What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

HSI2011 · 17-02-2011 06:47AM

i came across this thread while searching google...because here in Canada we have two national lottos, one 6/49 draws Wednesday and Saturday, the other is 7/49, draws fridays. The combined take this coming weekend is $84 million (no tax on lottos in Canada, paid in one lump sum). I know tax on poor yadda yadda, but throwing in $50 or something is no big deal.

so i was idly wondering what the odds of winning both are, one after the other, since they are drawn independently, no way to record who won what the day before, who bought tickets etc.

so assuming complete independence of drawing, the 649 is 1/ 13900000, 749 is 1/28300000. My first instinct was to use adding common denominator fractions, in which case the answer was 37/361,267,296 point being with LCD fractions the odds of winning both consecutively come out to better than winning either just once. Did i go about this right? Simply multiplying the two odds together makes it something like 370 trillion to one, but that process doesnt seem right to me because of the independence of the two draws. (odds of rolling a 6 in a 6 sided dice then a 7 in a 7 sided dice would be 2/ 42 wouldnt it?)

of course i understand that with mutplie tickets/ numbers bought the odds get slightly better, but assume one number each....

Mellor · 17-02-2011 07:14AM

HSI2011 wrote: »

... the odds of winning both consecutively come out to better than winning either just once. Did i go about this right?

What do you think?
how could your chances of winning both be better than either alone.

(odds of rolling a 6 in a 6 sided dice then a 7 in a 7 sided dice would be 2/ 42 wouldnt it?)

no it wouldn't, it would be 1/42

also, 1/6 + 1/7 = 13/42, not 2/42

try it again with a two sided coin, and a 6 sided dice

doomed · 17-02-2011 08:15AM

8145060 X 8145060
L1 X L2 (your lines in the two draws)

subtract 1 from the total. whatever is left to 1 is the odds.

Assumes that there is no duplication in a single draw.
Whatever way you look at it is a big number. If it isn't then you don't need to win it.

Once you have already won it you are just as likely as the next person although you extra cash might make you buy extra tickets.

Johnathon01 · 25-02-2011 12:56PM

Playing lotto can be very useful; it is a very good way to make fast money. At the same time not everyone can win a lottery. It is very important to have knowledge about the special techniques which will help you in succeeding. Internet is the best place to search for such software which will help to win a lottery.

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 01:15PM

Johnathon01 wrote: »

Playing lotto can be very useful; it is a very good way to make fast money. At the same time not everyone can win a lottery. It is very important to have knowledge about the special techniques which will help you in succeeding. Internet is the best place to search for such software which will help to win a lottery.

There's this system as well that's pretty much foolproof that you can use.

You basically start off with a small bet on something like one particular number to come up in the draw.

If it doesn't come up you back it to come up again in the next draw, except this time you double your stake.

You keep doing this (keep backing and doubling your stake) until the number comes out.

I've done some calculations and you're basically guaranteed to profit if you bet this way. I've been doing it for six weeks (only started off betting €2 for a test case), but I'm up around €80 quid already so it's looking good.

Blisterman · 25-02-2011 02:32PM

keane2097 wrote: »

There's this system as well that's pretty much foolproof that you can use.

You basically start off with a small bet on something like one particular number to come up in the draw.

If it doesn't come up you back it to come up again in the next draw, except this time you double your stake.

You keep doing this (keep backing and doubling your stake) until the number comes out.

I've done some calculations and you're basically guaranteed to profit if you bet this way. I've been doing it for six weeks (only started off betting €2 for a test case), but I'm up around €80 quid already so it's looking good.

If this worked, everyone would do it. But statistically it doesn't. It would only be 100% foolproof if you
A: Have infinite time money to bet
B: There being no maximum bet

Because assuming a 50-50 bet, and the wrong number keeps coming up

€2 to Win €2 - Lose
€4 to Win €2 - Lose
€8 to Win €2 - Lose
€16 to Win €2 - Lose
€32 to Win €2 - Lose
€64 to Win €2 - Lose
€128 to Win €2 - Lose
€256 to Win €2 - Lose
€512 to Win €2 - Lose
€1,024 to Win €2 - Lose
€2,056 to Win €2 - Lose
€4,112 to Win €2 - Lose
€8,224 to Win €2 - Lose
€16,448 to Win €2 - Lose
€32,896 to Win €2 - Lose
€65,792 to Win €2 - Lose
€131,584 to Win €2 - Lose
Then you're betting
€263,168 to Win €2

That much money would earn €2 in interest in a matter of hours, so it doesn't make sense as a strategy.

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 02:55PM

Blisterman wrote: »

If this worked, everyone would do it. But statistically it doesn't. It would only be 100% foolproof if you
A: Have infinite time money to bet
B: There being no maximum bet

Because assuming a 50-50 bet, and the wrong number keeps coming up

€2 to Win €2 - Lose
€4 to Win €2 - Lose
€8 to Win €2 - Lose
€16 to Win €2 - Lose
€32 to Win €2 - Lose
€64 to Win €2 - Lose
€128 to Win €2 - Lose
€256 to Win €2 - Lose
€512 to Win €2 - Lose
€1,024 to Win €2 - Lose
€2,056 to Win €2 - Lose
€4,112 to Win €2 - Lose
€8,224 to Win €2 - Lose
€16,448 to Win €2 - Lose
€32,896 to Win €2 - Lose
€65,792 to Win €2 - Lose
€131,584 to Win €2 - Lose
Then you're betting
€263,168 to Win €2

That much money would earn €2 in interest in a matter of hours, so it doesn't make sense as a strategy.

There's next to no chance of a ball taking that long to come out.

I've been at it for six weeks now and it hasn't taken me longer than four draws to get it right.

You can increase your win rate by picking multiple balls as well, which does your argument about "earning interest" in.

Like anyone with half a brain would trust a bank with that sort of money anyway.

Jesus Wept · 25-02-2011 03:01PM

You'd have to be some special to manage to lose 17 times in a row.

Blisterman · 25-02-2011 03:06PM

There may be next to no chance of it taking that long, but the odds are still proportional to how much you bet.

There's an explanation here.

http://casinogambling.about.com/od/moneymanagement/a/martingale.htm

Cool Mo D · 25-02-2011 03:18PM

keane2097 wrote: »

There's this system as well that's pretty much foolproof that you can use.

You basically start off with a small bet on something like one particular number to come up in the draw.

If it doesn't come up you back it to come up again in the next draw, except this time you double your stake.

You keep doing this (keep backing and doubling your stake) until the number comes out.

I've done some calculations and you're basically guaranteed to profit if you bet this way. I've been doing it for six weeks (only started off betting €2 for a test case), but I'm up around €80 quid already so it's looking good.

That's a very famous betting technique called the Martingale, and there's a whole load of mathematical literature on why the odds are against you with this method.

Basically, most of the time you will earn a small payback using the method, but it is more than balanced out by infrequent massive losses you are certain to face.

bodice ripper · 25-02-2011 03:22PM

the lotto is the idiot tax, in case no one has mentioned it.

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 03:23PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

That's a very famous betting technique called the Martingale, and there's a whole load of mathematical literature on why the odds are against you with this method.

Basically, most of the time you will earn a small payback using the method, but it is more than balanced out by infrequent massive losses you are certain to face.

lol at the bold bit.

As I said, I've been multi-balling this for a while now, it's pretty much impossible to pick numbers so badly that it would ever lead to a massive loss.

You just have to be smart about it.

Blisterman wrote: »

There may be next to no chance of it taking that long, but the odds are still proportional to how much you bet.

There's an explanation here.

http://casinogambling.about.com/od/moneymanagement/a/martingale.htm

Reality disagrees with you, whatever your theories are saying (who's to say your theory isn't flawed anyway).

The fact is I've been a consistant winner using this system over a decent timeframe, albeit at low stakes. Under the fairly safe assumption that I continue to show similar profits I'll be moving my starting stake up over the next couple of weeks.

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 03:24PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

the lotto is the idiot tax, in case no one has mentioned it.

It is if you don't know how to play it properly.

The idiots playing it wrong is what makes the profit margins for the smart lotto players.

25-02-2011 03:32PM

keane2097 wrote: »

lol at the bold bit.

As I said, I've been multi-balling this for a while now, it's pretty much impossible to pick numbers so badly that it would ever lead to a massive loss.

You just have to be smart about it.

Reality disagrees with you, whatever your theories are saying (who's to say your theory isn't flawed anyway).

The fact is I've been a consistant winner using this system over a decent timeframe, albeit at low stakes. Under the fairly safe assumption that I continue to show similar profits I'll be moving my starting stake up over the next couple of weeks.

Without figures, odds and the actual betting system, there's no way to analyse your approach. However, can you see why the martingale system doesn't work in the case of a coin-flip?

And secondly: "it's pretty much impossible to pick numbers so badly that it would ever lead to a massive loss"? That makes no sense. The odds of one number coming out are exactly equal to the odds of another number coming out. Your choice of numbers have absolutely no bearing on the odds

Cool Mo D · 25-02-2011 03:49PM

keane2097 wrote: »

lol at the bold bit.

As I said, I've been multi-balling this for a while now, it's pretty much impossible to pick numbers so badly that it would ever lead to a massive loss.

If you double your bet every time you lose, you are in for pain sooner or later. That is the point. There is no way around it.

hardcore · 25-02-2011 03:53PM

100 trillion/ 1

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 03:59PM

28064212 wrote: »

Without figures, odds and the actual betting system, there's no way to analyse your approach. However, can you see why the martingale system doesn't work in the case of a coin-flip?

I was expecting this tbh.

All you're doing here is putting a generic title on my approach (by calling it Martingale or whatever), then changing everything about the experiment and trying to act like that will prove your point.

I have no interest in talking about flipping a single coin because that's not what I'm betting on.

I'm talking about picking a ball out of 42 to fall out of a drum in a lotto draw, this thread is about the lotto.

28064212 wrote: »

And secondly: "it's pretty much impossible to pick numbers so badly that it would ever lead to a massive loss"? That makes no sense. The odds of one number coming out are exactly equal to the odds of another number coming out. Your choice of numbers have absolutely no bearing on the odds

It's pretty simple actually. You can check pretty easily to see what balls have come out in the last X number of draws.

You simply pick the ball (or two, or three, or whatever depending on your bankroll) that haven't been up in the largest number of draws. That's what I mean about playing smart.

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 04:01PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

If you double your bet every time you lose, you are in for pain sooner or later. That is the point. There is no way around it.

You might as well type "fact" at the end of that for all you've succeeded at actually proving anything.

Blisterman · 25-02-2011 04:06PM

keane2097 wrote: »

You simply pick the ball (or two, or three, or whatever depending on your bankroll) that haven't been up in the largest number of draws. That's what I mean about playing smart.

The odds of a given ball coming out are the same regardless of how long it's been since that number has come out.

maki · 25-02-2011 04:16PM

keane2097 wrote: »

You simply pick the ball (or two, or three, or whatever depending on your bankroll) that haven't been up in the largest number of draws. That's what I mean about playing smart.

Sorry, but that's some very faulty logic.

Let's presume that the number 4 hasn't come out in the last 50 draws. Does that mean that 4 is more likely than any other balls to come out the following week? No.

The balls don't remember results from previous weeks. Each draw is independent of the next.

Slaanesh · 25-02-2011 04:16PM

keane2097 wrote: »

It's pretty simple actually. You can check pretty easily to see what balls have come out in the last X number of draws.

You simply pick the ball (or two, or three, or whatever depending on your bankroll) that haven't been up in the largest number of draws. That's what I mean about playing smart.

You're in for some loss. I'm at a loss ... for words.

25-02-2011 04:18PM

keane2097 wrote: »

I was expecting this tbh.

All you're doing here is putting a generic title on my approach (by calling it Martingale or whatever), then changing everything about the experiment and trying to act like that will prove your point.

WTF? That's exactly the opposite of what I said. I specifically said there's no way to analyse your system without knowing the details. From what little information you've provided, it sounds similar to the Martingale system. I asked if you understood why the Martingale system fails with a coin-flip because if your system is equivalent to a Martingale system, it will fail

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 04:26PM

Blisterman wrote: »

The odds of a given ball coming out are the same regardless of how long it's been since that number has come out.

maki wrote: »

Sorry, but that's some very faulty logic.

Let's presume that the number 4 hasn't come out in the last 50 draws. Does that mean that 4 is more likely than any other balls to come out the following week? No.

The balls don't remember results from previous weeks. Each draw is independent of the next.

It's very unlikely, for example, that a ball will go 100 weeks without coming out.

If you see that a ball hasn't come out in 99 weeks already it's pretty obvious that it's due to come out in the next few draws.

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 04:27PM

Slaanesh wrote: »

You're in for some loss. I'm at a loss ... for words.

Wha......at?

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 04:28PM

28064212 wrote: »

WTF? That's exactly the opposite of what I said. I specifically said there's no way to analyse your system without knowing the details. From what little information you've provided, it sounds similar to the Martingale system. I asked if you understood why the Martingale system fails with a coin-flip because if your system is equivalent to a Martingale system, it will fail

There is no relevance to talking about a coin flip situation when the scenario I'm gambling on bears no resemblance to a coin flip.

This thread is about the lotto.

25-02-2011 04:38PM

keane2097 wrote: »

It's very unlikely, for example, that a ball will go 100 weeks without coming out.

If you see that a ball hasn't come out in 99 weeks already it's pretty obvious that it's due to come out in the next few draws.

The first sentence is a completely different scenario to the second. Starting from week 1, the chance that a ball will go 100 weeks without coming out is very remote, you're correct about that.

However, on week 99, if it has already gone 99 weeks without coming out, it has exactly the same chance of coming out as any other ball the following week. It is not "obvious" that it will come out in the next few draws, that's a perfect example of Gambler's Fallacy.

keane2097 wrote: »

There is no relevance to talking about a coin flip situation when the scenario I'm gambling on bears no resemblance to a coin flip.

This thread is about the lotto.

Once again, without you actually giving any details on the system, it's impossible to analyse. However, if it's a 50/50 chance of doubling your money, then it's exactly equivalent to a coin-flip, and the system will fail.

keane2097 · 25-02-2011 05:20PM

28064212 wrote: »

The first sentence is a completely different scenario to the second. Starting from week 1, the chance that a ball will go 100 weeks without coming out is very remote, you're correct about that.

However, on week 99, if it has already gone 99 weeks without coming out, it has exactly the same chance of coming out as any other ball the following week. It is not "obvious" that it will come out in the next few draws, that's a perfect example of Gambler's Fallacy.

There is no difference between the first scenario and the second scenario. 100 weeks is 100 weeks

28064212 wrote: »

Once again, without you actually giving any details on the system, it's impossible to analyse. However, if it's a 50/50 chance of doubling your money, then it's exactly equivalent to a coin-flip, and the system will fail.

I can't understand how you can equate one ball out of 42 with heads or tails.

Check out how the lotto system works, I don't think you have the details you need.

www.lotto.ie

25-02-2011 05:26PM

keane2097 wrote: »

There is no difference between the first scenario and the second scenario. 100 weeks is 100 weeks

Wrong. For simplicity's sake, I'm reducing a draw to picking out one ball from a drum of balls numbered 1 to 7:

Before Week 1: What are the odds of number 1 not coming out 100 times in a row? Answer: 1 / (7^100), so incredibly small
After Week 99: Number 1 hasn't come out in the previous 99 weeks. This is a known fact. What are the odds of number 1 coming out in draw 100?

Cool Mo D · 25-02-2011 05:37PM

keane2097 wrote: »

You might as well type "fact" at the end of that for all you've succeeded at actually proving anything.

It is actually a fact - it's a proven mathematical theorem that over the long run, that method of betting will lose more than it wins.

Here's a mathematical explanation: http://math.nyu.edu/~sheff/martingalenote.pdf

doomed · 25-02-2011 09:44PM

There is no such thing as a system that increases your chances of winning in a game with fixed odds such as roulette. It is a myth and it is myths like these that make casinos profitable. The house takes the zeros which give it an edge of a litle less than 3%.

Continuously doubling your stake will win in the short term but the odds will get you in the end. You will last longer if you have a bigger wallet but thats about it.

A coin toss is an even bet and if you play for a really long time you should break even. If you use the doubling up method there you will do better than roulette but you are still vulnerable to the long losing streak and if your bankroll is not big enough you are wiped out.

The only games you can use strategy are those where there is skill such as card counting in blackjack or plain skill in poker.

What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

Comments