What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

Bruthal · 26-02-2011 07:09PM

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.

It was not actually a try at anything, putting up numbers would not be giving anything away, i can put up numbers no problem, what would that tell anyone. Although i did not really expect you would.

And your right, i know nothing about gambling, but enough to avoid it:D

It would be interesting to see after enough draws, if there would be a trend. But the exact same sets of balls would have to be used in the same machine on all draws for that to be even remotely possible.

Fart · 26-02-2011 09:27PM

I'm going to win the UK lotto tonight. (just a heads up)

Mellor · 02-03-2011 06:17AM

robbie7730 wrote: »

And your right, i know nothing about gambling, but enough to avoid it:D

It would be interesting to see after enough draws, if there would be a trend. But the exact same sets of balls would have to be used in the same machine on all draws for that to be even remotely possible.

If you think that would be interesting, that there might be a trend. Then you sir, need your head checked.
The same balls, machines, etc etc make no difference. There are unrelated events, there is no way there can be a trend. There will be patterns of course, such a number coming out every 3rd week for a period.
Don't confuse randomness with trends and predictions.

Bruthal · 02-03-2011 11:24AM

Mellor wrote: »

If you think that would be interesting, that there might be a trend. Then you sir, need your head checked.
The same balls, machines, etc etc make no difference. There are unrelated events, there is no way there can be a trend. There will be patterns of course, such a number coming out every 3rd week for a period.
Don't confuse randomness with trends and predictions.

A moderator calling another poster an idiot, then changing his post to the above? Not fit for the task i would believe. Also, read the rest of the thread before you make your almighty judgements.

keane2097 · 02-03-2011 11:27AM

Mellor wrote: »

If you think that would be interesting, that there might be a trend. Then you sir, need your head checked.
The same balls, machines, etc etc make no difference. There are unrelated events, there is no way there can be a trend. There will be patterns of course, such a number coming out every 3rd week for a period.
Don't confuse randomness with trends and predictions.

I think you're the one who is confused Mellor.

Bruthal · 02-03-2011 11:34AM

Well i believe myself it would be unlikely to see much of a trend, but i think he should go to bed earlier if he has to resort to calling posters idiots, then changing it when he realised he was really the idiot for posting it. When you call someone an idiot for a post, then you should not be moderating others. As obviously they are all below you as idiots if they post something incorrect, or something you think is incorrect.

Slaanesh · 02-03-2011 11:37AM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well i believe myself it would be unlikely to see much of a trend, but i think he should go to bed earlier if he has to resort to calling posters idiots, then changing it when he realised he was really the idiot for posting it. When you call someone an idiot for a post, then you should not be moderating others. As obviously they are all below you as idiots if they post something incorrect, or something you think is incorrect.

It's called the "Report Post" button, use it.

Zapho · 02-03-2011 11:39AM

Fart wrote: »

Well... I plan on winning the Euromillions this Friday.

The odds are: Either I will or I won't.

I'll take that bet!

Bruthal · 02-03-2011 11:42AM

Slaanesh wrote: »

It's called the "Report Post" button, use it.

I was more replying to his post than wanting to report anything. Im not bothered about being called an idiot, he could be right:D. Most of us have posted something we should not have sometime.

ClutchIt · 02-03-2011 12:18PM

xoxyx wrote: »

The odds of winning the Lotto twice are the same as winning the Lotto once.

The chances of a certain set of numbers coming up is the same every week. The fact of a person having those numbers doesn't come into it!

Same way as the odds of throwing a red number 3 at roulette once, doesn't affect the odds of that same number coming up again on the next throw.

It's a random occurrence every time. Past plays don't come into it!

Completely wrong.

To win the lotto twice, the odds are accumulated. 1/8,000,000 x 1/8,000,000 = 1/64,000,000

And to discredit your roulette theory: not sure but lets say there are 32 numbers in roulette, then the odds of 3 coming up twice in a row is 1/32 x 1/32 = 1/1024

The only thing your proving above is that the odds of a 3 coming up is the same every time (1/32) which is common sense, of course it couldn't possibly change.

keane2097 · 02-03-2011 12:26PM

ClutchIt wrote: »

Completely wrong.

To win the lotto twice, the odds are accumulated. 1/8,000,000 x 1/8,000,000 = 1/64,000,000

And to discredit your roulette theory: not sure but lets say there are 32 numbers in roulette, then the odds of 3 coming up twice in a row is 1/32 x 1/32 = 1/1024

The only thing your proving above is that the odds of a 3 coming up is the same every time (1/32) which is common sense, of course it couldn't possibly change.

This is wrong in the event that a three hasn't come up in a long time.

The longer it goes without a three coming up, the more likely it is to come up on each subsequent spin.

maw · 02-03-2011 12:29PM

i think you are all missing the the additional consideration of the fact that the lotto is not a random event - it couldn't be

i personally (haven't done the stats) would assume that the amount of winners seen does not correlate to the odds of having winners based on the number of people doing the lotto.

I would go as far as to say that the odds are more directly related to how close you are to a bank holiday weekend and then the number of players entered.

maw · 02-03-2011 12:32PM

keane2097 wrote: »

This is wrong in the event that a three hasn't come up in a long time.

The longer it goes without a three coming up, the more likely it is to come up on each subsequent spin.

wrong- are you saying if i throw a dice 6 times and 5 hasn't come up after the 5th that 5 is more likely on the 6th throw - its not - it has the same probability.

for that kind of statistics to matter you are talking about HUGE numbers of repetition, millions of throws i'd wager

ClutchIt · 02-03-2011 12:32PM

keane2097 wrote: »

This is wrong in the event that a three hasn't come up in a long time.

The longer it goes without a three coming up, the more likely it is to come up on each subsequent spin.

No way. Each time it will have a 1/32 chance.

keane2097 · 02-03-2011 12:35PM

maw wrote: »

wrong- are you saying if i throw a dice 6 times and 5 hasn't come up after the 5th that 5 is more likely on the 6th throw - its not - it has the same probability.

for that kind of statistics to matter you are talking about HUGE numbers of repetition, millions of throws i'd wager

No, I'm saying that the longer a number hasn't landed on in roulette, the more likely it is to come out in subsequent spins.

ClutchIt · 02-03-2011 12:35PM

keane2097 wrote: »

This is wrong in the event that a three hasn't come up in a long time.

The longer it goes without a three coming up, the more likely it is to come up on each subsequent spin.

I don't gamble but that kind of logic would hang you in a Casino.

It is always 1/32 there is no possible way it could change, no matter how long it has been since it came up (obviously assuming the game isn't rigged). If it hasn't come up in a long time then it probably will eventually because EVERY number will have come up.

keane2097 · 02-03-2011 12:36PM

ClutchIt wrote: »

I don't gamble but that kind of logic would hang you in a Casino.

It is always 1/32 there is no possible way it could change, no matter how long it has been since it came up (obviously assuming the game isn't rigged). If it hasn't come up in a long time then it probably will eventually because EVERY number will have come up.

Exactly.

ClutchIt · 02-03-2011 12:38PM

keane2097 wrote: »

Exactly.

Not 'exactly'. The probability of it coming up each time will always be 1/32.

keane2097 · 02-03-2011 12:40PM

ClutchIt wrote: »

Not 'exactly'. The probability of it coming up each time will always be 1/32.

How come you never see a number going 100s of spins without coming up in the lotto?

maw · 02-03-2011 01:23PM

keane2097 wrote: »

No, I'm saying that the longer a number hasn't landed on in roulette, the more likely it is to come out in subsequent spins.

lads, c'mon, seriously

toss a coin twice....

the second coin toss is influenced in absolutely NO WAY by the outcome of the first.

you are getting tied up in knots about probability of A SINGLE EVENT and then a SERIES OF EVENTS. Treat them seperately in your head.

Iwannahurl · 02-03-2011 01:37PM

This thread has gone way off what the OP asked about.

It has already been answered somewhere in the middle, and the correct response is not (the odds of winning once)squared.

Bruthal · 02-03-2011 02:22PM

maw wrote: »

i think you are all missing the the additional consideration of the fact that the lotto is not a random event - it couldn't be

i personally (haven't done the stats) would assume that the amount of winners seen does not correlate to the odds of having winners based on the number of people doing the lotto.

I would go as far as to say that the odds are more directly related to how close you are to a bank holiday weekend and then the number of players entered.

I dont think thats correct. The fact is there are too many numbers for our playing population size, and so its not won for weeks in a row. So the prize becomes bigger, and then more tickets are bought.

So the bigger the jackpot becomes, the more likely it will be won probably, as more tickets than usual would be sold.

Bruthal · 02-03-2011 02:26PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This thread has gone way off what the OP asked about.

It has already been answered somewhere in the middle, and the correct response is not (the odds of winning once)squared.

Well it is the odds squared for 2 single plays, but they go down the more you play.

Someone that has already won it will have the same chance of now winning it a second time as anyone else has of winning it the first time for each play, so once you win once, your odds of winning it 2 times are now better than the odds of someone who never won it having 2 wins.

keane2097 · 02-03-2011 02:28PM

maw wrote: »

lads, c'mon, seriously

toss a coin twice....

the second coin toss is influenced in absolutely NO WAY by the outcome of the first.

you are getting tied up in knots about probability of A SINGLE EVENT and then a SERIES OF EVENTS. Treat them seperately in your head.

What does tossing a coin have to do with anything?

Bruthal · 02-03-2011 02:31PM

keane2097 wrote: »

How come you never see a number going 100s of spins without coming up in the lotto?

Your missing the point there. The odds of 1 particular number not coming out is 1 in about 7. So in 7 draws each number could be expected sometime, but obviously in reality cant be predicted or expected to happen. So in 100 draws the odds of a single number not coming out is about 20 to 1 probably. Its a far different thing than finding a trend for 6 numbers out of 45 coming out.

The odds of picking the 39 numbers that do not come out is the same as the odds for predicting the 6 that will.

keane2097 · 02-03-2011 02:34PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Your missing the point there. The odds of 1 particular number not coming out is 1 in about 7. So in 7 draws each numbe7 could be expected sometime, but obviously in reality cant be predicted or expected to happen. So in 100 draws the odds of a single number not coming out is about 20 to 1 probably. Its a far different thing than finding a trend for 6 numbers out of 45 coming out.

It amounts to the same thing.

You're making the mistake of assuming that reality will shape itself to your rationale when what you should be doing is shaping your rationale to describe reality.

You can bleat all day about my logic being wrong, but reality pretty clearly agrees with me, so however you want to deal with that is up to you.

I'd suggest going back and looking at my logic again because there's clearly a problem with it.

maw · 02-03-2011 02:35PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

I dont think thats correct. The fact is there are too many numbers for our playing population size, and so its not won for weeks in a row. So the prize becomes bigger, and then more tickets are bought.

So the bigger the jackpot becomes, the more likely it will be won probably, as more tickets than usual would be sold.

yes but the probability will still get nowhere near the fact we probably have about 40 winners from the 100 odd main draws per year.

you must also consider, (AND THIS IS SIGNIFICANT), the amount of duplicate entries made every draw, wether by chance (manually picked) or "randomly" generated by quick picks. this greatly reduces the real number of discrete entries per draw.

For example i remember reading a stat from UK lotto that said for a £10M jackpot if the winning numbers were 1,2,3,4,5,6 the prize would be only £100 per ticket based on the numbers of people that pick those numbers

maw · 02-03-2011 02:36PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well it is the odds squared for 2 single plays, but they go down the more you play.

Someone that has already won it will have the same chance of now winning it a second time as anyone else has of winning it the first time for each play, so once you win once, your odds of winning it 2 times are now better than the odds of someone who never won it having 2 wins.

yes

maw · 02-03-2011 02:42PM

keane2097 wrote: »

What does tossing a coin have to do with anything?

because it illustrates the point perfectly

Cool Mo D · 02-03-2011 02:43PM

keane2097 wrote: »

How come you never see a number going 100s of spins without coming up in the lotto?

Simple probability.

There are 45 numbers, and 6 are drawn.

Therefore there is a 39 in 45 chance that a particular number will not be drawn at any draw. For a number not be drawn once in 100 consecutive draws, that means the odds are 7 in a million. That means, with 2 weekly draws, you would need to watch every draw for over 100 thousand years to have a good chance of seeing a ball not come up 100 times in a row.

What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

Comments