nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didnt know that

Cartouche

As people here work in various jobs / professions they might know things from work or study no one here knows yet. this is what this topic is about.

what do you know that we have never heard of?

Eg: you don't need to be great at maths to be an architect

this is obvious to me but everyone says to me "i wanted to be an architect but i was bad at math,i can barely add"

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Ipso

Now that’s bare back!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I was in Pereira the other day. It's the biggest city in the Colombian coffee region and like many cities in the country (And several neighbouring countries) it has a statue of Simon Bolivar in the main square.

What's unusual about Pereira's statue is that he is bollock naked.

4068ac1elhodqr

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Which is?

Hotpicks is this: (may require 3rd party, or travel, but similar is also available in most regular bookies).

Essentially it's more bang per buck, Anyone aiming for the 139,838,160/1 (5+2stars) is simply dreaming, so why even bother.

1 in 1,960 odds for 3balls (1,500) is slightly more plausable, although still not (ever) in ones favour, unless you know which balls to pick.

Perhaps the only euromills' based opportunity to bag a guaranteed 1m (for 5balls) is using hotpicks. Although the odds are still 'double the prize' at 2,118,760/1. Basically you've a 'x66 better chance' at millionaire, than regular euromillions.

Some say the luckiest man alive is this shrek chap who won an overachiever competition (see partner), then won 1m not long after. Good on ya chap.

Fourier

Conchir wrote: »

Under the right circumstances, moons may have small moons of their own. In the Solar System, moons such as Titan (Saturn), Callisto (Jupiter) and Earth’s own moon, are large enough and far enough from their planets to potentially host a small natural satellite. For it to happen, it would have to be less than six miles in diameter.

We're on track to discover moons going around planets of distant stars next year. A few candidates have been found, but the statistics of the observations just aren't quite good enough yet.

Allinall

If you put 23 people in a room together, there will be a 50/50 ( or even money) chance that the walls will be painted magnolia.

Franz Von Peppercorn

joeguevara wrote: »

That’s exactly what it means. If you don’t have 73 in your 99 tickets and 73 is the winning number then you still lose. You either have it or you don’t. You have a much higher chance of having the winning number. But that doesn’t mean that you only have 1% chance of losing. You lose because you don’t have the winning ticket. And only one ticket is pulled so you either have it or you don’t. 50/50.

Ah, jaysus

sbsquarepants

Alanna Thousands Valley wrote: »

Can't fathom playing either the regular shop lottos nor using quickpick selections. (I only use the hotpicks method).

.

Which is?

joeguevara wrote: »

That’s exactly what it means. If you don’t have 73 in your 99 tickets and 73 is the winning number then you still lose. You either have it or you don’t. You have a much higher chance of having the winning number. But that doesn’t mean that you only have 1% chance of losing. You lose because you don’t have the winning ticket. And only one ticket is pulled so you either have it or you don’t. 50/50.

You don't calculate the odds after the fact. After 73 is drawn you either have it or you don't. There is a winner whose "odds" (if that word made any sense in the scenario) of winning would be 1/1 - as they have already won. At that stage every one else's chances are zero - they have already lost.

But before the draw, the person with number 73 has a 1/100 chance of winning and the person with the other 99 numbers has a 99/100 chance of winning. If you were to repeat the process a trillion times Mr. 73 would win only 1% of the time - not half the time as your odds would suggest.

The percentages would hold true but only over very large amounts of draws, when dealing with small amounts of draws you could get huge statistical anomalies - like your hundred million to 1 combination of birthdays matching the lotto numbers.

retalivity

gozunda wrote: »

The skin is our largest external organ, and also the largest organ in general.

That may not be true, depending on who you talk to

gozunda

mzungu wrote: »

We shed about 600,000 particles of skin every hour which works out at about 1.5 pounds a year. By the time we reach 70, an average person will have lost 105 pounds of skin. Presumably that figure rises to 305 pounds if you happen to be a member of The Rolling Stones! :pac:We also shed and re-grow outer skin cells about every 27 days. This works out at almost 1,000 new skins in a lifetime.

The skin is our largest external organ, and also the largest organ in general. On average the skin had a total area of about 1.85 square meters and accounts for 6% to 10% of human body weight, compared to the liver, the body's second-largest organ, which accounts for approximately 2.5% of total body weight.

The skin is also the bodies fastest-growing organ. Skin is the body's outer coat. It protects and helps controls the bodies temperature. Extensive damage to the skin can be life threatening due to the skins role as the bodies first defence and as an essential thermo regularity system

Conchir

Under the right circumstances, moons may have small moons of their own. In the Solar System, moons such as Titan (Saturn), Callisto (Jupiter) and Earth’s own moon, are large enough and far enough from their planets to potentially host a small natural satellite. For it to happen, it would have to be less than six miles in diameter.

This is only a recent suggestion, and the IAU haven’t given them an official name yet. “Submoon” was the term used in one paper discussing them, however “moonmoon” is a suggestion which has gotten a lot of attention on the internet.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/earths-moon-could-host-moonmoon-if-moonmoons-are-thing-180970520/

riemann

joeguevara wrote: »

That’s exactly what it means. If you don’t have 73 in your 99 tickets and 73 is the winning number then you still lose. You either have it or you don’t. You have a much higher chance of having the winning number. But that doesn’t mean that you only have 1% chance of losing. You lose because you don’t have the winning ticket. And only one ticket is pulled so you either have it or you don’t. 50/50.

Wow, that's amazing logic.

lan

joeguevara wrote: »

That’s exactly what it means. If you don’t have 73 in your 99 tickets and 73 is the winning number then you still lose. You either have it or you don’t. You have a much higher chance of having the winning number. But that doesn’t mean that you only have 1% chance of losing. You lose because you don’t have the winning ticket. And only one ticket is pulled so you either have it or you don’t. 50/50.

Actually, that’s exactly what it means.

You’re misunderstanding something here at such a fundamental level that I’m struggling to even explain this.

50/50 means the chances of something are even, that it’s as likely to happen as not.

If that’s also your understanding, then, in the example above, how can you think you’re as likely to lose as you are to win? You’ve already said you have more chance to win, so how could you also have an equal chance to lose?

Just because there are only two possible outcomes doesn’t make it 50/50...

The Iron Giant

joeguevara wrote: »

That’s exactly what it means. If you don’t have 73 in your 99 tickets and 73 is the winning number then you still lose. You either have it or you don’t. You have a much higher chance of having the winning number. But that doesn’t mean that you only have 1% chance of losing. You lose because you don’t have the winning ticket. And only one ticket is pulled so you either have it or you don’t. 50/50.

You're muddling the odds of winning with the range of potential outcomes.

You have a 99% chance of winning if you have 99/100 tickets but what is 50/50 is the potential outcome which is win/lose; but that is not your odds of winning or losing which is a wholly different thing. These are not interchangeable.

Hence the lottery is not advertised as tickets having a 50/50 chance of winning.

Water John

Joe you're plain wrong. It's simple statistical probability. If you have 99 of the 100 tickets you have a 1% chance of losing and a 99% chance of winning.

joeguevara

lan wrote: »

That example is totally wrong. If you have 99 out of 100 tickets, you agree you have a 99% chance of winning, but that means you MUST only have a 1% chance of losing, not 50/50.

Just think about it logically. If the numbers are 1 - 100 and you’ve every number except 73, do you really think there’s a 50/50 chance they’ll pull 73 out of the 100 numbers in the hat?

That’s exactly what it means. If you don’t have 73 in your 99 tickets and 73 is the winning number then you still lose. You either have it or you don’t. You have a much higher chance of having the winning number. But that doesn’t mean that you only have 1% chance of losing. You lose because you don’t have the winning ticket. And only one ticket is pulled so you either have it or you don’t. 50/50.

lan

joeguevara wrote: »

It’s like if there are a 100 tickets in a hat and you have 99 of them. Yes you have 99/100 chances of winning but it is still 50/50 that you will lose. Most people when I ask believe that you only have 1/100 chance of losing.

That example is totally wrong. If you have 99 out of 100 tickets, you agree you have a 99% chance of winning, but that means you MUST only have a 1% chance of losing, not 50/50.

Just think about it logically. If the numbers are 1 - 100 and you’ve every number except 73, do you really think there’s a 50/50 chance they’ll pull 73 out of the 100 numbers in the hat?

joeguevara

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Are you sure? I’m pretty sure most people would get that.

Well no one I said it to got it. They only thinking about how it increases the chance of winning but never realize that it makes little to no impact on losing. They see a direct correlation and equal impact to increasing winning chances to decreasing losing chances. It’s like if there are a 100 tickets in a hat and you have 99 of them. Yes you have 99/100 chances of winning but it is still 50/50 that you will lose. Most people when I ask believe that you only have 1/100 chance of losing.

The massive syndicate in the 90s was only successful for one reason. There was an automatic £100 punt payout for every 4 number winner. Also there was only 36 numbers. But they took a risk that there might have been another jackpot winner and they would have to share.

Almost immediately they increased the numbers and never had such a high guaranteed payout for a 4 ball winner.

But imagine winning and getting fcuk all. The most people to win the same jackpot in the UK was 133 – they all picked the numbers 7, 17, 23, 32, 38 and 42 on 14 January 1995. It’s hard to imagine the emotional rollercoaster of thinking you have won the £16,293,830 jackpot only to end up with 1/133 of that total: £122,510.

retalivity

Oswald Mosely, the founder of the British Union of Fascists and father of F1 president and erstwhile kinky nazi Max Mosely, resigned from the tories over their support and deployment of the black and tans during the War of Independence. He initially became an independent, the joined Labour, left and setup the 'New' party, then scratched that and became a fascist.

Its funny how you get more right-centre-left-centre-right wing as you get older...

mzungu

We shed about 600,000 particles of skin every hour which works out at about 1.5 pounds a year. By the time we reach 70, an average person will have lost 105 pounds of skin. Presumably that figure rises to 305 pounds if you happen to be a member of The Rolling Stones! :pac:

We also shed and re-grow outer skin cells about every 27 days. This works out at almost 1,000 new skins in a lifetime.

4068ac1elhodqr

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I remember when that happened, they worked out how many four and five number combos you would win as well as the jackpot and went for it. The funniest thing about that was the following year they introduced three new numbers, and had a whole advertising campaign trumpeting how cool it was that you now had extra numbers to choose from, like that's a really exciting development, and not an obvious, massive dilution of your odds of winning.

Those extra numbers (all lottos have increased) really voided any future chance of hacking the system.

Back in the 90's a Romanian economist and 'weekend mathematician' won the lotto x 14 times.

He first won it (allegedly) after studying theoretical probability papers written by the Leonardo Fibonacci. Then wrote a “number-picking algorithm” based on a method he dubbed “combinatorial condensation.”

After this, he simply used the funds to hack various low-ball lottos with rollovers using groups and investment trusts.

Although it was legal, he was investigated by authorities for 'playing' the specifically pinpointed Virginia Lottery in 1992, which offered the best PTE and risk vs rewards scenario.

Realt Dearg Sec

Alanna Thousands Valley wrote: »

Will have little influence, as will use an RNG. I.e. Random Number Generator. Something like random() method from a pre-set array range.

Perfectionists will argue even this (machine/script) generated code might have small minute artifacts, but it will still be well within 'acceptable limits of chance'. https://www.google.com/search?q=rng (for sample).

Can't fathom playing either the regular shop lottos nor using quickpick selections. (I only use the hotpicks method).

If aiming to be the singular jackpot avoid 1-12, and also 1-31 (both birthdates), thus selection your own. Another reason is sheer recall, using famliar repeat numbers and you'll know if you did well or not without searching for ticket in the washing machine.

Two lines does mean double chance of winning, but it also means double investment, therefore 'true potential ROI%' is unchanged regardless.

Also, it's not a raffle, raffles generally are done with little profit, sometimes even at a technical loss if all tickets aren't sold (last years lotto.ie xmas tickets failed to sell-out). One of the most famous is the Dubai DFRaffle, ticket currently costs 287, limited to 5k tickets, with prize 1m (all usd).

They make a modest profit (200:287), but the chance of the 1m jackpot isn't too bad at 0.02%.

It's impossible to hack the lotto these days, due to the amount of numbers.

But in 1992 a Dublin Accountant did 'hack' the Irish lotto (smaller amount of numbers) coupled with super-rollover. He organised a syndicate 'bulk-buy' of sorts. There was still a chance of sharing it, or voiding terms of use, but think he still made a profit from the endevour.

I remember when that happened, they worked out how many four and five number combos you would win as well as the jackpot and went for it. The funniest thing about that was the following year they introduced three new numbers, and had a whole advertising campaign trumpeting how cool it was that you now had extra numbers to choose from, like that's a really exciting development, and not an obvious, massive dilution of your odds of winning.

Realt Dearg Sec

pleas advice wrote: »

you have a better chance of winning if you have two consecutive numbers in your selection, but not three

How is that?

Would have assumed any given sequence of numbers is as likely as any other given sequence of numbers?

pleas advice

you have a better chance of winning if you have two consecutive numbers in your selection, but not three

4068ac1elhodqr

SuperS54 wrote: »

Maybe some mathematician can help with this one...On the very odd occasion I buy a lottery ticket I always use the "computer" randomly generator numbers rather than picking my own. Am I further decreasing my likelihood of winning with this method? Are there odds against the 2 sets of randomly generated numbers being the same or are they 2 completely separate events that do not influence each other?

Will have little influence, as will use an RNG. I.e. Random Number Generator. Something like random() method from a pre-set array range.

Perfectionists will argue even this (machine/script) generated code might have small minute artifacts, but it will still be well within 'acceptable limits of chance'. https://www.google.com/search?q=rng (for sample).

Can't fathom playing either the regular shop lottos nor using quickpick selections. (I only use the hotpicks method).

If aiming to be the singular jackpot avoid 1-12, and also 1-31 (both birthdates), thus selection your own. Another reason is sheer recall, using famliar repeat numbers and you'll know if you did well or not without searching for ticket in the washing machine.

Two lines does mean double chance of winning, but it also means double investment, therefore 'true potential ROI%' is unchanged regardless.

Also, it's not a raffle, raffles generally are done with little profit, sometimes even at a technical loss if all tickets aren't sold (last years lotto.ie xmas tickets failed to sell-out). One of the most famous is the Dubai DFRaffle, ticket currently costs 287, limited to 5k tickets, with prize 1m (all usd).

They make a modest profit (200:287), but the chance of the 1m jackpot isn't too bad at 0.02%.

It's impossible to hack the lotto these days, due to the amount of numbers.

But in 1992 a Dublin Accountant did 'hack' the Irish lotto (smaller amount of numbers) coupled with super-rollover. He organised a syndicate 'bulk-buy' of sorts. There was still a chance of sharing it, or voiding terms of use, but think he still made a profit from the endevour.

Franz Von Peppercorn

joeguevara wrote: »

It does double your chance of winning but at the same time it doesn’t half your chance of losing. In fact your chances of losing are pretty much the same. That’s the bit that people never get.

Are you sure? I’m pretty sure most people would get that.

Grayson

SuperS54 wrote: »

Maybe some mathematician can help with this one...On the very odd occasion I buy a lottery ticket I always use the "computer" randomly generator numbers rather than picking my own. Am I further decreasing my likelihood of winning with this method? Are there odds against the 2 sets of randomly generated numbers being the same or are they 2 completely separate events that do not influence each other?

You're not decreasing your chances of winning by picking quick pick numbers rather than other numbers. You have exactly the same chance of winning.

However people who pick numbers tend to pick numbers that are familiar to them, stuff like birthdays etc. It means that the numbers tend to cluster around the lower two thirds of the range. Quick picks, being random will have a random distribution and will therefore have a greater chance of having higher numbers.

What does that mean? It means that you have no higher chance of winning but you do have a lower chance of sharing it with someone (As in a co winner, not your family

). You have a lower chance of sharing because less people pick those higher numbers.

Edit: Btw, if people think they se more winners who are quickpicks rather than self chosen there are a few possible reasons. Maybe more people use quick picks. Maybe they just notice it more. Or maybe it the fact that they report it but don't report that it was self chosen numbers.

joeguevara

mikhail wrote: »

Joe, you have contradicted yourself here. If you like this factoid (that a second ticket does very little to your odds of losing), you should be more careful how you tell it.

It does double your chance of winning but at the same time it doesn’t half your chance of losing. In fact your chances of losing are pretty much the same. That’s the bit that people never get.

The Iron Giant

The 33rd President of the United States, Harry S. Truman's middle name was.... "S".

It's just the letter S.

sbsquarepants

It does indeed double your chances of winning, it doesn't necessarily "feel" like that simply because you are still overwhelmingly likely to lose.

Lets say the odds are 10 million to 1. You buy 2 tickets they are now 5 million to 1 - you are still effectively 5 million times more likely to not win than you are to win (win the jackpot that is, ignoring al the smaller prizes.

The odds decrease by ever smaller amounts the more you buy. Right up until you pass the half way point, i.e. you've splashed out for more than 5 million tickets, you are still more likely to loose than you are to win.

In fact, if you're luck is anything like mine, you could snap up 9,999,999 only leaving out your "lucky" numbers (cos they never come out anyway:mad:) and still end up losing!

cdeb

Yeah, it's like having two guesses at someone's phone number technically doubles your chance of getting it right. But for all intents and purposes, you're still effectively equally unlikely to succeed.