What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

keane2097 · 07-03-2011 02:38PM

Fremen wrote: »

We're saying trends don't exist based on a mathematical model that mimics the real world sufficiently well that it has been used all over physics, engineering, computer science and medicine.

You're using a data sample.

What mathematical model that assesses the likelihood of one ball from 42 falling from a drum is used in medicine?

GTFO tbh, this is the sort of nonsense I've been dealing with all thread and it's absolutely ludicrous.

keane2097 · 07-03-2011 02:39PM

Fart wrote: »

I'll win it this Friday. I promise this time, I've been lying for the past two years.

Do you think if you keep repeating this line it will eventually become funny?

The trend over our sample (which is getting fairly big at this stage) is not in your favour.

Scanlas The 2nd · 07-03-2011 02:40PM

keane2097 wrote: »

Yeah I agree it's a valid point (I did originally as well).

My point however was that we're both making claims based on incomplete data.

You say trends don't exist and expect it to be proven over a suitably large data sample.

I say trends do exist and expect it to be proven over a suitably large data sample.

It's obv still unclear, but you have to admit that reality seems to be backing my assertion up thus far.

Trends in the lottery must be on the top 10 list of stupidest ideas of all time.

keane2097 · 07-03-2011 02:42PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Trends in the lottery must be on the top 10 list of stupidest ideas of all time.

I've been convinced by this incisive, well-reasoned post.

Lock her up, this guy has won the thread.

07-03-2011 02:49PM

keane2097 wrote: »

GTFO tbh, this is the sort of nonsense I've been dealing with all thread and it's absolutely ludicrous.

Coming from someone who won't answer the very simplest and most fundamental points of their system?

Scanlas The 2nd · 07-03-2011 02:54PM

keane2097 wrote: »

I've been convinced by this incisive, well-reasoned post.

Lock her up, this guy has won the thread.

How do you win a thread?

How can their be a trend in the lotto. The balls don't know what number is written on them and decide to jump out. They can't remember what happened in the past. Read up on probability.

StereoLove · 07-03-2011 02:55PM

To be fair, it's impossible to win it once, never mind say twice:eek:

Iwannahurl · 07-03-2011 02:59PM

Apparently, to win this thread you need to (1) ignore the OP altogether and (2) make some killer arguments about another topic.

Rabble Rabble · 07-03-2011 03:02PM

Well the OP wasn't clear. I think the odds of winning the lottery twice are the odds of someone winning the lottery twice.

Not as low as some people think.

Bruthal · 07-03-2011 03:32PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Trends in the lottery must be on the top 10 list of stupidest ideas of all time.

I know, i was told that myself here:D

Jesus Wept · 07-03-2011 03:37PM

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Seriously mate. This is simple statistics. You - a gambler - are arguing with people with degrees in the subject. That makes you look very very stupid. And you are going to lose all your money some day.

But it's good for the libraries.

You've a degree in gambling eh? Doubt it tbh.

Bruthal · 07-03-2011 03:38PM

keane2097 wrote: »

I've been convinced by this incisive, well-reasoned post.

Lock her up, this guy has won the thread.

Well, tell us the numbers for wed, and if they all come up, we will give you the forum win.

07-03-2011 03:40PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

You've a degree in gambling eh? Doubt it tbh.

A degree in statistics, not gambling. And Rabble Rabble didn't claim to have a degree in anything

Jesus Wept · 07-03-2011 03:42PM

Doesn't compare to a degree from the school of hard knocks tbh.

Fremen · 07-03-2011 03:52PM

keane2097 wrote: »

What mathematical model that assesses the likelihood of one ball from 42 falling from a drum is used in medicine?

GTFO tbh, this is the sort of nonsense I've been dealing with all thread and it's absolutely ludicrous.

Double blind randomised clinical trials. See also biostatistics.

We're not dealing with balls and drums anymore, but the principle is the same. If you can't see that, it's really not worth discussing this anymore.

lugha · 07-03-2011 04:52PM

keane2097 wrote: »

Probably, but it obv depends.

Alas the "obviousness" is lost on me

Do you believe the bet I describe is one where you will probably be in the black in the short term but will lose out in the longer term?

Mellor · 08-03-2011 06:32AM

28064212 wrote: »

Nope, you're thinking of the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... which is equal to one, so 1+1=2.

The series 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + ... (the harmonic series) is equal to infinity

Sorry. I read the previous as 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 and not 1 + 1/2 + 1/3. Obvious makes the world of difference.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Your a true genius alright:rolleyes:

Pretty simple mistake, I read 1/3 as 1/4
not like like said something really stupid about trends in the lotto

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

As an aside I tried this in Vegas once. I am not a gambler, and was in Vegas under duress. I understood the logic of losing on this system

From a point of view of gambling theory there is nothing wrong with the Martingale system. I don't advise it as there are better, and simplier ones.
One side is ignoring the maths and going with the gamble.
The other side is making some pretty big mistakes also.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well, tell us the numbers for wed, and if they all come up, we will give you the forum win.

17

doomed · 08-03-2011 08:11AM

The only "system" that increases your chances of winning the lotto is buying more lines. All the rest is complete nonsense. Each of the 8m plus combinatons is equally likely to come up and it is just as likely that last week's numbers will come up again as any other combination, including numbers which have misssed out recently.

The only ways of playing the lotto "intelligently" are (a) to pick number combinations that are less likely to be chosen by others (don't chose all your numbers between 1 and 31 - a lot of people use birthdays) and hence are likely to lead to higher payouts if you do get lucky and (b) to only do the lotto when it has been rolled over a few times. Instead of spending €10 a draw you would be much better off putting the tenners in a jar, waiting for a big pot and then taking the plunge with all of it.

Bruthal · 08-03-2011 12:20PM

Mellor wrote: »

Pretty simple mistake, I read 1/3 as 1/4
not like like said something really stupid about trends in the lotto

Of course it was a simple mistake, but it seems your mistakes are ok. But still, besides the easy misreading of the post, the word in bold would of told most of us about the idea in the post, without the sherlock holmes explanation.

Somehow the drip-drip of not very useful information in this long thread brings to mind this joke.

A mathematician organises a raffle in which the prize is an infinite amount of money paid over an infinite amount of time. People are so impressed by this amazing prize that the mathematician has no trouble selling a large number of tickets. He holds the draw in due course, the winning ticket is drawn, and the excited winner shows up to claim the prize. Then the mathematician explains the payout method: "One Euro now, half a Euro next week, one third the week after that..."

Bruthal · 08-03-2011 12:57PM

Mellor wrote: »

17

You already have the win, the rest of us made mistakes:D And there ends the slagging match.

Bruthal · 08-03-2011 03:51PM

doomed wrote: »

it is just as likely that last week's numbers will come up again as any other combination

True, although its far more likely last weeks same numbers wont come out in the next draw than will. But they are as likely to as any other single set we pick alright.

keane2097 · 10-03-2011 03:49PM

Another solid win last night, I'm on a major hot streak at the moment, nice to be on the sunny side of variance, as well as the right side of the argument

It just goes to show that mathematical literacy doesn't neccessarily correspond to intelligence.

J K · 10-03-2011 04:18PM

keane2097 wrote: »

It just goes to show that mathematical literacy doesn't neccessarily correspond to intelligence.

numeracy keane. Literacy is the capacity to read and write. Necromancy is the ability to read the future using magic(non-mathematical realm)

fergalr · 10-03-2011 04:22PM

keane2097 wrote: »

Another solid win last night, I'm on a major hot streak at the moment, nice to be on the sunny side of variance, as well as the right side of the argument

It just goes to show that mathematical literacy doesn't neccessarily correspond to intelligence.

Or even good trolling skillz!

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 04:23PM

J K wrote: »

numeracy keane. Literacy is the capacity to read and write. Necromancy is the ability to read the future using magic(non-mathematical realm)

While i dont agree with his number predicting stuff, i think his numerical literacy term is not wrong.

Pace2008 · 10-03-2011 04:26PM

J K wrote: »

numeracy keane. Literacy is the capacity to read and write. Necromancy is the ability to read the future using magic(non-mathematical realm)

Necromancy is the ability to manipulate the dead, actually

keane2097 · 10-03-2011 04:31PM

J K wrote: »

numeracy keane. Literacy is the capacity to read and write. Necromancy is the ability to read the future using magic(non-mathematical realm)

OECD Programme for International Student Assessment wrote:

"Mathematical literacy is an individual’s capacity to identify and understand the role that mathematics plays in the world, to make well-founded judgements and to use and engage with mathematics in ways that meet the needs of that individual’s life as a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen."

http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235968_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

I genuinely love when people make idiots of themselves while trying to be condescending.

Very well done young man

robbie7730 wrote: »

While i dont agree with his number predicting stuff, i think his numerical literacy term is not wrong.

You've come out of this thread with a lot of credit in my eyes FWIW, good, reasonable arguments, never resorting to condescension or heckling. Fair play.

J K · 10-03-2011 04:33PM

Pace2008 wrote: »

Necromancy is the ability to manipulate the dead, actually

precognition didn't sound rhyme with literacy unfortunately. I'm making poetry here.

J K · 10-03-2011 04:37PM

keane2097 wrote: »

I genuinely love when people make idiots of themselves while trying to be condescending.

Very well done young man

You've come out of this thread with a lot of credit in my eyes FWIW, good, reasonable arguments, never resorting to condescension or heckling. Fair play.

Literacy is the wrong term,whether you like it or not.
Your post above where you credit yourself with intelligence and predicting the lotto numbers is hardly a reasonable argument. Someone above called you a Troll. You're either that or braindead. Well done young man.

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 04:41PM

J K wrote: »

Literacy is the wrong term,whether you like it or not.

Literacy.
1
a. Able to read and write.
b. Knowledgeable or educated in a particular field or fields.

2. Familiar with literature; literary.

3. Well-written; polished

Part b would suggest it is not purely about reading and writing.

What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

Comments