Lotto Numbers.

Jay Dee

Hi,

I know the chance of winning the lotto, is millions to one.
But if you apply filters, does it come down by much ?

IE : No 6 numbers together, No 5 together + 1, No 4 together + 2 , No Formulas, ( 2-4-6-8-10-12 )
Obviously this can be further reduced by including other permutations.
Any ideas on how you go about finding out how to work this out ?

Thanks for any suggestions.

Jay

ForestFire

Jay Dee wrote: »

Hi,

I know the chance of winning the lotto, is millions to one.
But if you apply filters, does it come down by much ?

IE : No 6 numbers together, No 5 together + 1, No 4 together + 2 , No Formulas, ( 2-4-6-8-10-12 )
Obviously this can be further reduced by including other permutations.
Any ideas on how you go about finding out how to work this out ?

Thanks for any suggestions.

Jay

1 2 3 4 5 6 has the same odds as coming up as any other random set of numbers.

Why are you trying to remove valid combinations?

cdeb

What you're suggesting is to reduce the odds by ignoring the impossible combinations.

But there are no impossible combinations. Every combination is equally possible.

So in answer to your question - No.

pleas advice

4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42

corner of hells

pleas advice wrote: »

4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42

No , it's 4,7,15,16,23 and 42.

NIMAN

We used to have a friend visit from abroad over the summer, and he used to do these types of combinations:

3, 4, 9, 20, 21, 44, 46
3, 4, 9, 21, 22, 44, 45
2, 4, 9, 21, 22, 44, 45

Sort of hoping that if he got 3 numbers came out, then he had them on multiple lines and he then might get a 4th or even 5th.

I used to argue with him that his logic was flawed, cos most of his money was wasted if 3,4,9 didn't appear.

I was right, right?

pleas advice

cdeb wrote: »

But there are no impossible combinations. Every combination is equally possible.

equally possible, yeah, but not equally likely.

NIMAN

pleas advice wrote: »

equally possible, yeah, but not equally likely.

You're wrong of course

cdeb

Those two phrases mean the same thing

animaal

pleas advice wrote: »

equally possible, yeah, but not equally likely.

But definitely equally unlikely

kneemos

You need to eliminate common numbers,combinations that would include birthdays etc,so if you do win nobody else will have the same selection.

sjb25

Well that’s the lotto dream over

Is a linear combination not less likely? IE if no. 1 is the first ball out only 23456 can come out to keep this on track to be a linear combination where as any number can come out to keep it on track to be a random combination

cdeb

No.

The result is more likely to be non-sequential than sequential because there's more non-sequential combinations.

But 1 2 3 4 5 6 is as likely to come out as whatever came out last week.

It's just picking 6 balls at random; every option has to be equally likely

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

but some are less likely, such as all consecutive numbers

Pherekydes

You can improve your winning chances by buying more tickets. A lot more.

jamesbere

A 6 w**ks. Time how many minutes it takes for each one and there are your numbers

ForestFire

pleas advice wrote: »

but some are less likely, such as all consecutive numbers

No

somesoldiers

Pherekydes wrote: »

You can improve your winning chances by buying more tickets. A lot more.

Like the Polish lad in 1992

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/how-a-secret-syndicate-managed-to-buy-the-lotto-35981173.html

ToddyDoody

Jay Dee wrote: »

Hi,

I know the chance of winning the lotto, is millions to one.
But if you apply filters, does it come down by much ?

IE : No 6 numbers together, No 5 together + 1, No 4 together + 2 , No Formulas, ( 2-4-6-8-10-12 )
Obviously this can be further reduced by including other permutations.
Any ideas on how you go about finding out how to work this out ?

Thanks for any suggestions.

Jay

You need to cross off all the numbers that have appeared in the last couple of draws and pick from the remaining.

ForestFire

ToddyDoody wrote: »

You need to cross off all the numbers that have appeared in the last couple of draws and pick from the remaining.

Just in case.....

Last week's numbers have the same chance of coming up again as any other set of random numbers.

cdeb

Beginning to see how the lotto is so successful

AllForIt

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My mum has for many years used special occasion dates like birthday dates as numbers in the lottery. I don't think that's a good idea because I think the chances of winning the lottery AND that those numbers also coincide with special occasion dates in her life make it even more unlikely that she would win with those specific numbers.

But as you say every combination of numbers has equal probability of turning up so the question is should she use them or not?

cdeb

It doesn't matter, so long as she's not ignoring people born on the 43rd of the month

AllForIt

cdeb wrote: »

It doesn't matter, so long as she's not ignoring people born on the 43rd of the month

Yes but she doesn't just use dates she uses other numbers of some significance to her like the 32 offspring she has.

Fanny Wank

Each combination is equally as likely to come out so there's no "optimal" combination if all you want is to get 6 numbers up

However what you can do is try maximise your winnings given you pick 6. To do this you try minimise the chances of sharing. To do this a common argument is to pick "unpopular" numbers

I think I read once that a few thousand people pick 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 each draw. So if you win you'll win f*ck all. Other popular numbers are birthdays. The numbers 7 & 13 are also popular.

When the lotto started I think there were fewer numbers (36?). So a lot of people still play the same numbers every week since the beginning => pick numbers >36 (if I've remembered correctly and there was 36 originally! Insert correct number if I've gotten it wrong)

dxhound2005

Fanny **** wrote: »

Each combination is equally as likely to come out so there's no "optimal" combination if all you want is to get 6 numbers up

However what you can do is try maximise your winnings given you pick 6. To do this you try minimise the chances of sharing. To do this a common argument is to pick "unpopular" numbers

I think I read once that a few thousand people pick 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 each draw. So if you win you'll win f*ck all. Other popular numbers are birthdays. The numbers 7 & 13 are also popular.

When the lotto started I think there were fewer numbers (36?). So a lot of people still play the same numbers every week since the beginning => pick numbers >36 (if I've remembered correctly and there was 36 originally! Insert correct number if I've gotten it wrong)

Given that the Lotto often runs for weeks without being won, and that the jackpot is very rarely shared by more than two winning tickets, I think this strategy is a waste of time. I would be quite happy to pick up a half or even a quarter of any jackpot.

Fanny Wank

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Given that the Lotto often runs for weeks without being won, and that the jackpot is very rarely shared by more than two winning tickets, I think this strategy is a waste of time. I would be quite happy to pick up a half or even a quarter of any jackpot.

I'd rather all of it (if I ever played - I never do)

As I said there's no "strategy" that makes any combination more likely than the other. So you may as well minimise the probability of sharing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

prinzeugen

It does not matter what numbers are used as I am sure its fixed. Stopped doing it years ago.

I noticed a pattern in the numbers drawn and according to a mathematical egghead I know, the chances of this happening every draw are higher than the chances of me getting six.

Multiple numbers being drawn 2-3 times over the 3 draws (not including the bonus number)

For example..

7th Feb - 01 drawn twice, 02 drawn twice, 31 drawn twice

3rd Feb - 21 drawn twice, 31 drawn twice, 35 drawn twice

31st Jan - 2 drawn twice, 45 drawn twice

27th Jan - 2 drawn twice, 12 drawn twice, 41 drawn twice

24th Jan - 7 Drawn twice, 20 drawn twice

And it happens in 99% of the draws going back years.

Random my arse!

cdeb

How can it be rigged? Sure doesn't your man from Stokes Kennedy Crowley nod at the start of every draw?

dxhound2005

prinzeugen wrote: »

It does not matter what numbers are used as I am sure its fixed. Stopped doing it years ago.

I noticed a pattern in the numbers drawn and according to a mathematical egghead I know, the chances of this happening every draw are higher than the chances of me getting six.

Multiple numbers being drawn 2-3 times over the 3 draws (not including the bonus number)

For example..

7th Feb - 01 drawn twice, 02 drawn twice, 31 drawn twice

3rd Feb - 21 drawn twice, 31 drawn twice, 35 drawn twice

31st Jan - 2 drawn twice, 45 drawn twice

27th Jan - 2 drawn twice, 12 drawn twice, 41 drawn twice

24th Jan - 7 Drawn twice, 20 drawn twice

And it happens in 99% of the draws going back years.

Random my arse!

There is nothing strange about that. The longest odds against any number being drawn is 48 to 1. Down to 42 to 1 when the sixth number is being drawn.

NIMAN

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't think that's a good idea because I think the chances of winning the lottery AND that those numbers also coincide with special occasion dates in her life make it even more unlikely

On the WE WON THE LOTTO programme last week, the army bus driver who won half a mill used his kids birthdays.

prinzeugen

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There is nothing strange about that. The longest odds against any number being drawn is 48 to 1. Down to 42 to 1 when the sixth number is being drawn.

I bet at least 2 numbers will get drawn more than once in tomorrow nights 3 draws.

Its guaranteed to happen at this point.

dxhound2005

prinzeugen wrote: »

I bet at least 2 numbers will get drawn more than once in tomorrow nights 3 draws.

Its guaranteed to happen at this point.

Tell me which numbers. That is the tricky bit.

Hector Bellend

Jay Dee wrote: »

Hi,

I know the chance of winning the lotto, is millions to one.
But if you apply filters, does it come down by much ?

IE : No 6 numbers together, No 5 together + 1, No 4 together + 2 , No Formulas, ( 2-4-6-8-10-12 )
Obviously this can be further reduced by including other permutations.
Any ideas on how you go about finding out how to work this out ?

Thanks for any suggestions.

Jay

Its a foolish thing to do.

Each and all combination of numbers has the same chance to come out.

pleas advice

i don't think anyones answering the OP's question though

But if you apply filters, does it come down by much ?

IE : No 6 numbers together, No 5 together + 1, No 4 together + 2 , No Formulas, ( 2-4-6-8-10-12 )

dxhound2005

It was answered in Post #3.

4068ac1elhodqr

As others have mentioned each or any ball has equal chance.

But as demonstrated on some of the various challenge logs on here (usually for euromillions), there are occasional patterns.
By assigning values, methods etc and studying trends you may get a slight (very slight) advantage over the 'luckydip' or '1,2,3,4,5,6' approach.

e.g. from here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057830955

Jay Dee

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the input.
I think a few missed the point.
I understand all combinations are possible.
What I was trying to establish was what were your chances reduced to, if you apply certain filters.

The filters I suggested were :

(a) No 6 numbers together,
(b) No 5 together + 1,
(c) No 4 together + 2 ,
(d) No Formulas, ( 2-4-6-8-10-12 )
(e) No All even mumbers
(f) No All odd numbers.

I know every ball has an equal chance, but what I wanted to know was,
what is your chance of winning reduced to if you apply the above filters.

If the change is significant, and the Lotto rolls over 3 or 4 times, is it worth looking into forming a syndicate ?

Thanks

Jay

Franz Von Peppercorn

prinzeugen wrote: »

I bet at least 2 numbers will get drawn more than once in tomorrow nights 3 draws.

Its guaranteed to happen at this point.

It’s not statistically unlikely. The chances of any one number appearing in any one draw is the number of balls. So 1 has a 1 in 46 chance of appearing.

There are 6 balls drawn though in the first draw (I’m ignoring the bonus). So any of those 6 can appear in the next draw. That increase in the odds by 6 times for any ball to appear twice. And again for the 3rd draw. 12 times if I am correct.

And the numbers appearing in the second draw that haven’t already appeared can appear in the third draw.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Jay Dee wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the input.
I think a few missed the point.
I understand all combinations are possible.
What I was trying to establish was what were your chances reduced to, if you apply certain filters.

The filters I suggested were :

(a) No 6 numbers together,
(b) No 5 together + 1,
(c) No 4 together + 2 ,
(d) No Formulas, ( 2-4-6-8-10-12 )
(e) No All even mumbers
(f) No All odd numbers.

I know every ball has an equal chance, but what I wanted to know was,
what is your chance of winning reduced to if you apply the above filters.

If the change is significant, and the Lotto rolls over 3 or 4 times, is it worth looking into forming a syndicate ?

Thanks

Jay

None of those formulas or lack of then will help. Why do you think they will?

Jay Dee

Hi Franz,

I understand that no formula that will win the lotto for me.


I'm looking at reducing the odds by applying filters.
How many people realistically believe 1.2.3.4.5.6. will ever be drawn ?
I know it's possible but, in my opinion, unlikely.

My question is what are my chances reduced to if I apply those filters ?

Thanks

Jay

4068ac1elhodqr

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

None of those formulas or lack of then will help. Why do you think they will?

Some formula may give a slight advantage (0.01-5%).

None of the ones the OP has mentioned however have any validity or logic behind them e.g. choosing evens over odd numbered, straight sequential is largely senseless and has no data support.

I'm only concerned with the EuroMills', but in that, there are still significant trends over the 14yrs worth of steady data, that regular Lotto can't offer.

e.g. Number 46 has only 50% chance of showing up compared to most other balls, therefore is rarely used*.
Luckystar 12 has only <30% (approx) chance of ever showing up, compared to ANY other luckystar, therefore is rarely (if ever) chosen.
* exceptional low appearance can also signify due expectation, this is occasionally true, but there is such a large amount of data denying it's appearance.

Over the last 100 or so draws (in EM) choosing what can be classed as 'lucky slippy balls±' e.g. 7/10/17/20/27/30/37/40^/47/50 i.e. those with zeros or sevens you'd be in profit, using 'hotpicks'.
^40 is an exception and should be excluded. 50 is the opposite and the single most popular ball over 1,000+ draws. This won't apply to regular lotto btw.

Other theory include observation of universal phi patterns, which can appear in many of the shorter range datasets, again only +0.01-5% factoring here...

Number 1 is never chosen (in main balls) as it has comparative ±less weight and increased friction due to the low quantity of (gloss) paint on it's surface.

dxhound2005

Jay Dee wrote: »

Hi Franz,

I understand that no formula that will win the lotto for me.


I'm looking at reducing the odds by applying filters.
How many people realistically believe 1.2.3.4.5.6. will ever be drawn ?
I know it's possible but, in my opinion, unlikely.

My question is what are my chances reduced to if I apply those filters ?

Thanks

Jay

Here is an easier idea. Do a set of all even and a set of all odd numbers. That way you will have cut the odds by half, any time all even or all odd come up in the draw.

pleas advice

or maybe discount any selection that is either all odd or all even numbers?

dxhound2005

Since we "know" that 1,2,3,4,5,6 will never win nor will 42,43,44,45,46,47, take a chance and assume that none of those numbers will come up in a some of draws. That way in those draws you will only have to guess 6 out of 35 instead of 6 out of 47.

ForestFire

Jay Dee wrote: »

I know it's possible but, in my opinion, unlikely

Jay

Unfortunately your opinion will not change the odds.

1 2 3 4 5 6 is as likley to appear as any set of 6 numbers you could pick.

It may seem unlikely to you be that would be still wrong.

You cannot reduce the odds by omitting any combinations, no matter how hard or how good you filters are.

Jay Dee

pleas advice wrote: »

or maybe discount any selection that is either all odd or all even numbers?

Hi,

That is what I was suggesting.
Maybe I should have used "discount".

This is not a mathematical problem request, it's simply a question.- By how much will my odds go down by if I use the filters?

Thanks

Jay

Jay Dee

You cannot reduce the odds by omitting any combinations, no matter how hard or how good you filters are.[/QUOTE]


Hi,

Sorry but I do not understand how you claim that omitting combinations cannot reduce your odds ?