lotto: increase your chances...

derek27

something i noticed about the lotto recently while checking past winning numbers was that there always seems to be a gap of between 1 and 12 between each number in the selection. now this makes me think that with that kind of consistency, there must be a method of employing simple maths operations to increase the chances of picking a winning selection. here's what i came up with...

lotto 6/42 (irish lotto)... you pick and match 6 out of 42 to win the jackpot. using the mathematical operation of nCr we see that there are a possible 5245786 winning combinations. so to increase our chances of winning, we need to reduce this number. play 2 panels and your chance of winning becomes 1 in 2622893 but play 1000 panels your chance becomes 1 in 5245.8... so you can see that playing more panels is reducing the number thereby increasing your chances. however, it means you have to fork out too much money to do it that way. so we need to come up with something else. lets say if we decided to take certain selections out, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, because we feel they wont come up... yes that would significantly reduce the number, but the reality is that that particular selection is just as likely to come up as last weeks winning numbers. we need another plan.

so, do an analysis of the past numbers. use statistics and look for some kind of pattern in the past winning numbers. this goes back to the opening statement of this post. there nearly always seems to be a gap of between 1 and 12 between each number in the winning selection. examples follow...

2, 7, 16, 22, 31, 40... no gap larger than 12
1, 20, 22, 40, 41, 42... there is a gap largfer than 12 (doesn't occur frequently)

so how can we use this to increase the chance of picking the big 6? i'll explain. when no gap greater than 12 occurs (and this is the normal for previous draw results), you can reduce the numbers from 42 down to only 12 as follows. lets say we select our numbers from 1 to 12 as follows...

4, 8, 7, 3, 9, 2

try your own selection and follow along with me. note... the numbers are between 1 and 12; you may pick the same number more than once in any order you choose. add your numbers up (from mine - 4+8+7+3+9+2 - you see they total 33) if they total more than 42, alter one or more of your choices to bring the total to 42 or less. the reason for this will become clear later.

now what we will do is work up from our selection to derive a set of six numbers from 1 to 42. follow what im doing and do it with your own numbers.

the first number, 4, remains unchanged and becomes our first in the lotto selection. our second number is gotten by adding the first and second numbers, 4+8, = 12. our third number is arrived at by totalling the first 3 numbers in our 'small' selection 4+8+7 = 19... and so on up to the last number which is the sum of all our small numbers. this converts my selection above to the following: 4, 12, 19, 22, 31, 33, which looks like the common spread of numbers that usually win the jackpot. can you see now why they must not total more than 42? the biggest number in the drum is 42.

so we chose our numbers from a series between 1 and 12... far less than 42. now we cant use the same nCr technique with our small selection as, you may select the same numbers twice or more in your small selection, eg...

1, 4, 4, 7, 10, 9 (converting to 1, 5, 9, 16, 26, 35 as above) the 4 occurs twice.

therefore we have to use simple probability...
we must choose a number at random between 1 and 12 six times.
each number has a 1/12 chance of being selected and we do the seection 6 times therefore...

P = (1/12)^6 = 1/2985984 or 1 chance in 2985984 of winning with one panel played. now this is already a very significantly reduced figure (nearly 50%) than what we started with when selecting 6 from the 42 numbers, 5245786. the fact that your selection of 6 numbers between 1 and 12 cant total more than 42 reduces this figure an awful lot more. make two or more sets of numbers and play more panels to increase the odds in your favour even more!

so you now have a method to greatly increase your chances of winning based on statistical analysis of past numbers and probability. of course any selection is possible so if gaps larger than 12 occur in the numbers, then you can be sure you haven't won!

lets take the winning numbers from last weeks draw (sat jun 25 2005) and work backwards so you can examine the relevance of what i've said. the numbers were

3, 12, 13, 20, 31, 40 (never mind the bonus number)

the way we work back is simply start with the last number (40) and subtract the preceeding number (31) from it; giving 9. next take the 2nd last (31) and subtract the preceeding number (20) from it; giving 11... and so on til you get to the first number which remains unchanged because there is no preceeding number to subtract. make sure you put the numbers in order rather than taking them down in the order they are called, for example the numbers called in the order 19, 4, 41, 11, 34, 25 must be rearranged into order to give 4, 11, 19, 25, 34, 41.

so taking 25 juns numbers and working backwards we get...

3, 9, 1, 7, 11, 9

...numbers from 1 to 12.

experiment with this idea. analyse the past numbers. do up a set of numbers yourself. pick from between 1 and 12 as previousy demonstrated and derive a set between 1 and 42 from these. go to the link below with your numbers and in the top right hand corner of the screen you can enter your numbers and the website will check them for you against all the previous numbers drawn since the lotto 6/42 started and instantly give you back a report of how many times and how many numbers you woud have matched. you shud notice that you would have won far more often using this method. when you win the lotto, you can send me a check for a grand. thanks! remember, i'm basing this on simple statistical analysis of the numbers to date and probability. any selection is possible no matter what you do, but statistics and probability are very functional mathematical tools that can be applied to an enormous range of problems, including the lotto.

CHECK YOUR NUMBERS HERE

Praetorian

So how many times have you won?

I had three numbers on the euromillions on Friday, but I just picked random numbers out of the air. It's only a matter of time before I get 6.

Repli

It's an interesting theory, but I'd love to see how it fares against all the previous draws in the history of the Irish Lotto.
I know these results are freely available on the website, but it would take ages to go into each previous draw and enter the results into a database, if you could provide me with a database, or an excel sheet full of the previous draw results - I could do some more analysis for you and tell you practically how often your theory would have worked (ie. number of draws where there was a gap exceeding 12 / total number of draws) etc.

cregser

I've only done the lotto once whe it was €7million and did miserably. I'd rather gamble at a casino or poker night.

My parents have done the lotto every week for years and have spent much more than they've won. So unless I meeet someone who has won something substantial I'm not really tempted.

JackieChan

cregser,
But they are contributing towards good causes

ecksor

Although you claim that your chances are improved (perhaps they are, but this all looks very dodgy to me), you would still expect to lose overall on your plays I'd imagine.

chern0byl

The lotto is totally random, there is no way(really) other than spending money to increase your chances although you are more likely to win playing the same numbers always.

cregser

chern0byl wrote:

... although you are more likely to win playing the same numbers always.

Nope.

When you flip a coin 19 times and it lands on heads what is it more likely to be the 20th time? It's 50-50 because a coin has no memory. Same with lotto balls.

toiletduck

i prefer betting on the lotto in the bookies, odds of 250-1 for picking 3 numbers, 33-1 for picking 2 etc. I've won about over e500 in the past year!

derek27

ecksor wrote:

Although you claim that your chances are improved (perhaps they are, but this all looks very dodgy to me), you would still expect to lose overall on your plays I'd imagine.

yes, certainly you shoud still expect to lose a lot more than you will win, unless you win the jackpot of course. you still only have a very outside chance by looking at it the way i explained, but i think it would be a far better outside chance as you have reduced the number of winning combinations substsantially if the numbers drawn follow the normal scatter.

Talliesin

They say that the lotto is a tax on being bad at math, and I think the OP proves that here.

derek27

chern0byl wrote:

The lotto is totally random, there is no way(really) other than spending money to increase your chances although you are more likely to win playing the same numbers always.

yes the lotto draw is random, but statistical analysis of the numbers drawn demonstrates a trend that can be exploited, that is the constancy of the gap between successive numbers. i personally would not play the same numbers every draw. after a while you become so committed to them and have no choice but to do them every draw in case they come up. some people remember their lotto numbers better than their date of birth as a result.

derek27

Talliesin wrote:

They say that the lotto is a tax on being bad at math, and I think the OP proves that here.

i'm not quite sure how that statement is supposed to come across but just in case it was supposed to be a low blow... i had an A1 in LC higher maths and as part of my course of study have had 3yrs of extensive maths education and never attained less than 75% in any of those maths exams either. but tbh what i was saying about the lotto thingy is ony an idea in my head that i put out on a page. what do you think about it?

JackieChan

we must choose a number at random between 1 and 12 six times.
each number has a 1/12 chance of being selected and we do the seection 6 times therefore...

P = (1/12)^6 = 1/2985984 or 1 chance in 2985984 of winning with one panel played. now this is already a very significantly reduced figure (nearly 50%) than what we started with when selecting 6 from the 42 numbers, 5245786.

Bad assumption. Your chances are now 1/2985984 because you decided not to include combinations that have gaps of more than 12. These can and do occur so your chances(theoretically) will be the same.(1/5245786).

Talliesin

I think you are falling into a psychological trap that affects many with gambling - taking statistical constellation to be indicative of pattern, and pattern as indicative of causation.

The Lotto is completely random. You cannot predict the numbers. The best you can do is pick numbers that are not likely to be picked (avoid sequences and dates that are valid birthdays) so that if you do win you won't be splitting the prize with someone else who picked the same numbers.

You may not be bad at maths, but you are doing bad maths here, because your initial premise is bogus.

derek27

JackieChan wrote:

Bad assumption. Your chances are now 1/2985984 because you decided not to include combinations that have gaps of more than 12. These can and do occur so your chances(theoretically) will be the same.(1/5245786).

yes, but if you read through whats typed in the op you will notice that my entire reasoning is that having analysed many of the past numbers, gaps of greater than 12 dont occur too frequently. that's why i ommitted them. but of course they do occur, so if you pick numbers as i have suggested and a gap of more than 12 arises in the draw, then the only thing you can be sure of is that you definately haven't matched 6 numbers, as previously mentioned.

derek27

Talliesin wrote:

The Lotto is completely random. You cannot predict the numbers..

absolutely! it is completely random. at no point did i say anything about predicting the numbers. as i followed up i did say that you still only have a very outside chance... no matter what you try to do, winning the lotto will still be only a dream for many people, unless they are illing to fork out enough money to cover every combination. i personally dont play the lotto or gamble in any other way, but like i said, it was something i rattled around in my head so put it in writing for people to give their opinion. and every opinion is a good one.

defiantshrimp

Sadly Derek27 has been fooled by randomness. He is seeing patterns where there are none and his whole theory is completely bogus.

derek27 wrote:

….there must be a method of employing simple maths operations to increase the chances of picking a winning selection….

No no, that's the thing. There isn't. That is why it is called RANDOM. (check http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=random for clarification). Every single selection is equally likely. The selection 1,2,3,4,5,6 looks very rare (because it is after all 1 in 5245786) but it is just as rare as 3,12,13,20,31,40 (again a 1 in 5245786 combination). The human mind sees order in the combination 1,2,3,4,5,6 and thinks it unlikely when in reality it is just one of 5245786 combinations. No more likey, no less so.

chern0byl wrote:

The lotto is totally random, there is no way(really) other than spending money to increase your chances although you are more likely to win playing the same numbers always.

The sentence is contradictory (the first part right, the last bit wrong)! How can it be random if the prior combinations are less likely to come up? That would be a non-random process. A strategy (if it deserves the name) of playing new numbers every week has exactly the same odds as winning the lotto as playing new numbers every week. The lotto does not have a memory. This does not seem intuitively correct but human intuition is often wrong when it comes to probability (read the excellent books “Reckoning with Risk” by Gerd Gigerenzer and “Against the Gods” by Peter L. Bernstein for more on that)

derek27 wrote:

so, do an analysis of the past numbers. use statistics and look for some kind of pattern in the past winning numbers. this goes back to the opening statement of this post. there nearly always seems to be a gap of between 1 and 12 between each number in the winning selection

But there are not any underlying patterns. This is randomness fooling you. Maybe (a big maybe) in the past gaps between 1 and 12 seem more likely than other gaps (and randomness does allow these things to happen). It does not mean it will happen in the future (assuming it did happen in the past). EVERY combination is equally likely. Any one combinations with gaps of 12 (or 8 or 3 or….) is equally likely to occur as any other combination. In any random process the human mind is (almost) always able to find a pattern. If I were to flip a coin 100,000 times I would be able to make lots of nice observations about patterns of heads or tails but the process is random. It is me who would be seeing order where there is none.

derek27 wrote:

….so you now have a method to greatly increase your chances of winning based on statistical analysis of past numbers and probability….

No no, you haven’t. It is not possible to increase your chances “based on statistical analysis of past numbers”. The lotto has NO memory. Once again, NO memory. Past trends are IRRELEVANT. You seem to repeatedly miss this point.

derek27 wrote:

….yes the lotto draw is random, but statistical analysis of the numbers drawn demonstrates a trend that can be exploited….

This is not possible. There can be NO exploitable trend in a random process like the lotto. Otherwise it is NOT a random process.

derek27 wrote:

….i had an A1 in LC higher maths and as part of my course of study have had 3yrs of extensive maths education and never attained less than 75% in any of those maths exams either.….

Unfortunately your 3 years of extensive maths education has neglected the field of probability. You do not grasp the concept of a random independent event.

poker_face

It's an interesting theory derek and if you came up with it solely by yourself well done. I'm afraid I'd have to agree with the nay-sayers on this one. If the lotto is entirely random then your theory is bogus.

something i noticed about the lotto recently while checking past winning numbers was that there always seems to be a gap of between 1 and 12 between each number in the selection.

how did you notice this, was it purely through observsation or did you put further research into it. Maybe the lotto draws aren't completely random and if so there there mite be some validity in you agruement. Maybe the way the balls are lined up and the time periods in which they are pulled out make certain combinations more likely.
Wasn't there a team of matematicians who bet the lotto a few years ago by using some probabality method?

Pal

cregser wrote:

Nope.

When you flip a coin 19 times and it lands on heads what is it more likely to be the 20th time? It's 50-50 because a coin has no memory. Same with lotto balls.

spinning a penny instead of tossing it results in heads only about 30% of the time

Coin Tossing

Capt'n Midnight

Pal wrote:

spinning a penny instead of tossing it results in heads only about 30% of the time

Which type of penny and do you have to hold it with the head nearest your thumb or what ? Some US coins have been researched and because of the weight of the face on one side tend to come down one side a tiny fraction more than the other.

The only way of increasing your odds is to pick numbers that fewest other people pick so you don't have to share your winnings. Quickpick has levelled the field here a lot so it's a lost art. You could still try on the tote and pick place instead of win for the favorite.

Pal

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Which type of penny and do you have to hold it with the head nearest your thumb or what ? .

I tried it with a two euro coin.

The harp side was down most of the time.

I know it's getting off topic a bit but i do think the lotto probability theory has merit.

MG

Like other posters said, this is completely contrary to probability theory and randomness.

The real issue here is the probability in a draw of 6 numbers from 42 that the distance between the numbers is greater than 12 which I would suggest is less than the probability of them being less than 12.

The pattern which you have spotted (probably correctly) is attributable to probabilities (the probability of gaps of <12 is greater than the probability of gaps > 12). This will mean that you are more likely to have gaps of less than 12 than more than 12.

Unfortunately, it does not improve your chances of winning one iota because you do not have any method of estimating the start of the sequence or the size of the gaps (whether > or < 12).

Zapho

Well if you do look at trends from past lotto draws you'll see that certain numbers tend to come up a lot more than others. Have you ever seen the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 come up, even though the odds are equally likely as any other set of 6 numebrs?
The balls enter the drum in the same order everytime. The way the balls bouce on hitting the side of the drum and how long the spend spinning determines which ball comes out. So if you really wanted to spend a huge amount of time analysing this, you could predict which numbers come out. Nothing is 100% random.
Although even if you did do this it wouldn't help you because they stop selling lotto tickets an hour (i think) before each draw.

okidoki987

A word of warning
Never, ever do 1,2,3,4,5,6 in the Lotto.
They reckon if it came up, there would be over 250 winning tickets!
Which means you could win less for the jackpot then the "guaranteed" 12,000 for the 5+bonus!
Now wouldn't that be funny, NOT :mad:

Capt'n Midnight

Pal wrote:

i do think the lotto probability theory has merit.

I'd doubt it because in the Uk at least they spend a lot of time making sure the balls are equal weights, down to the level of the ink being thicker on smaller numbers (less area). Any hint of non-randomness and you would kill the golden goose.

opps. - the 80% link - a us one cent ?
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040228/fob2.asp

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1748

Polish statisticians say the one Euro coin, at least in Belgium, does not have an equal chance of landing "heads" or "tails". They allege that, when spun on a smooth surface, the coin comes up heads more often.
..
Gliszczynski says spinning is a more sensitive way of revealing if a coin is weighted than the more usual method of tossing in the air.
...
Belgium portrays its portly king, Albert, on the heads side.

rubadub

The coin weighting makes perfect sense, just like how the buttered side of the bread falls first. The lotto balls may have been of equal weight initially but the lettering on them may cause a difference. I saw a list somewhere of balls and how often they appear, I think it was for the UK lottery.

In the US some fortune cookie maker puts lottery numbers in the biscuits, the numbers came up and lots of people won, I think 5 out of 6 which. It was not divided up and the lottery company was screwed, they had some emergency fund which was almost cleaned out. They had investigators onto it because they thought it was a scam.

Some ideas and theorys people have about selecting numbers and calculating odds are crazy. I remember choosing a consecutive string of numbers and all my mates saying "that could never come up, thats a waste of money" as though the random numbers they selected somehow had a better chance.

Capt'n Midnight

rubadub wrote:

The coin weighting makes perfect sense, just like how the buttered side of the bread falls first.

It's been demonstrated that using an average slice of bread and average table heights that if you push a horizontal slice of buttered bread off a table it turns ~ 1.5 times on it's way to the floor. So bread half or twice the size might be ok or change the height of the table.

deimos

To drift of topic I can imagine a situation of derek27 winning the lotto on Saturday and people scratching their heads...

I will not speak of maths, I just felt the need to share the above.

phantom_lord

cregser wrote:

Nope.

When you flip a coin 19 times and it lands on heads what is it more likely to be the 20th time? It's 50-50 because a coin has no memory. Same with lotto balls.

If your chances of your numbers coming up is 1 in 1000 if you change numbers every week it remains at those odds, however if you play the same nums its 999 next week and then 998 and so on. Every week another combination is being used up. it's different to flipping a coin.

phantom_lord

Anyway my maths teacher told me about 4guys who worked out that it was viable to play all the odds or close to. I can't remember the details but they played half of them or something and won the jackpot. The lotto then made it six numbers to stop it happening again.

Healio

Totally off topic, last saturday i done a quick-pick and one of the lines had the 6 numbers from the previous wednesdays' lotto-plus1 draw.

Capt'n Midnight

There is a fairly simple way to increase your chances in the lottery.
Think of any 6 random numbers, the chances of them coming up are so low that you are virutally guaranteed they won't win. Write them down. Now think of another random combination of 6 numbers. Eventually you will have crossed off every possible combination of numbers apart from one. This combination is sure to win since you have already ruled out all the others.

Anyone see Horizon on BBC2 tonight - was about the card game 21 and how the rules allowed card counters to beat the system. This is because the players know which cards have been played already so the next card isn't totally random and unlike other card games the suite doesn't matter.

derek27

yeah, i thought about my original idea and realised i overlooked one thing...
most people tend to choose their numbers between 1 and 12 apart anyway.
but there was this other thing i was thinking of...

lets say you do 7 panels each draw: 6 numbers a panel = 42 numbers.
now lets also say you only do each of the 42 numbers once. example...

3, 9, 15, 18, 25, 36
7, 11, 16, 26, 29, 41
13, 17, 22, 27, 37, 38
1, 5, 19, 21, 33, 35
4, 8, 14, 24, 30, 34
2, 10, 20, 28, 31, 40
6, 12, 23, 32, 39, 42

every number occurs only once, therefore, every number that is called, you are guaranteed to have it on one of your 7 lines. no all you need to worry about is that, by pure luck, they all happen to occur on the same line... and you've won!

Reaver772

Attention all mad scientist type people, before u start wearing a grubby white lab coat and are sitting in the corner of the room facing the wall and begin mumbling "ohhh ill show them soon my theory will be perfected, and then and THEN!!! MUHHHHHHAAAAAA"
Go and watch the movie "pi"

Anyways the only way to increase your chances of winning the lotto is to go out with Marty's daughter )

MG

derek27 wrote:

yeah, i thought about my original idea and realised i overlooked one thing...
most people tend to choose their numbers between 1 and 12 apart anyway.
but there was this other thing i was thinking of...

lets say you do 7 panels each draw: 6 numbers a panel = 42 numbers.
now lets also say you only do each of the 42 numbers once. example...

3, 9, 15, 18, 25, 36
7, 11, 16, 26, 29, 41
13, 17, 22, 27, 37, 38
1, 5, 19, 21, 33, 35
4, 8, 14, 24, 30, 34
2, 10, 20, 28, 31, 40
6, 12, 23, 32, 39, 42

every number occurs only once, therefore, every number that is called, you are guaranteed to have it on one of your 7 lines. no all you need to worry about is that, by pure luck, they all happen to occur on the same line... and you've won!

You've increased your chances of winning by buying seven lines, not by choosing all the numbers. It might make you feel better watching the balls come out but you've the same chance of winning with 7 quick pick lines.

No offence (a phrase which is generally followed by an offence I'm afraid) but did you really getan A1 in LC maths & study maths for 3 years because this is voodoo statistics?

ecksor

phantom_lord wrote:

If your chances of your numbers coming up is 1 in 1000 if you change numbers every week it remains at those odds, however if you play the same nums its 999 next week and then 998 and so on. Every week another combination is being used up. it's different to flipping a coin.

You seem to think there's something stopping a combination coming up twice?

MG

ecksor wrote:

You seem to think there's something stopping a combination coming up twice?

That's right. The chances of last Wednesdays lotto numbers coming up again on Saturday is exactly the same as any other combination.

scargill

there is absolutely nothing stopping 1,2,3,4,5,6 coming out every Wednesday and Saturday for the next 100 years !

Reaver772

scargill wrote:

there is absolutely nothing stopping 1,2,3,4,5,6 coming out every Wednesday and Saturday for the next 100 years !

The angry mob with torches and pitchforks would disagree!

MG

Gamblers fallacy, gamblers fallacy, gamblers fallacy.

Also gamblers fallacy.

pauln

Just tought this might help things a bit, Lotto Frequency Table, while it doesn't really help with the whole <12 number spacing thing it does go towards showing that over time the draw is random, all numbers have come up approx 200+/-20 times since 94.

Just something i'd like people to comment on, The lotto machines themselves are human-made objects and since human beings are not capable of true randomness (I'm presuming, from my understanding if it) is that not in some way transferred to the machine? I suppose what I'm trying to get at is, where is the randomness in the selection of the numbers?

Pherekydes

Zapho wrote:

Well if you do look at trends from past lotto draws you'll see that certain numbers tend to come up a lot more than others. Have you ever seen the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 come up, even though the odds are equally likely as any other set of 6 numebrs?

There have been about 1400 draws, give or take, so of the 5 and a quarter million possible combinations only about 0.03% have come up. Everybody homes in on the 1-6 combo. There's another (nearly) 5 and a quarter million that haven't come up either.

Hannibal_12

As has been said the Lotto is completely random and no imaginary analysis of supposed "trends" wil change that or indeed increase your chances of winning. If indeed trends such as these did actually exist then the fundamental principle that allows lotteries to operate i.e. total randomness and unpredictable number combinations would be undermined and you quickly see the lottery disappearing.
The only way to increase your chances of winning to an almost certainty is to use a syndicate but then of course the amount you win is less, substantially if the syndicate is big.

aphex™

Some people in this thread have made one big fundamental mistake in their usage of the word "Random".

They seem to assume that random means there is no predictability at all. That numbers are going to be all spaced out evenly.

Randomness means that the numbers are more likely to be grouped together in some way than spread out. So for example most draws have two consecutive numbers in them e.g. 15/16

Real life examples:
-Eg at a roulette tabe its more likely to go RED RED black black black black RED and so on, so a good bet is actually the last colour that came up.

-Winning/ Losing streaks- you're more likely to win or loose a few consecutive times than win,loose, win, loose.

-There hasn;t been anybody killed in F1 for the last 11 years, but the last two guys were killed at Imola, Italy at the same race meeting (unrelated incidents).

-Sorry getting morbid here, but there hasnt been a Garda killed while on duty for ages.... but one night about 2 years ago 2 died (different car crashes, unrelated incidents).

-More than a few times on the irish lotto, somebody's cousin or something wins then a month later they win.


So i would think there is a little predictability. Perhaps running numbers that are getting a winning streak lately would increase your chances of getting some prize.

ecksor

How exactly do you relate analysing past data to predicting future events?

aphex™

ecksor wrote:

How exactly do you relate analysing past data to predicting future events?

Well I thought everybody would understand me if I used the 'winning/losting streak' examples. Do you bet much? If you do you would know you don't just win then loose then win then loose etc.

Anyway I can relate past data to predicting future events. Have a look at this page. Its the statistics of each ball from the Euromillions lottery. As you can see some numbers come up alot more than others. #1 comes up 15.79% of the time.

Other numbers like #20 or #22 have had a bad run and have come up alot less- only 3.75% of the time.

Any mathematician would expect that over a million draws of euromillions, the numbers would even out, as long as no ball weighs more than the others etc etc.

However at the moment #20 and #22 have had a bad luck run, and not come up. In the long term they should come up about the same amount of times as the other numbers. This 'winning streak'- when it happens is more likely to happen in draws close together, eg twice a month, than every even 10 weeks in the year.

Again, i'm apply my 'streak' theory here- applying what my maths teacher pointed out- that numbers are more likely to be close together than evenly spread out, therefore the times the ball is picked out is more likely to be several draws close together.

I wouldn't bet on 20/22 in the euromillions right now, but if they started to come within the space of a month then I would pick those numbers as I would assume the draw is evening out, and the gap between those numbers are the ones that come up 15%of the time is shortening.

Pherekydes

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Any mathematician would expect that over a million draws of euromillions, the numbers would even out, as long as no ball weighs more than the others etc etc.

The key word here is highlighted in bold. At 2 draws per week, every week for 75 years, the average lifespan, it totals 7800 draws. You could be waiting quite a long time for the numbers to "even out".

What your maths teacher obviously neglected to tell you, is that random events, statistically speaking, are unrelated. Sure if you toss a coin, the percentage of heads will be roughly 50%, but the chances of you predicting any particular toss are exactly 50%, assuming a fair coin. Sure the % of heads will "even out" after 50 trillion tosses, but can you wait that long?

Here's a thought experiment to consider: you toss a coin 100 times and get 51 heads. The difference, after 100 tosses is two coins and 2%.
You continue tossing. After tossing 1000 times the score is 505 - 495. The difference is now only 1%, but 10 coins. The more you toss, the smaller the percentage difference becomes, but the actual difference in numbers of coins, which is what you're betting on (think about it) may actually grow.

After a million draws or tosses, the percentage difference may become negligible in terms of decimal figures, but the real count may widen.

aphex™

That may be true Slow coach but in my example of the euromillions, as 20 and 22 even out and come up more, i think you're going to get a few (relatively) consecutive draws where they come up more. I would start to pick those more.

That to me is predictability out of randomness.

I'm not too worried if the numbers actually even out in the end, only start to.

Maybe a million draws is a bit iffy tbh, a simple experiment I did with the Irish lotto- of the top 6 numbers from 2 years ago, only 4 are the same today. So maybe things even out over 6 years? With draws twice a week, its possible. There are a number of other factors i haven't considered though in that case.

ecksor

I wouldn't bet on 20/22 in the euromillions right now, but if they started to come within the space of a month then I would pick those numbers as I would assume the draw is evening out, and the gap between those numbers are the ones that come up 15%of the time is shortening.

That page you linked to is taking data for about 60 draws. That's meaningless. Suppose we agree that over the course of a very large number of draws that the numbers should approximately even out to within whatever the expected variance would be, now tell me what sort of an edge you've gotten for yourself over the next LARGE_NUMBER - 60 draws.

aphex™

ecksor wrote:

That page you linked to is taking data for about 60 draws. That's meaningless. Suppose we agree that over the course of a very large number of draws that the numbers should approximately even out to within whatever the expected variance would be, now tell me what sort of an edge you've gotten for yourself over the next LARGE_NUMBER - 60 draws.

Because those numbers low numbers now will start coming up alot more (as they even out), and as i said with probability, numbers are more likely to be bunched together, and thus over a period those numbers when they do come up would probably come fairly consecutively over a number of draws (60 say). They would be a better bet then. Once 20 starts coming up fairly regularly- i'd stick with it. If its going to even out then it will continue to do so at some stage. This is more likely to happen over a few consecutive draws then evenly spaced out over the next 70 draws.

Just like now in the last 60 draws #1 has done well- i'm sure there will be a period when starts not to do well, i predict. Thus this is some predictability out of randomness.

You can combine this with research into which numbers the public pick less on their tickets (i have some in a book somewhere- but the euromillions tickets are probably different accross europe so its only useful for the Irish lottery). If less people pick your numbers you're going to share the winnings with less people. This is one method that is recommended by mathematicians.

All in all you might have increased your chances by a few %.

I'm not saying anybody is going to win the jackpot with this stuff.