Posts: 1446
Threads: 77
Joined: October 1, 2008
Reputation:
11
odds against wining the lottery
March 29, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I played the lottery again yesterday in the uk and didn't win millions, surprise surprise.
They say the odds are 14 million to 1 against winning the big prize.
To win that, your 6 numbers have to pop out of the machine and you alone must have them to win the pot.
My question, which I hope some of you people good at maths/statistics may be able to answer is this:-
Does every attempt have the same chance of winning, i.e. 14 million to 1
I ask because I think the answer is " yes "
BUT if I pick 6 consecutive numbers, let's say 12,13,14,15,16 and 17 as my attempt, I just feel that it is more unlikely than picking non-consecutive numbers.
 A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: odds against wining the lottery
March 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm
It's no more unlikely, even though we are pre-disposed to thinking it is. The odds of being dealt 4 Aces in a game of cards are the same as being dealt any variation of 4 cards.
Posts: 1446
Threads: 77
Joined: October 1, 2008
Reputation:
11
RE: odds against wining the lottery
March 29, 2009 at 6:19 pm
(March 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It's no more unlikely, even though we are pre-disposed to thinking it is. The odds of being dealt 4 Aces in a game of cards are the same as being dealt any variation of 4 cards.
Do you play the lottery, Adrian?
If you do, I BET you don't pick a consecutive sequence.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: odds against wining the lottery
March 29, 2009 at 9:03 pm
No I don't, but when I did I picked non-consecutive numbers, mainly because I simply liked the numbers or they were relevant to me. Like I said, people are pre-disposed to certain things, and we tend to think (wrongly) that some number sequences are less likely than others. Putting it like this though, it makes you think: A consecutive sequence is only meaningful to us because we put meaning to the numbers, and that meaning is order. A random lottery machine knows nothing about the numbers (it has no idea there are even numbers on the balls) and it has no pre-disposition. If it were to think, it wouldn't put any difference between the numbers 1,2,3,4 and the numbers 23,4,8,17.
Posts: 298
Threads: 10
Joined: March 9, 2009
Reputation:
2
RE: odds against wining the lottery
March 30, 2009 at 8:45 am
I just noticed your quote Adrian - classic 
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: odds against wining the lottery
March 30, 2009 at 9:21 am
I agree. Excellent.
And off at another tangent - Adrian - I love poker btw
But I only play/played Texas Hold 'Em. I find all other kinds of poker to be inferior...INFERIOR EVIL:
EvF
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: odds against wining the lottery
March 30, 2009 at 9:54 am
I like Omaha just as much as Texas Hold 'em really.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 397
Threads: 11
Joined: December 20, 2008
Reputation:
12
RE: odds against wining the lottery
March 30, 2009 at 10:02 am
The reason consecutive number seem less likely is that there are WAAAAY more combinations of non-consecutive numbers than consecutive ones. There are 49x48x47x46x45x44 different combinations of numbers ~ 10000000000
of which only 44 are sets of consecutive numbers (1,2,3,4,5,6......44,45,46,47,48,49)
EvF, you speak the truth, hold 'em is fun
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Posts: 1446
Threads: 77
Joined: October 1, 2008
Reputation:
11
RE: odds against wining the lottery
March 30, 2009 at 3:42 pm
(March 29, 2009 at 9:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No I don't, but when I did I picked non-consecutive numbers, mainly because I simply liked the numbers or they were relevant to me. Like I said, people are pre-disposed to certain things, and we tend to think (wrongly) that some number sequences are less likely than others. Putting it like this though, it makes you think: A consecutive sequence is only meaningful to us because we put meaning to the numbers, and that meaning is order. A random lottery machine knows nothing about the numbers (it has no idea there are even numbers on the balls) and it has no pre-disposition. If it were to think, it wouldn't put any difference between the numbers 1,2,3,4 and the numbers 23,4,8,17.
The fact that the machine just picks balls is why I think the odds are the same for any 6 numbers selected.
BUT, does probability enter the equation i.e. it sounds more improbable that a consecutive sequence will pop up?
As far as I know, such a sequence has never popped up.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Posts: 397
Threads: 11
Joined: December 20, 2008
Reputation:
12
RE: odds against wining the lottery
March 30, 2009 at 4:05 pm
(March 30, 2009 at 3:42 pm)bozo Wrote: it sounds more improbable that a consecutive sequence will pop up?
As far as I know, such a sequence has never popped up.
It's because there are far more combinations of non-consecutive numbers than consecutive ones
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
|
