find that very suspect.

HAs anyone not noticed that. I can remember only one time it has been won the wednesday before a bank hoilday.

And the 13 million jackpot was won in Dublin again.

FoxT

unfortunately, there is only 1 way.... buy more tickets!
There is no winning strategy. ( but, see caveat below)

If
person A selects the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 every time,
person B does a quickpick,
person C chooses the 6 numbers that have turned up least often in the past,
person D chooses the numbers that won last week
etc
etc

all have an equal chance of winning.

Caveat- HOW to definitely win the lotto

1 - calculate the number of different ticket combinations. Say this number is 10 million. ( I dunno what it is & too lazy to check)
2 - wait for a week when the jackpot is greater than 10 million
3 -buy 10 million ( or whatever number) tickets.

Now, you will win the lotto. (Assuming you can find that pesky winning ticket....) However, there is a risk that 1 or more others may have won also, so you may have to share the prize.

And, as you buy up your 10 million tickets the jackpot will get bigger, so step 2 can be refined as follows: Suppose you know that if you buy 10 million tickets the jackpot goes up by x amount. Then at step 2 wait till the jackpot is at (10 million-x) before you buy.

You could refine this further by making x smaller (even negative) to take into account the probability that you will have to share the winnings.

A bit of parameter tweaking above, an army of ticket buyers, a process to find the winning ticket, and about eu 10 - 20 million seed capital - and you're away!

alan4cult

Yes it can be done and it was done in 1992. One man bought all the combinations possible but the National Lottery shutdown some of the machines.

The thing is you should buy every combination except one because if you buy every combination the Revenue can tax you because you removed the element of chance from the win!

The lotto jackpot has to be over a certain threshold as the previous poster said and you have to be take the loss of multiple winners.

There are 45 different numbers to choose from.
The total number of combinations is 45 choose 6.
This equals 8,145,060 total combinations (lines).
Each line costs €1.50 i think.

Therefore it would cost 8145060 * 1.50 = €12 217 590 to do it.

so for last nights draw you could have made a
€932,734 profit
but because someone else won it too you would have made a loss!

TommyGunne

You can't increase the chance of winning the lotto, but you can increase your expectation. Just pick numbers that nobody else picks much ie 13, any number over 31 (birthdays), runs of 6 in a row (people never do this cos they think 'sure that could never happen!') This means you increase the chances of you being the sole winner and increase your EV.

Mellor

FoxT wrote: »

There is no winning strategy. ( but, see caveat below)

If
person A selects the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 every time,
person B does a quickpick,
person C chooses the 6 numbers that have turned up least often in the past,
person D chooses the numbers that won last week
etc
etc

all have an equal chance of winning.

hey all have equal chance of winning, but that doesn't mean they are equal value.
I'd say that that choice B, the quick pick, represents the most value. All the others are easily chosen by others, therefore splits alot.
C is probably next after B as its harder to quantify for joe soap.

alan4cult wrote: »

The lotto jackpot has to be over a certain threshold as the previous poster said and you have to be take the loss of multiple winners.

There are 45 different numbers to choose from.
The total number of combinations is 45 choose 6.
This equals 8,145,060 total combinations (lines).
Each line costs €1.50 i think.

Therefore it would cost 8145060 * 1.50 = €12 217 590 to do it.

so for last nights draw you could have made a
€932,734 profit
but because someone else won it too you would have made a loss!

You are forgetting the other winning tickets too, if you bought them all you also win
6*Match 5+Bonus No.
190*Match 5 No.
And so on down to a ridic number of match 3s

So the breakeven jackpot amount is a bit lower than the actual cost of the 8 million tickets

TommyGunne wrote: »

You can't increase the chance of winning the lotto, but you can increase your expectation. Just pick numbers that nobody else picks much ie 13, any number over 31 (birthdays), runs of 6 in a row (people never do this cos they think 'sure that could never happen!') This means you increase the chances of you being the sole winner and increase your EV.

Pretty good line TG

Dumb

It would depend on the amount of numbers there are and the amount you can choose on your ticket. You would need to buy like a million tickets or more. Would it be economical? Maybe. Depends on the winnings. Who would bother doing it though.

Surely you learned this at the Leaving Cert. Remember that Maths Class?

Yakuza

alan4cult wrote: »

Yes it can be done and it was done in 1992. One man bought all the combinations possible but the National Lottery shutdown some of the machines.

That was a syndicate run by Stefan Klincewicz. They didn't quite manage to buy all the numbers up, as the National Lottery copped on to what they were doing and shut some terminals down. The only reason they won money at all was because there was a guaranteed £100 for matching 4 numbers. They shared the main jackpot with two others, and made about a 30% return on their investment.

mickdw

There are much more combinations now (due to more numbers) compared to that time when those guys bought all the numbers. Lottery will never offer that 100 euro for 4 numbers again either so its not worth it now.

I think you can look at the figures in many different ways re chances of winning. Sure its 6 from 49 you must pick so always the same chance of winning regardless of what numbers you go for. However, anyone can safely assume that 6 in a row are not going to be pulled out.

Michael Collins

mickdw wrote: »

...However, anyone can safely assume that 6 in a row are not going to be pulled out.

But the chances of say 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 coming out is equivalent to any other 6 specific numbers coming out. And why shouldn't it? Just because they're consecutive we attach a special meaning to them, but there's nothing more special about these than there is about say 1, 7, 8, 24, 36, 39.

Can anyone work out the probability of getting exactly 3 numbers right (and not the bonus)? I think I have it but it was a lot harder to work out than i expected...

Yakuza

Michael Collins wrote: »

Can anyone work out the probability of getting exactly 3 numbers right (and not the bonus)? I think I have it but it was a lot harder to work out than i expected...

Ignoring the bonus number completely, there are 6 winning numbers and 39 "losing" numbers.
To match 3 exactly, you need to have chosen 3 from the 6 winning numbers and 3 from the remaining 39 losing numbers.
There are 6C3 * 39C3 such combinations (or 20 * 9139 or 182780 combinations), so your odds are 8145060 / 182780 or approx 45:1

Taking the bonus number into account, the calcs change slightly in that there are only 38 "losing" numbers, so the number of combinations changes to 6C3 * 38C3 = 20 * 8436 = 168720, or approx 48:1 odds.

Michael Collins

Yakuza wrote: »

Ignoring the bonus number completely, there are 6 winning numbers and 39 "losing" numbers.
To match 3 exactly, you need to have chosen 3 from the 6 winning numbers and 3 from the remaining 39 losing numbers.
There are 6C3 * 39C3 such combinations (or 20 * 9139 or 182780 combinations), so your odds are 8145060 / 182780 or approx 45:1

Taking the bonus number into account, the calcs change slightly in that there are only 38 "losing" numbers, so the number of combinations changes to 6C3 * 38C3 = 20 * 8436 = 168720, or approx 48:1 odds.

Yep, that seems to be the same as what I was getting. But for the 2nd calculation - including the bonus, do you not have to adjust the number of "possible outcomes" - since there are actually 7 numbers drawn, 6 + bonus, so in effect there are 39 times as many possible outcomes?

Yakuza

Michael Collins wrote: »

Yep, that seems to be the same as what I was getting. But for the 2nd calculation - including the bonus, do you not have to adjust the number of "possible outcomes" - since there are actually 7 numbers drawn, 6 + bonus, so in effect there are 39 times as many possible outcomes?

I don't think so, as there is still only 45 balls to be chosen from, just now you are looking at 6 winners, 1 bonus and 38 losers, so in your original question, you are matching 3 from 6 and 3 from 38.

We are looking at the numbers of matches that fit our criteria after the event has taken place ("a posteriori", if memory serves). In other words if the draw has already taken place and the results are a b c d e f and bonus g, how many combinations can there be that contain 3 of {a,b,c,d,e,f} and 3 from all the remainder (excluding g).

Michael Collins

I definately agree with what you've said, but isn't that just the favourable outcomes? It's the possible outcomes of 8,145,060 which comes from 45C6, that I have the issue with. I can't seem to get a clear picture of why it isn't 45C6 x 39C1? I'm pretty sure 1:48 is right, I just can't seem to justify the last part to myself!

reunion

ok i don't know if my maths is correct here but

if you purchase a ticket your probability of winning is

(6x5x4x3x2x1)/(45x44x43x42x41x40)

if you were to purchase every number across each line (so 45/6 = 7.5) so 7 lines with 1 to 6, 7 to 12 ... 37 to 42, then another line with 43, 44 ,45 , 1, 2, 3. (makes the calculation a bit easier and im lazy):)

you are gauranting the first number out is one you will have, so you are gauranteed to get the first number drawn.

((27x5x4x3x2x1)+(3x8x5x3x2x1)+(3x6x4x3x2x1)/(45x44x43x42x41x40)

which is 15(42x4x3x2x1)/(45x44x43x42x41x40) = 4392/5864443200

lets say 1,2,3,4,5,x where x is either 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13.

your probability would be

((8x5x4x3x2x1)+5(5x8x4x3x2x1))/(45x44x43x42x41x40)

which is 6(8x5x4x3x2x1)/(45x44x43x42x41x40) = 5760/5864443200


ok eh not what i was expecting, maybe i went wrong somewhere and like i said im too lazy, so im not going to find out if someone more active wants to rush in and save the day.... so far you seem to be more likely to win, if you purchase the same numbers on 8 lines with 1 varied number then all the numbers on different lines.

also i know each new draw is a completely seperate event, but surely (for example the 17th of june 2009 draw as the start of the lotto draws) 2 was not drawn in all three events, so is it not more possible to come out in one of the next draws now? i know it shouldn't but it seems if this was totally random it would have to average out at 1/45 for each number when you do it an infinite amount of times so then that would mean 2 would have to come out more times then the rest to average it out correctly (i know it is to infinity so the increase is really insignificant but there should be a slight increase)....

Bosshogg

RafoLordOfWars wrote: »

I'd only give it my money if it were over 5 million

Is 1 million euro not enough to win?

alan4cult wrote: »

Yes it can be done and it was done in 1992. One man bought all the combinations possible but the National Lottery shutdown some of the machines.

Yakuza wrote: »

That was a syndicate run by Stefan Klincewicz. They didn't quite manage to buy all the numbers up, as the National Lottery copped on to what they were doing and shut some terminals down.

Now Lottery Agents have to schedule when their machines are active. For example I have a friend that has a newsagent and sometimes we chat after hours but we can't play lotto because the machine is logged out automatically at the server.
So even if you had a lotto agent in your pocket to run the scam and process all the tickets their hours of use would have to be justified.

caffrey

Man I didn't realise so many people were falling for the voluntary fools tax

Michael Collins

caffrey wrote: »

Man I didn't realise so many people were falling for the voluntary fools tax

Actually, if it's over €12 million, it's mathematically a fair game i.e. a good investment*


*Assuming there's only 1 winner...

caffrey

Michael Collins wrote: »

Actually, if it's over €12 million, it's mathematically a fair game i.e. a good investment*


*Assuming there's only 1 winner...

The prize money doesnt change the odds of picking 6 numbers that will win and since the discourage trying to bet on all of the lines it cant really be fair can it? I am assuming that it would cost ~12m to get all combinations.

locum-motion

jon1981 wrote: »

hi,

a quick one are you increasing your probability of winning the lotto by sticking with your own numbers each week?

if you do a quick pick where sides are random i.e. the lotto machine in the shop generates random numbers each time and so does the lotto machine in the studio...

just curious does keeping one side of the probability equation constant even increase your chance of winning slightly?

Take a simpler example: What are your chances of guessing the roll of a die correctly, and are your chances improved by
a. guessing same number each time or
b. using a different die to chose the number your gonna guess for the throw of the die that counts.

If you chose the same number each time (say 4 for example), and there are six possible outcomes (1,2,3,4,5,6), then you have a one in six chance of winning.

If you use another random number generator (another die) and then play that number on your lottery die, then the possible combinations are:
1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6
2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6
3-1, 3-2, etc etc etc.
In total, there are 36 possibilities, and six of them (1-1,2-2,3-3,4-4,5-5,6-6) are winning combinations. So you have a six in 36 chance of winning. 6 in 36 = 1 in 6.

When Quickpick came out first, I said to myself "Sure the chances of two random number generators generating the same number on the same go must be astronomical) Then I thought about the above example.

Then extrapolate it upwards. Quickpick is really just a set of six 49-sided dice (with a mechanism added to it that discards duplicates).
The main lottery draw is similarly a set of 6 49-sided dice (with similar mechanism for avoiding duplicates).
The chances of both random number generators coming up with the same numbers are exactly the same as the chances of your family's birthdays coming up if they're the numbers you play.

RoundTower

Here's a quick question.

Paddy and Mary go into the newsagent and after buying groceries they find they have €3 left each. Paddy says to Mary "let's each buy a quick pick lotto ticket and if we win anything we'll share it." "I've a better idea," says Mary, "let's buy one lotto ticket with 4 quick pick lines for the same price, and we'll both share the ticket and any winnings".

Who's idea gives them the best chance of winning and why? Not a trick question.

Fremen

Paddy's idea is better since it avoids the inevitable legal battles over ownership of the ticket if they win.

Mary's has the relatively minor advantage of avoiding duplicate picks.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Fremen wrote: »

Mary's has the relatively minor advantage of avoiding duplicate picks.

Do we know enough about the QuickPick random number generator to say that?

Fremen

Sean_K wrote: »

Do we know enough about the QuickPick random number generator to say that?

Well, if I bought a quickpick ticket which gave me the same set of numbers twice, I'd probably ask for a refund.

Given that duplicates occur as often as you get a lottery winner, it must happen from time to time. It would take two lines of code to prevent, so I wouldn't be surprised if the quickpick algorithm checks for dupes. Can't say for sure though.

RoundTower

Fremen wrote: »

Paddy's idea is better since it avoids the inevitable legal battles over ownership of the ticket if they win.

Mary's has the relatively minor advantage of avoiding duplicate picks.

it seems like there could be legal battles either way, so your first point is incorrect.

The second one is correct. A year or two after they introduced quick picks, 10-12 years ago, I remember someone calling Joe Duffy or Marion Finucane complaining that they'd got one lotto ticket with two identical lines. Someone from the lotto came on to mollify them and said they would change the machines so it couldn't happen in future.