What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

CiaranC · 10-03-2011 08:26PM

This is epic stuff. Keep it going!

themadchef · 10-03-2011 08:29PM

The level of geekness in this thread!!

\ Floods :pac:

keane2097 · 10-03-2011 08:30PM

keane2097 wrote: »

lolwat?

You're brilliant

Just to round this point out, to avoid our boy returning to carry on with his epically specious reasoning, the reason neither of those two phrases return results is, of course, because defining phrases is outside of its remit.

A dictionary, by its own definition, defines words:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/dictionary wrote:

dictionary
noun /ˈdɪk.ʃən.ər.i//-er.i/ [C]
Definition
• a book that contains a list of words in alphabetical order with their meanings explained or written in another language, or a similar product for use on a computer
a French-English/English-French dictionary
a bilingual/monolingual dictionary
To check how a word is spelt, look it up in a dictionary.

The mistake jk has made is thinking that a general dictionary would define topic specific phrases, which it obv won't. He's thinking of a mathematical dictionary or similar, as is defined here:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/dictionary wrote:

a book which gives information about a particular subject, in which the entries (= words or phrases) are given in alphabetical order
a biographical/science dictionary
a dictionary of quotations

Just as a test, and not to labour the point, I also searched the term "digital electronics". The results are surprisingly unsurprising:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/?q=digital+electronics wrote:

Results for digital electronics
digital electronics was not found
Did you spell it correctly? Here are some alternatives:
microelectronics
electronics
electronic

So, either computers don't really exist, and this exchange has been a figment of our collective imaginations, or that dictionary is missing the odd phrase here and there.

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 08:37PM

CiaranC wrote: »

This is epic stuff. Keep it going!

We will all be banned the way its going:D

keane2097 · 10-03-2011 08:39PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

We will all be banned the way its going:D

In all fairness, we've been having a good discussion for the most part.

The jk guy had an attitude and, like I said, needed to be taken down a couple of pegs, but the rest of it has been grand.

Pace2008 · 10-03-2011 08:40PM

Everyone's agreed that "numerical literacy" is a viable term.

What we want to know are the factors involved in determining the chance. We've already been told the non-mathematical probability is undeterminable or undetermined, and now we're unsure if it hinges around the numbers, the physical balls, the drum, or whatever. It all seems a bit wishy-washy. Almost random, one might say.

keane2097 · 10-03-2011 08:44PM

Pace2008 wrote: »

Everyone's agreed that "numerical literacy" is a viable term.

The funny thing is I never once used that phrase.

Pace2008 · 10-03-2011 08:46PM

Mathematical literacy. Again, that's not the issue at hand.

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 08:52PM

keane2097 wrote: »

In all fairness, we've been having a good discussion for the most part.

The jk guy had an attitude and, like I said, needed to be taken down a couple of pegs, but the rest of it has been grand.

Yea its not been too bad at all.

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 08:58PM

Well the original question was whats the odds of winning it twice, some said its the 8 million squared for 2 single draws, others that its 8 million plus 8 million because the 2 events are not tied and are 2 seperate events.

But they are tied i think, because you must win the first draw to then have the second draw as your second win on 2 tickets.

It used to be 2 lines minimum. Its that long since i done it that i cant remember, is it still like that?

fergalr · 10-03-2011 09:03PM

Fremen wrote: »

Well, if the odds in the Irish lottery are changed by previous outcomes, then the odds in an American lottery must change too, because there's nothing particularly special about the fact that the lottery is Irish.

On the other hand, that would be crazy - it would mean that outcomes from lotteries all over the world affect the Irish lottery.

From this thought experiment, I think the only conclusion is that the odds/chance/whatever you want to call it don't change based on past results.

I was going to suggest a similar thought experiment to get at the same issue.

What if there's a roulette wheel in a casino.
It a very relaxed game of roulette - they only spin it once every 5 or 10 minutes.
There are two players, Alice and Bob.
Alice plays every round, places her bets, as normal.

Bob is a bit strange though. He likes to play roulette a bit different.
He leaves the casino for every second round.
That's fine - he still enjoys playing his game of roulette.

Bob has just seen a string of red numbers come up in the last few rounds of the game he's played.
Should he change his betting pattern?

Alice hasn't seen any such pattern.

lugha · 10-03-2011 09:07PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well the original question was whats the odds of winning it twice, some said its the 8 million squared for 2 single draws, others that its 8 million plus 8 million because the 2 events are not tied and are 2 seperate events.

The OP is rather vague. I would think there are at least 4 interpretations.
1. What are the odds of a particular person winning the lotto twice?
2. What are the odds of a particular person winning lotto again, having won it before?
3. What are the odds of somebody winning the lotto twice?
4. What are the odds of somebody winning lotto again, having won it before?

All have different answers

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 09:14PM

lugha wrote: »

The OP is rather vague. I would think there are at least 4 interpretations.
1. What are the odds of a particular person winning the lotto twice?
2. What are the odds of a particular person winning lotto again, having won it before?
3. What are the odds of somebody winning the lotto twice?
4. What are the odds of somebody winning lotto again, having won it before?

All have different answers

Whats the difference between 1 and 2 there? Maybe you mean one after another in the first one?

Well the way they say some lucky person won it twice, then ask whats the odds of this, i would assume they mean what would be the odds of a single person winning twice, because if he said some lucky fella won the lotto, whats the odds of that, i think we could assume he means whats the odds of an individual winning the lotto, not what is the odds of there being a winner of the lotto draw.

Good points though.

lugha · 10-03-2011 09:29PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Whats the difference between 1 and 2 there? Maybe you mean one after another in the first one?.

The difference between them pretty much goes to the heart of the mistake keane2097 is making (or perhaps, pretending he is! :pac:)

1. The chances of a specific person winning two lottos given that they have so far won none is about 1 in 27,500 billion.

2. The chance of a specific person winning two lottos given that they have won one it the same as the chance of them winning one lotto given that they have never won one. (about 1 in 5,000,000)

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 09:41PM

lugha wrote: »

The difference between them pretty much goes to the heart of the mistake keane2097 is making (or perhaps, pretending he is! :pac:)

1. The chances of a specific person winning two lottos given that they have so far won none is about 1 in 27,500 billion.

2. The chance of a specific person winning two lottos given that they have won one it the same as the chance of them winning one lotto given that they have never won one. (about 1 in 5,000,000)

Anyway, its just over 8 million to 1 for a single line of numbers to win the irish lotto. So obviously if a person wins it once, the chance of a second is the exact same as anyone winning it. But they have already beaten the 8 million to one odds, so to do it again on the next draw would be 8 million squared like i said very early on in the thread.

You got 27,500 billion, thats obviously from the 42 number era.
The odds were 5.2 million to one when it was 42 numbers. So the odds of 2 wins from 2 single tickets are 66,342 billion to one now because its 45 numbers now, which is just over 8 million to one for a single draw.

lugha · 10-03-2011 09:55PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Anyway, its just over 8 million to 1 for a single line of numbers to win the irish lotto. So obviously if a person wins it once, the chance of a second is the exact same as anyone winning it. But they have already beaten the 8 million to one odds, so to do it again on the next draw would be 8 million squared like i said very early on in the thread.

You got 27,500 billion, thats obviously from the 42 number era.
The odds were 5.2 million to one when it was 42 numbers. So the odds of 2 wins from 2 single tickets are 66,342 billion to one now because its 45 numbers now, which is just over 8 million to one for a single draw.

There are now 45 numbers???? :eek: Why wasn't I told!

I don't agree with your 8m squared calculation. This would be the probability BEFORE winning it the first time. Once the first win has occurred, the probability of two successive wins is greatly reduced (to 1 in 8m in fact).

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 09:57PM

lugha wrote: »

There are now 45 numbers???? :eek: Why wasn't I told!

I don't agree with your 8m squared calculation. This would be the probability BEFORE winning it the first time. Once the first win has occurred, the probability of two successive wins is greatly reduced (to 1 in 8m in fact).

Your losing me completely, i am saying 8 million to 1 to win once, 8 million to one to win a second, 8 million squared to win 2 from 2 single tickets.

Jesus Wept · 10-03-2011 10:03PM

lugha wrote: »

1. The chances of a specific person winning two lottos given that they have so far won none is about 1 in 27,500 billion.

Can you show your work?

lugha · 10-03-2011 10:04PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Your losing me completely, i am saying 8 million to 1 to win once, 8 million to one to win a second, 8 million squared to win 2 from 2 single tickets.

Yes. That would be correct. 8 million squared to win 2 from 2 single tickets, but before the first draw takes place.

Burt earlier you said:

robbie7730 wrote: »

But they have already beaten the 8 million to one odds, so to do it again on the next draw would be 8 million squared like i said very early on in the thread.

No it wouldn't. Having beaten the odds once, the chance of doing it again are 8 million to one, not 8 million squared to one.

IT is a question of where you stand, chronologically speaking.

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 10:05PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

Can you show your work?

Poster was thinking of the irish lotto with 42 numbers, 5.2 million combinations.

5.2 million x 5.2 million = 27,500 billion

lugha · 10-03-2011 10:09PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

Can you show your work?

That figure is wrong. I was under the impression that there were 42 balls and there are about 5 million ways 6 balls could be selected from 42.
With 45 balls there are about 8 million ways and 8 million squared is about 64,000 billion (or 66 according to Robbie).

Edit: What Robbie says ^^^

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 10:19PM

lugha wrote: »

Yes. That would be correct. 8 million squared to win 2 from 2 single tickets, but before the first draw takes place.

Burt earlier you said:

No it wouldn't. Having beaten the odds once, the chance of doing it again are 8 million to one, not 8 million squared to one.

IT is a question of where you stand, chronologically speaking.

Selective quoting though. Read it more carefully, and the full part thus...

Anyway, its just over 8 million to 1 for a single line of numbers to win the irish lotto. So obviously if a person wins it once, the chance of a second is the exact same as anyone winning it. But they have already beaten the 8 million to one odds, so to do it again on the next draw would be 8 million squared like i said very early on in the thread

The first bold text i very clearly state the chance of winning it a second time is exact same as anyone winning it. (8 million to 1). You left that out of your quote.

Now the second bold text, so to do it again....., here i am referring to doing it a second time, including having to win it the first time. Maybe i did not word it clearly, but that was my meaning.

I was not referring to just the second single win.

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 10:22PM

With them odds, it does not seem likely to ever happen.

Jesus Wept · 10-03-2011 10:23PM

It happens fairly often.

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 10:24PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

It happens fairly often.

I would safely bet it never happened with someone buying only 2 tickets.

Jesus Wept · 10-03-2011 10:26PM

I think you should read this...

1-in-a-Trillion Coincidence, You Say? Not Really, Experts Find
By GINA KOLATA

lugha · 10-03-2011 10:28PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Now the second bold text, so to do it again....., here i am referring to doing it a second time, including having to win it the first time. Maybe i did not word it clearly, but that was my meaning.

I was not referring to just the second single win.

Fair enough. Perhaps it might have being better phrased as "to do it twice in succession" rather than "to do it again"?

fergalr · 10-03-2011 10:28PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

With them odds, it does not seem likely to ever happen.

The thing is, that's the odds of a single person winning the lotto twice, with two tickets.

If a trillion people each enter 2 lotto draws, then its very likely that one of them will win twice.

So, you have to be careful when you say it does not seem likely to ever happen, because there are more than one person playing the lotto.

Bruthal · 10-03-2011 10:31PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

I think you should read this...

1-in-a-Trillion Coincidence, You Say? Not Really, Experts Find
By GINA KOLATA

That does not say anyone won with 2 sinlge tickets does it? Says a woman won twice over 4 months. Still enormous odds. What i was saying was i cant see anyone winning the lotto twice, just playing twice, with 1 row of numbers on each ticket.

Obviously i know it has been won twice, thats the subject of this thread.

Pace2008 · 10-03-2011 10:33PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

I think you should read this...

1-in-a-Trillion Coincidence, You Say? Not Really, Experts Find
By GINA KOLATA

Read it yourself, carefully this time:

When a New Jersey woman won the lottery twice in a four-month period, it was reported as a one-in-17-trillion long shot. Narrowly speaking, that is correct. But as Dr. Diaconis and Dr. Mosteller reported, one in 17 trillion is the odds that a given person who buys a single ticket for exactly two New Jersey lotteries will win both times. The true question, they say, is, ''What is the chance that some person, out of all the millions and millions of people who buy lottery tickets in the United States, hits a lottery twice in a lifetime?'' That event was called ''practically a sure thing'' by Dr. Stephen Samuels and Dr. George McCabe, two statisticians at Purdue University. Over a seven-year period, they concluded, the odds are better than even that there will be a double lottery winner somewhere in the United States. Even over a four-month period, the odds of a double winner somewhere in the country are better than one in 30.

A double lottery winner isn't defying the odds; it's actually more likely to happen than not, somewhere, at some stage.

What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

Comments