What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

Pherekydes · 25-02-2011 10:36PM

keane2097 wrote: »

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

Can you afford to double your stake for 100 straight weeks? If you have that kind of money why not use it for something useful?

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.

Obvious to you, obviously. Not so obvious to professional statisticians who've spend many hours analysing these sorts of betting systems.

Tilt Gone · 26-02-2011 12:50AM

Take the number of lines you play (let's call them x) Then divide it by how many weeks it takes to dig a fortnight. Then add the amount of people who pay their tv licence (lets call this y) and then multiple by the amont of days there is in a trillion years.

Once you get this figure stick it up your arse and that's around the odds you have to win the Lotto.

Jesus Wept · 26-02-2011 03:29AM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

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

It's proven that it is a theorem but a theorem is not a fact.

Anyhow, doing it on the lotto is a stupid idea, better off doing it on something with only 2 or 3 outcomes like a tennis or football match.

26-02-2011 12:56PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

It's proven that it is a theorem but a theorem is not a fact.

From wiki: "In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven". It's a 'fact' in the sense that 2+2 = 4 is a 'fact'

The-Rigger wrote: »

Anyhow, doing it on the lotto is a stupid idea, better off doing it on something with only 2 or 3 outcomes like a tennis or football match.

The Martingale system doesn't work. You will always lose in the long run unless you have infinite money and no maximum bett limits

Jesus Wept · 26-02-2011 01:06PM

28064212 wrote: »

From wiki: "In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven". It's a 'fact' in the sense that 2+2 = 4 is a 'fact'

Maybe quote the few words that follow that...

'In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements'

keane2097 · 26-02-2011 01:08PM

28064212 wrote: »

From wiki: "In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven". It's a 'fact' in the sense that 2+2 = 4 is a 'fact'

Jesus, I must be right if you're deliberately misrepresenting Wikipedia to try and prove your argument.

That's pathetic.

keane2097 · 26-02-2011 01:09PM

Tilt Gone wrote: »

Take the number of lines you play (let's call them x) Then divide it by how many weeks it takes to dig a fortnight. Then add the amount of people who pay their tv licence (lets call this y) and then multiple by the amont of days there is in a trillion years.

Once you get this figure stick it up your arse and that's around the odds you have to win the Lotto.

I've checked and this is incorrect.

26-02-2011 01:23PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

Maybe quote the few words that follow that...

'In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements'

2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem that is proven on the basis of previously established statements. As is the optional stopping theorem, which proves the Martingale system doesn't work

keane2097 wrote: »

Jesus, I must be right if you're deliberately misrepresenting Wikipedia to try and prove your argument.

That's pathetic.

Lol, I didn't particularly want a mathematical debate on the fundamental axioms of the entire numerical system. The extra part of the line added nothing to the debate and changed nothing in the statement

But since you decided to come back to the thread, any answer to the previous post?

28064212 wrote: »

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?

keane2097 · 26-02-2011 01:26PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Can you afford to double your stake for 100 straight weeks? If you have that kind of money why not use it for something useful?

Why would I ever have to?

Like I said you just have to choose the right numbers.

It's the same reason why the same people often win the lottery more than once. They just know how to read the trends and pick the right numbers.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Obvious to you, obviously. Not so obvious to professional statisticians who've spend many hours analysing these sorts of betting systems.

Like who? Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Reality obv disagrees with them so they're clearly doing something wrong in their analysis.

Interestingly, here's what Doyle Brunson, one of the world's most famous and successful gamblers, thinks of statisticians:

Doyle Brunson wrote:

If you don't play that way ... you'll never have much of a rush. I know that scientists don't believe in rushes... but they make about fifteen hundred a month. I've ;played Poker for almost 25 years now... and I've made millions at it. A big part of my winnings came from playing my rushes.

keane2097 · 26-02-2011 01:28PM

I don't engage with people who deliberately misrepresent the facts in order to further their agendas.

Good day to you sir.

28064212 wrote: »

2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem that is proven on the basis of previously established statements. As is the optional stopping theorem, which proves the Martingale system doesn't work

Lol, I didn't particularly want a mathematical debate on the fundamental axioms of the entire numerical system. The extra part of the line added nothing to the debate and changed nothing in the statement

But since you decided to come back to the thread, any answer to the previous post?

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 01:31PM

J K wrote: »

8145060 x 8145060

66342002403600 to one.

Actually the question makes no sense, how many draws are entered, how many lines are bought, over what period of time etc

Yes them odds would be right if you just played 2 single times.

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 01:33PM

orourkeda wrote: »

remote

8145060 to 1 to do it once.

Thats right there, although its that long since i done it, do you have to do 2 lines or just one as a minimum?

26-02-2011 01:49PM

keane2097 wrote: »

Interestingly, here's what Doyle Brunson, one of the world's most famous and successful gamblers, thinks of statisticians:

Lol, you're quoting someone who plays poker, a game which is a mix of strategy, psychology and actual player input, in a discussion on a game of pure chance. If he's so dismissive of statistics, why doesn't he take his game to roulette? Or the lotto?

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't engage with people who deliberately misrepresent the facts in order to further their agendas.

Good day to you sir.

Lol, what a surprise, dodging the question.

"Deliberately misrepresenting the facts"? Any mathematician, when asked what a theorem is, will tell you it's a proven statement. They won't add the extraneous "on the basis of previously proven statements" since it's implied to anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge. 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem, which is a proven statement. The optional stopping theorem is a proven statement. If you accept one, you accept the other

keane2097 · 26-02-2011 02:07PM

28064212 wrote: »

Lol, you're quoting someone who plays poker, a game which is a mix of strategy, psychology and actual player input, in a discussion on a game of pure chance. If he's so dismissive of statistics, why doesn't he take his game to roulette? Or the lotto?

Lol, what a surprise, dodging the question.

"Deliberately misrepresenting the facts"? Any mathematician, when asked what a theorem is, will tell you it's a proven statement. They won't add the extraneous "on the basis of previously proven statements" since it's implied to anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge. 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem, which is a proven statement. The optional stopping theorem is a proven statement. If you accept one, you accept the other

I have no interest in convincing you tbh.

Your credibility is shot.

I've shown a high profile high stakes gambler who thinks your statisticians are FOS, you're just claiming "anyone with any knowledge" agrees with you.

Wikipedia doesn't even agree with you.

I'll enjoy spending my money while you enjoy peddling your pseudoscience on the internet, everybody's happy.

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 02:11PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

How many people play the lottery doesn't affect your particular chances of winning it. It does affect your chances of being a sole winner but not of you actually having the six numbers.

Thats true, the lotto used to advertise some tools as winners, and tell us to play lotto, or it could be him. False advertising really, as us playing made no difference to his chances. All we could do was reduce his winnings.

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 02:23PM

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.

Yes definitely. If you have the 45 numbers in the drum, what ones come out are totally independent of any that ever came out before in previous draws. Even if there was a trend, tens and probably hundreds of thousands of draws would be needed to see any true trend if it existed.

But each draw is completely random. No one could say for certain what numbers will come out.

26-02-2011 02:29PM

keane2097 wrote: »

Your credibility is shot.

You can't even answer the absolute central point of your system and my credibility is shot?

keane2097 wrote: »

I've shown a high profile high stakes gambler who thinks your statisticians are FOS, you're just claiming "anyone with any knowledge" agrees with you.

Poker player. He's a high-profile, high-stakes poker player. If you're a sufficiently good poker player, you change the probablilities of winning. There's no such thing as being a good roulette player, or a good lotto player

keane2097 wrote: »

Wikipedia doesn't even agree with you.

You realise that I was the one who actually linked to wikipedia, right? I quoted the relevant part and gave a link to anyone who wanted to learn more. I can give you a link to the Peano axioms and Principia Mathematica (which provides a proof for the theorem that 1+1=2 btw) and you can start learning the entire numerical system from first principles if you like

keane2097 wrote: »

I'll enjoy spending my money while you enjoy peddling your pseudoscience on the internet, everybody's happy.

Pseudoscience? I thought it was the actual scientists who were "FOS"?

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 02:29PM

45 numbers are too many for a country with 4 million population. First it was 36, they changed that to 42 to stop syndicates, then 45 for greed reasons i would think.

keane2097 · 26-02-2011 02:39PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

45 numbers are too many for a country with 4 million population. First it was 36, they changed that to 42 to stop syndicates, then 45 for greed reasons i would think.

The way they have it now makes for bigger jackpots which fools people into playing who probably wouldn't for a smaller prize.

The more numbers the more exploitable the trends are though.

keane2097 · 26-02-2011 02:41PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Even if there was a trend, tens and probably hundreds of thousands of draws would be needed to see any true trend if it existed.

I'm pretty sure there's been enough draws at this stage to prove that balls just don't go as long as these scientists say they should.

Like I said, all the "theorems" in the world well and good, but in practise we just don't see the results they predict.

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 02:50PM

keane2097 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there's been enough draws at this stage to prove that balls just don't go as long as these scientists say they should.

Like I said, all the "theorems" in the world well and good, but in practise we just don't see the results they predict.

Maybe 2000 draws for the jackpot since the lotto began, from a possible 8 million combinations.

If you say 6000 draws for 3 draws per lotto game, which did not have 2 lotto draws a week since the beginning, or 3 draws, but say 6000 anyway, thats 0.075 percent, hardly a conclusive percentage to base these conclusions on.

DS · 26-02-2011 02:54PM

Keane you are every bookie's wet dream. I hope for your sake you are trolling.

TanG411 · 26-02-2011 03:08PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

45 numbers are too many for a country with 4 million population. First it was 36, they changed that to 42 to stop syndicates, then 45 for greed reasons i would think.

The story of Stefan Klincewicz is an extraoridnary one. Trying to buy every ticket combination.

Ireland began a National Lottery in 1988. It was a pick 6 balls from 36 balls game with 1,947,792 possible combinations of the 6 balls.

In the monetary currency of Ireland, the punt(pound), it would take £973,896 to buy every possible combination.

During May of 1992, the jackpot reached £1.7 million, about £725,000 more than the cost to buy every combination.

Stefan Klincewicz, a businessman in Dublin, organized a syndicate of 28 people, and set out to buy every possible combination.

About two days before the drawing, somebody at the National Lottery got wise to ol' Stephan's scheme. The National Lottery took action by putting a limit on how many tickets a person could purchase and actually shutting down the terminals where a lot of heavy ticket buying was happening.

By the time of the drawing, Stephan's syndicate was only able to buy 88% of the possible combinations. As luck would have it though, the winning combination was amongst the tickets the syndicate had bought.

But, it also happened that two other jackpot tickets were also sold before the drawing. So the jackpot had a 3-way split, leaving the syndicate with only £568,682... £288,346 less than the syndicate's 88% wager.

It didn't all end up in the loss column though, because amongst all of the syndicate's tickets, there were enough 4-ball and 5-ball matches, that the net proceeds equaled nearly £1,166,000... leaving a profit of about £309,000.

If the syndicate divided up the money equally, each of the 28 players would have made about £11,000.

Was it worth the effort?

A few months later, in August, The National Lottery changed the game by adding 3 more balls to the mix (6/39). The number of possible combinations jumped from 1,947,792 to 3,262,623.

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 03:17PM

DerangedDreamer wrote: »

The story of Stefan Klincewicz is an extraoridnary one. Trying to buy every ticket combination.

11k each was not a bad profit for a weeks work though, but there was a gamble involed too. And the lotto blocking them from buying tickets? I dont think there was a law against it. I had heard it mentioned plenty of times before that happened, about the possibility of buying all combinations.

The 3 extra numbers made it not likely again, as did the 2 draws a week. Adding 3 more numbera yet again was just a profit making move, they increase the prizes, but make winning them far less likely.

The 5 and bonus prize is paltry as well. I thinks its around 7 times more likely to get 5 and bonus than jackpot, but the 25k prize is an 80th of the 2 million euro jackpot

Jesus Wept · 26-02-2011 03:26PM

Think many of the 28 people were hired help, he probably won a lot of than 11k himself.

keane2097 · 26-02-2011 06:09PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Maybe 2000 draws for the jackpot since the lotto began, from a possible 8 million combinations.

If you say 6000 draws for 3 draws per lotto game, which did not have 2 lotto draws a week since the beginning, or 3 draws, but say 6000 anyway, thats 0.075 percent, hardly a conclusive percentage to base these conclusions on.

That's a fair enough argument.

However, if you think about it, it doesn't prove your side of the issue any more than it does mine.

I assert that trends exist in how balls come out of the drum. You say they don't.

Not enough draws have been done to be able to say either is correct.

So far though balls simply don't go a long time without coming out, so I'm happy to keep making money at it.

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 06:30PM

keane2097 wrote: »

That's a fair enough argument.

However, if you think about it, it doesn't prove your side of the issue any more than it does mine.

I dont need to prove it though, we know 45 numbers in a drum will be unpredictable as they come out.

I assert that trends exist in how balls come out of the drum. You say they don't.

Ok, so you do all the sums, and work out what numbers are likely to come out tonight. And we would assume then, with 1 more draw made on wed, you redo your trend predicting for next sat, how do the draws for wed be now included in the trend? If wed was skipped, then the prediction would almost be the same for tonights draw, but we know thats not likely.

And say for example we skip 6 months of lotto draws, will the next one in august now have the same expected numbers as what next wednesdays would of had? As the trends only went as far as tonights draw in the above hypethetical scenario.

Another trend i have noticed, the numbers 1 to 6 in order have never come out, does this mean they never will? Many will say they never will. But the same could be said of any random 6 numbers i pick this minute and use from now on.

Not enough draws have been done to be able to say either is correct.

Thats my point, i said the trends cant really be predicted accurately, it will be much harder for you to show they can, than for me to say they cant.

So far though balls simply don't go a long time without coming out, so I'm happy to keep making money at it.

Id bet the number 36 will come out again sometime this year, but predicting another 2 that will come out in the same draw would be difficult. I would certainly win money at it, but would pay out more during the times the numbers dont come up.

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 06:44PM

keane2097 wrote: »

So far though balls simply don't go a long time without coming out, so I'm happy to keep making money at it.

On this point again, certain balls not taking long to come out does not mean much. Over a week (sat to sat) there are 3 draws, and a good chance of seeing 14 or 15 different numbers in that time.

The thing is not about predicting when a certain ball will come out, its predicting when groups will come out together.

You should put predictions here for us, it wont make any difference to your own winnings really.

keane2097 · 26-02-2011 07:01PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

On this point again, certain balls not taking long to come out does not mean much. Over a week (sat to sat) there are 3 draws, and a good chance of seeing 14 or 15 different numbers in that time.

The thing is not about predicting when a certain ball will come out, its predicting when groups will come out together.

You should put predictions here for us, it wont make any difference to your own winnings really.

Lol you don't know much about gambling if you think it would be +ev for me to post the results of my research online before the event.

Nice try though.

26-02-2011 07:03PM

keane2097 wrote: »

Lol you don't know much about gambling if you think it would be +ev for me to post the results of my research online before the event.

Nice try though.

I suppose if the balls can remember what way they've come out before, they might as well be influenced by a post on an internet forum. It's certainly as likely anyway

What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

Comments