Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

1…5681011…16

Comments

  • #212
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    That's a joke?

    Yes. You have to know that the series mentioned sums to infinity, otherwise it's meaningless.


  • #213
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,301 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    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.
    FYI i meant to say being an idiot, as in attacking your post, not you personally. i left out "being a" so when I edited it, I cleared it up a bit. problem?

    Also, i'm not a moderator here. So "Not fit for the task" is a dumb statement. Carefull now, post idiotic statements too often, you know what happens.

    Also I have read the whole thread from the start. I also posted very all on. so i haven't a clue what you refer to there.
    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.
    LOL. I don't know where to start.
    It is physically impossible for there to be any trend.

    Go to be earlier. I'm 10,000km away, it was early evening. Your the one up late posting silly statements.

    I changed it to clear up that I was commenting on your post, not you personally, generally the idea on all boards. I think now i may have been hasty in my edit.

    I'm not moderating others. On this thread or forum.

    The concept of martingale comes up a lot, there is nothing wrong to see the sense in it to begin with.
    But the people that can't see how its wrong after its explained to them, are, in my opinion, idiots.

    Ditto for trends. It is idiotic for anyone to think there might be trends in the numbers. Evryone makes mistakes, nobody's perfect etc. But if they (you keane or who ever) continue to insist their are or could be, well then they become an idiot.



    Here's some UK lotto stats.
    http://www.lottery.co.uk/statistics/

    Notice the most frequent numbers are also the most overdue, the least frequent are also most recent. One would expect the opposite if it wasn't random. Which it is.

    Also, Number 23 just went 12 weeks without being drawn, thats 23 draws.
    38 has gone 20 draws with hitting


  • #214
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,905 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Mellor wrote: »
    .
    Here's some UK lotto stats.
    http://www.lottery.co.uk/statistics/

    Notice the most frequent numbers are also the most overdue, the least frequent are also most recent. One would expect the opposite if it wasn't random. Which it is.

    Also, Number 23 just went 12 weeks without being drawn, thats 23 draws.
    38 has gone 20 draws with hitting

    Exactly. Finally someone with a bit of sense who has the brains to look at what actually happens in reality and not get carried away with maths that are clearly flawed.

    I haven't been betting on the UK lotto yet, but since you've done a lot of the donkey work for me there I'll be keeping an eye on the 23 and 38 balls. Thanks Mellor.


  • #215
    Slaanesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,699 ✭✭✭Slaanesh


    Seriously!?


  • #216
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    keane2097 wrote: »
    Tell me, if statistics and probabilty are solved areas of mathematics, why do have people still employed in research in those areas?
    Going back a bit, I know, but do you realise this is like one poster claiming "we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius" and you retorting "Oh yeah? Then why are CERN still employing physicists?"


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Fart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Fart


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Going back a bit, I know, but do you realise this is like one poster claiming "we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius" and you retorting "Oh yeah? Then why are CERN still employing physicists?"

    The water ain't gonna boil itself.


  • #218
    Scanlas The 2nd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    I am astonished by people's stupidity.

    Trends in the lotto!!! Jesus Christ.

    Do these people think the world is flat too.

    Anyone who thinks there are trends in the lotto should read up on basic stats and probability or just try get some not so common common sense.


  • #219
    Fart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Fart


    Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »
    I am astonished by people's stupidity.

    Trends in the lotto!!! Jesus Christ.

    Do these people think the world is flat too.

    Anyone who thinks there are trends in the lotto should read up on basic stats and probability or just try get some not so common common sense.

    They do "I can't believe it's not common sense" in a tub in Tesco now I think.


  • #220
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,905 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Going back a bit, I know, but do you realise this is like one poster claiming "we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius" and you retorting "Oh yeah? Then why are CERN still employing physicists?"

    No it isn't.

    Something like the boiling point of water is easily demonstrable, i.e. the theory is clearly borne out in reality.

    Reality persistently disagrees with accepted wisdom on matters to do with trends and probabilities, hence it continues to be viewed with a healthy skepticism and research in the area continues to be funded.


  • #221
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    keane2097 wrote: »
    Exactly. Finally someone with a bit of sense who has the brains to look at what actually happens in reality and not get carried away with maths that are clearly flawed.
    And yet every person in the world that has ever studied basic probability disagrees with you. Every. Last. One. And no-one who has used the martingale system has ever been successful in the long run.
    keane2097 wrote: »
    I haven't been betting on the UK lotto yet, but since you've done a lot of the donkey work for me there I'll be keeping an eye on the 23 and 38 balls. Thanks Mellor.
    If you had started betting £1 on 23 coming out after 10 draws with your Martingale system, you would be betting £8,192 on the next draw. And you would still have exactly the same mathematical odds that 23 would come out in the next draw. Although I'm sure your mythical "chance" would save you and make sure it came out in the next draw

    And you realise it was the actual organisers of the UK lotto who did the donkey work? The organisers who published this data which will apparently "help you win". You don't think that there might be something a little flawed in that thinking?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    28064212 wrote: »


    If you had started betting £1 on 23 coming out after 10 draws with your Martingale system, you would be betting £8,192 on the next draw. And you would still have exactly the same mathematical odds that 23 would come out in the next draw. Although I'm sure your mythical "chance" would save you and make sure it came out in the next draw

    £1024, no?


  • #223
    jdooley28
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 523 ✭✭✭jdooley28


    25% chance actually.. u either win it or you don't the first time so thats 50% then multiply that by 50% for the second time. i really should start pl;aying more


  • #224
    tommy21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭tommy21


    After reading this thread I can confirm ... I am more confused than ever ;)

    Maybe time to close it now though, there is a lotto arguing going on.


  • #225
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    £1024, no?
    No, it's gone 23 draws without coming out, so if you started betting £1 after draw 10 (on draw 11) and kept doubling, the bet on draw 24 would be £8,192

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #226
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    Ah I get it. I thought you meant the first 11 draws.
    It would probably come out before that anyhow.


  • #227
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    It would probably come out before that anyhow.
    :)

    At least, I hope that's worthy of a :), and not a :rolleyes:

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #228
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    There are 7 chances for it to come out in every single draw, The odds of it not showing for 13+ are pretty long. Play the odds.


  • #229
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,905 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    28064212 wrote: »
    And yet every person in the world that has ever studied basic probability disagrees with you. Every. Last. One.

    What an absurd statement.

    Have you asked them all?

    No wonder nobody takes you srsly, you just tell lies when you can't prove your point properly, you're a joke.


  • #230
    Fart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Fart


    You have to call the machines bluff. It'll usually throw down after a re-raise, thus you getting your 2 euro back.


  • #231
    clived2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭clived2


    That is some mighty fine trolling keane2097.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Mellor wrote: »
    FYI i meant to say being an idiot, as in attacking your post, not you personally. i left out "being a" so when I edited it, I cleared it up a bit. problem?

    No problem, as i said in later post, so relax there.
    Also, i'm not a moderator here. So "Not fit for the task" is a dumb statement. Carefull now, post idiotic statements too often, you know what happens.
    Different rules for different forums so?
    I also posted very all on. so i haven't a clue what you refer to there.

    I cant really understand this sentence, too hasty again? Not reading as you go?
    LOL. I don't know where to start.
    It is physically impossible for there to be any trend.
    Well yet again if you read my posts, did it sound like i was agreeing with the poster that said they can work out trends? Yes or no?
    Go to be earlier. I'm 10,000km away, it was early evening. Your the one up late posting silly statements.
    Careful now you sir
    I changed it to clear up that I was commenting on your post, not you personally, generally the idea on all boards. I think now i may have been hasty in my edit.

    No you changed it because you thought i was an idiot based in a single post you read, then realised you better not say that, as this forum has rules too.

    If you can not read your own post before pressing the post button, then its hard to believe you read the whole thread before posting your "hasty" comment, then correcting it.
    Originally posted by Mellor
    If you think that would be interesting, that there might be a trend. Then you sir, are an idiot.
    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.

    And your edited repost. Now if you meant to put in "being an idot" like you refer to in first quote above, you did not do a great job, as now i need my head checked according to this.
    Originally posted by Mellor
    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

    Its obvious you did not read the whole thread, as if you did, you would see where i stand on the randomness thing. You simply seen one post, and said i was an idiot.
    I'm not moderating others. On this thread or forum.
    Well i seen plenty banned for less than calling someone an idiot. But i guess the rules on your forum are different than here. Funny its construction you mod, plenty of tools used in that sector.
    The concept of martingale comes up a lot, there is nothing wrong to see the sense in it to begin with.
    But the people that can't see how its wrong after its explained to them, are, in my opinion, idiots.
    Read my posts, what do i need explained, do i need to quote my own posts, or is it you that can not get past a single post?? Slow down, dont be so hasty.
    Ditto for trends. It is idiotic for anyone to think there might be trends in the numbers. Evryone makes mistakes, nobody's perfect etc. But if they (you keane or who ever) continue to insist their are or could be, well then they become an idiot.
    What have i insisted on? Im waiting o great sir.


    And finaly, im just having a laugh here, as most likely i am an idiot, or need my head checked:D, so to quote again and fyp

    you sir, are an idiot have a good day.


  • #233
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    I`ve changed my mind, i think keane2097 is dead right:D:D


  • #234
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,905 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    clived2 wrote: »
    That is some mighty fine trolling keane2097.

    I'm a Martingale enthusiast.


  • #235
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    There are 7 chances for it to come out in every single draw, The odds of it not showing for 13+ are pretty long. Play the odds.
    The odds of a ball coming out are 1 in 7 (in the irish lotto). In a 50:50 game, across 150 turns, there is a 70.7% chance that you will lose 6 times in a row (from wiki). That's a coin toss, which is much better odds than a 1 in 7 chance.

    And in the UK lotto, the number 23 hasn't come out in 23 draws. I didn't make that situation up as a hypothetical
    keane2097 wrote: »
    What an absurd statement.

    Have you asked them all?

    No wonder nobody takes you srsly, you just tell lies when you can't prove your point properly, you're a joke.
    Lol, back to this again are we? Please tell me, what part of "a theorem is a statement that has been proven" is a lie? Please tell me how the proof of the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" is any different to the proof for the optional stopping theorem?

    And no surprise, but once again, you failed to answer a simple question.
    True or false: The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 10 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 10 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 10 single events

    And while you're at it, I don't suppose you could give your definition of "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance"? Something else you've been asked for multiple times and failed to respond to

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #236
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,905 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    28064212 wrote: »
    The odds of a ball coming out are 1 in 7 (in the irish lotto). In a 50:50 game, across 150 turns, there is a 70.7% chance that you will lose 6 times in a row (from wiki). That's a coin toss, which is much better odds than a 1 in 7 chance.

    And in the UK lotto, the number 23 hasn't come out in 23 draws. I didn't make that situation up as a hypothetical


    Lol, back to this again are we? Please tell me, what part of "a theorem is a statement that has been proven" is a lie? Please tell me how the proof of the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" is any different to the proof for the optional stopping theorem?

    And no surprise, but once again, you failed to answer a simple question.


    And while you're at it, I don't suppose you could give your definition of "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance"? Something else you've been asked for multiple times and failed to respond to

    I've just checked and every mathematician in the world agrees with every gambler in the world that I already checked with yesterday - they all think you're not worth the time it takes to reply to.


  • #237
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    I'm going to start playing

    28
    06
    42
    12

    And we will see how long it takes them to come out.

    like your name. I bet none of them will take 23 draws to come out.


  • #238
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    keane2097 wrote: »
    I've just checked and every mathematician in the world agrees with every gambler in the world that I already checked with yesterday - they all think you're not worth the time it takes to reply to.
    Lol, you still won't answer the absolute central tenets of your system. Very well, I retract my line about "every person in the world that has ever studied basic probability". Now will you answer the four very simple questions that I posed in my previous post?
    1. What part of "a theorem is a statement that has been proven" is a lie?
    2. How is the proof of the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" any different to the proof for the optional stopping theorem?
    3. The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 10 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 10 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 10 single events. True or false?
    4. Can you give your definition of "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance"?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #239
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    True or false: The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 10 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 10 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 10 single events

    Well i will have a go at this one.

    Every subsequent draw has the same chance of 4 coming out, regardless of it not coming out in previous draws. What an observer will be thinking is,,"it must come out soon".

    But the reality is, for it to come out soon requires more draws. And the more draws, the more likely it will be out in one of them. But each draw has the same chance of it coming out, and what it did on the previous 9, or 50 or 1000 draws has no bearing on the current draw.

    So its true in my opinion.


  • #240
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    keane2097 wrote: »
    No it isn't.

    Something like the boiling point of water is easily demonstrable, i.e. the theory is clearly borne out in reality.

    Reality persistently disagrees with accepted wisdom on matters to do with trends and probabilities, hence it continues to be viewed with a healthy skepticism and research in the area continues to be funded.
    Please point me towards the continuing funded research into calculating the lotto odds on any given week. And while you're at it, could you show me some projects that attempt to improve our understanding of "chance" and "likelihood" as observable phenomena that differ from probability?


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Jake Rugby Walrus666
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Jake Rugby Walrus666


    28064212, in the Non Mathematical Realm nobody has to answer your questions. Nobody has to even read your stupid questions. So don't even bother...


Advertisement
Advertisement