It's just a coincidence!!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

And my cleaver can cut anything! Except the fog surrounding an irrational mind

What you need is Occam's Cleaver!

Grattis på födelsedagen!

 

[-Fran-]

What you need is Occam's Cleaver!

Grattis på födelsedagen!

Thanks! And perfect Swedish too!

 

[Rodney]

(learned this trick from calebprime (quote myself).)

Just to elaborate and refocus -- the large-scale working models which debunk synchronicity that I refer to are of course casinos and lotteries.
If synchonicity is true, then people should beat the impersonal odds more than you would expect by chance. I mean, winning a lottery is at least as significant and unlikely an event as a bug that reminds Jung of a scarab flying into his office. It would be sure a great way for the collective unconscious to express its solicitude. But it doesn't happen. There are as many winners as you would expect by chance, no more. So either synchronicity is passing up a terrific opportunity to communicate that there's more to coincidence than just coincidence, or it doesn't exist. The latter seems far, far more likely to me.

Your logic does not necessarily hold because some people have won more than they have lost at casinos and lotteries -- including at least one man who won two lottery jackpots on the same day -- see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/805438/posts. Others presumably have not only lost, but have lost more than would be expected. So there could well be good luck people and bad luck people. There are other seeming anomalies as well; e.g. Fond du Lac, Wisconsin has had a disproportionate number of lottery jackpot winners -- see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/national/main1868250.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1868250. Also, I can tell you anecdotally (and I know you will be immensely impressed by an anecdote ), an acquaintance of mine who worked for many years in a casino tells me that that there is such a thing as beginner's luck. As far as I know, no one has studied casino and lottery winners and losers in a granular fashion to determine whether the data are fully consistent with the laws of probability.

 

[Rodney]

. . . there is not much here to really objectively confirm if there was indeed a real problem . . .

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't go to a psychotherapist if I didn't think I had a real problem. But happy birthday, anyway, Fran, and I just KNEW that you directed that irrational mind comment at one of the innumerable skeptical nutcases here . . . didn't you????

 

[-Fran-]

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't go to a psychotherapist if I didn't think I had a real problem.

Real problems, like... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria. People have a tendency to "fall ill" in these diseases, especially if the belief in them are widespread, even if later research is showing that they did in fact never exist. The point here is that there isn't a measurable problem here that can be objectively considered, and the same goes of its treatment and its possible cure.

ETA
Just an example, I'm not saying Jung still believed in female hysteria.

But happy birthday, anyway, Fran, and I just KNEW that you directed that irrational mind comment at one of the innumerable skeptical nutcases here . . . didn't you????

Thank you And it was directed to all foggy minds, regardless of if they call themselves skeptic or not

 

[blobru]

Your logic does not necessarily hold because some people have won more than they have lost at casinos and lotteries -- including at least one man who won two lottery jackpots on the same day -- see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/805438/posts.

God, I HATE this kind of carnival reporting (see below)! When they just throw out a big impressive woo-hoo number without even the slightest attempt at a rational explanation for it, assuming their readers are too dog-stupid to understand even simple probability!! Holy ***** with a cherry on top; sorry, but there's no excuse for this sort of braindead sensationalism!!! I propose everyone who works at this paper ought to have a copy of the biggest, pointiest statistics textbook in the local library shoved right up their... nose.

SAN JOSE, Calif. _ There's winning the Lottery. But winning two big jackpots? On the same day?

Angelo Gallina beat the incredible odds, and on Wednesday the Belmont retiree claimed his payoff _ $6.6 million, after taxes, for holding the winning ticket from both the SuperLotto and the Fantasy 5 games on Nov. 20. It's the only time in the 17-year history of the California Lottery that's happened. And experts said the odds of doing it are mind-boggling.

The odds of winning SuperLotto are 1-in-41 million. For Fantasy 5, 1-in-575,000. But for both?

"This is just amazing, astronomical," said Stanford University statistics professor Tom Cover as he calculated the probability of the double-header. "Oh brother," he muttered before announcing the odds: 1 in 23.575 trillion.

Cover said the odds that an individual player will win improve if he or she buys multiple tickets, but this run of luck is "still very, very rare."

Gallina has been betting against the odds since the game started.

"I dumped a lot of money in it," explained Gallina, who spends about $600 each month on the two games. "I was hoping I'd get it back."

The retired machinist for Southern Pacific Railroad buys an average of 20 lotto tickets a day with rental income. "That's the entertainment," he said. "It saves a trip to Reno."

Ok, let's do a little probability analysis, shall we?
23,750,000,000,000 to 1 = the odds of these two tickets belonging to this one person winning on the same day.

How many people in the US play lotteries? Current population US = 300 million. Let's say 2/3 are adults. Let's say 2/3 of these play the lottery, and 3/4 of these play more than one lottery.

300,000,000 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 3/4 = 100,000,000

Now how many tickets are they buying on average? Angelo Gallina was buying 600 tickets per month, which is way above average I suspect. Let's say it is, and put the average at 1/6 of that, or 100 tickets per month.

But we can't factor in the 100 just yet. We have to work out the combinations between the 100 tickets. That is, if I have 6 tickets -- A1, A2 & A3 from lotto_A, and B1, B2 & B3 from lotto_B -- I have 9 chances of winning both lottos (A1 with B1, B2, or B3; A2 with B1, B2, or B3; A3 with B1, B2, or B3). So let's assume our average lottery player buys 50 of each: works out to 50 x 50 = 2500 combinations. Now we factor in:

100,000,000 x 2500 = 250,000,000,000 (chances for one person anywhere in the US winning both lotteries in the same... day? Actually, same month. With 4 draws per month say falling on the same day, it would be 4 times less likely. However, lotteries aren't always won by single winners; let's say 2 winners on average, then 2 x 2 = 4 winning combos, 4 times more likely, and the two cancel out.)

Let's assume anyone's odds of winning two lottos on the same day are about the same as Angelo Gallina's: one in 23,750,000,000,000.

So, odds against --> 23,750,000,000,000 / 250,000,000,000 <-- chances for = 95 to 1.

Since our time frame was over one month, this means somewhere in the US one person should win two lotteries on the same day once every 95 months / 12 = ~8 years.

A pretty rare event to be sure, but not the fantastical impossibility implied by the San Jose Mercury News' vein-poppingly lax coverage.

Others presumably have not only lost, but have lost more than would be expected. So there could well be good luck people and bad luck people.

Whew, kinda wore myself out on that last answer (and none of that anger directed at you, Rodney; all to do with irresponsible journalism). Yes not everybody will break even. But statistical probability distributions predict this. The average is 'break even', a little less actually as the game owner always makes a profit off the total bet, but everyone's outcomes won't be average. It's no more surprising really than that dice don't come up 7 (the average) everytime.

There are other seeming anomalies as well; e.g. Fond du Lac, Wisconsin has had a disproportionate number of lottery jackpot winners -- see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/national/main1868250.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1868250.

Same explanation as previous -- i.e., statistical 'norms' allow for deviation from the norm. In fact, it is expected.

Also, I can tell you anecdotally (and I know you will be immensely impressed by an anecdote ), an acquaintance of mine who worked for many years in a casino tells me that that there is such a thing as beginner's luck.

I'm guessing beginners who win are more likely to hang around and brag about it than beginners who don't, who just want to hang [themselves].

As far as I know, no one has studied casino and lottery winners and losers in a granular fashion to determine whether the data are fully consistent with the laws of probability.

I don't know either, but my larger point re synchronicity is that if synchronicity is true, if the Collective Unconscious is able to somehow intervene in human affairs and fortunes and manufacture events which violate the laws of probability, then there's no reason at all to assume that the laws of probability should hold for large-scale tests of them like casinos and lotteries. But they do! Casinos and lotteries consistently make money. Why? Because the laws of probability aren't being violated pell-mell according to the whim of the Collective Unconscious. Therefore: there - is - no - synchronicity.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Pointing to the big winner at a casino or lottery doesn't really tell you anything.


It's comparable to an account of the ending of a tour of the Cayce house where the tourists were all given a simple ESP test (using Zenner cards, I think). As expected, the group of some 30 people formed a normally distributed curve with the median, mean and only mode right at the value expected by chance (random guessing). The people running the thing selected out the right tail of the curve (the people whose scores were more than one standard deviation above the mean), and said that they have ESP powers.

So what were they expecting, that EVERYONE would score exactly at the number expected by chance?

And what do you expect, Rodney, that EVERYONE will ALWAYS lose every time they visit the casino? Even the numerically-challenged would probably stay away before too long if it worked that way.

Rodney, I'd happily welcome you at my poker table!

 

[Beth]

I don't know either, but my larger point re synchronicity is that if synchronicity is true, if the Collective Unconscious is able to somehow intervene in human affairs and fortunes and manufacture events which violate the laws of probability, then there's no reason at all to assume that the laws of probability should hold for large-scale tests of them like casinos and lotteries. But they do! Casinos and lotteries consistently make money. Why? Because the laws of probability aren't being violated pell-mell according to the whim of the Collective Unconscious. Therefore: there - is - no - synchronicity.

This isn't a sound argument. That the overall distribution of winners and losers is exactly what is expected tells us nothing about whether such things as ESP or synchronicty are true. For example, is someone possessed ESP and was able to predict with better than average accuracy which slot machines would payoff, they could simply wind up on the winner's side of the distribution without affecting the overall distribution of winners and losers.

Basically, you're making the assumption that if ESP or synchronicity or other paranormal abilities were real, the existance of gamblers with such abilities would cause a change in the overall distribution of the payouts in a way that would be distinguishable from random chance. Since that assumption may not be true, this it isn't a convincing argument against the existence of such phenomena. Incidenctly, I think it is a valid argument against TK because TK would claim to actually manipulate the outcome. But the things you mention above need not manipulate the actual outcome, just direct certain people to winning outcomes.

 

[Minkster]

I will offer this one as my favourite personal coincidence.

It was a few years ago - somewhere between 1993 - 1995, but it was the wierdest thing that ever happened to me.

My daughter and I were discussing movies, and she started describing a movie we had both seen at one time or another, set mostly in the Sydney Opera House. Neither of us could remember the name of it, and it got frustrating trying to think of the name of the damn thing.

So, I said I will find it. I got out my Movie book (not Maltin's guide - a similar type guide from another publisher), closed my eyes, opened it up randomly and pointed at a line.

I opened my eyes, and there it was - an Australian movie called One Night Stand set in Sydney with WW3 about to happen. And it was the movie we were thinking about. I was pointing straight at it.

Not bad, but if that is the best, and only thing I have done in 57 years, I doubt that there is much in my "paranormal" ability that will start a revolution.

Norm

Heres my spooky-dooky co-incidence.

I was reading this thread, and started thinking to myself of a posting I'd seen ages ago (months, maybe even a year or so back) on either this forum or one very similar, where someone had pointed at an entry in a movie guide book about a film set in Sydney and it was the exact the movie the person and their daughter were thinking of.

Then I looked at the next post in the thread.....and saw yours....

Now, thats a great example of a co-incidence. Please don't ruin it by telling me you have never posted that story before, because that would be even too much of a co-incidence for me to completely buy into!

 

[fls]

This isn't a sound argument. That the overall distribution of winners and losers is exactly what is expected tells us nothing about whether such things as ESP or synchronicty are true. For example, is someone possessed ESP and was able to predict with better than average accuracy which slot machines would payoff, they could simply wind up on the winner's side of the distribution without affecting the overall distribution of winners and losers.

Basically, you're making the assumption that if ESP or synchronicity or other paranormal abilities were real, the existance of gamblers with such abilities would cause a change in the overall distribution of the payouts in a way that would be distinguishable from random chance. Since that assumption may not be true, this it isn't a convincing argument against the existence of such phenomena. Incidenctly, I think it is a valid argument against TK because TK would claim to actually manipulate the outcome. But the things you mention above need not manipulate the actual outcome, just direct certain people to winning outcomes.

Slot machines are about the only thing for which the argument was unsound, since the payoff depends upon a few select outcomes. Most of the other games of chance in casinos depend upon matching an outcome. People who were consistently much better at predicting the outcome than others would definitely skew the payouts.

Linda

 

[blobru]

This isn't a sound argument. That the overall distribution of winners and losers is exactly what is expected tells us nothing about whether such things as ESP or synchronicty are true. For example, is someone possessed ESP and was able to predict with better than average accuracy which slot machines would payoff, they could simply wind up on the winner's side of the distribution without affecting the overall distribution of winners and losers.

Basically, you're making the assumption that if ESP or synchronicity or other paranormal abilities were real, the existance of gamblers with such abilities would cause a change in the overall distribution of the payouts in a way that would be distinguishable from random chance. Since that assumption may not be true, this it isn't a convincing argument against the existence of such phenomena. Incidenctly, I think it is a valid argument against TK because TK would claim to actually manipulate the outcome. But the things you mention above need not manipulate the actual outcome, just direct certain people to winning outcomes.

Hi Beth.

I see your point re ESP and slot machines: a person who could predict the future wouldn't affect the mechanical frequency with which the slots pay out; would simply look for one machine on the verge of a jackpot, play it, then move on to the next. You would, as you say, need TK to affect the number of jackpots.

But that only applies to slots. A person with ESP would win at games like blackjack, craps, and roulette without affecting whether other players won or not, because in those games the number of wins isn't a mechanical preset. For example, some guy with real ESP walks up to a roulette wheel, bets on 5 winning numbers in a row. Roulette pays off at something like 75 to 1. If the initial bet is $1, and ESP guy lets it ride the whole way, ESP guy makes... 75⁵ = $2,373,046,875! This doesn't mean other players lose this much money or lose the chance to make this money -- it all comes out of the casino's stash, and probably breaks the bank. Or even if ESP can only predict the future slightly better than random guessing, just enough to tilt the odds, one still stands to make considerable money from the casino without hurting anyone else's chances. One ESP guy playing long enough, or a few ESP guys and gals in a much shorter time, would show up on the casino's bottom line as a huge statistical blip. Casinos would be getting wiped out left and right by professional psychic players who were positive to have a better chance of winning than losing.

Same would apply to picking winning lotto numbers. There would be more jackpots than expected by chance if there was some ability to foresee the future, via ESP, synchronicity, black magic, trances, whatever. Lotteries would notice (take the famous example from Quebec a few years ago where a student figured out how the winning numbers were being generated; after he'd won big only a couple of times the lottery execs noticed rightaway something was wrong and corrected the problem with their randomizer). But this doesn't happen; lotteries and casinos continue to rake in as much money as they expect -- even with games like black jack where the averages are just barely in the casino's favor, 52% I believe; the only reasonable conclusion I can draw from such repeated demonstrations that what the laws of probability predict for casinos and lotteries in fact occurs over and over and over again within statistical limits, is that the laws of probability, "chance and luck", are the only forces in play; psychic ability, synchronicity, divine intervention, etal which should severely skew the results, don't because in all probability -- they don't exist.

ETA: just noticed fls' response; same as mine but much more succinct and much less long-winded!

 

[Beth]

Slot machines are about the only thing for which the argument was unsound, since the payoff depends upon a few select outcomes. Most of the other games of chance in casinos depend upon matching an outcome. People who were consistently much better at predicting the outcome than others would definitely skew the payouts.

Linda

Ah, but now you've added an additional caveat (bolding mine). Yes, people who were consistently much better could skew the odds, so it is reasonable to assume that if such abilities exist, they do they not provide a consistent large improvement over random chance in the environment of a gambling casino. That, however, is much weaker claim blobru originally made, which was that the existance of profitable casinos disproves the existance of such abilities.

In addition, my understanding is that casinos are quick to bar players who consistently win large amounts and they share such information amongst themselves. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it weakens the argument even more because if any player with a consistent edge over the house (for whatever reason including cheaters and highly skilled players) is not allowed to play, then naturally the outcomes will follow the distribution of random chance.

Blobru, I'm not ignoring you, but felt I could respond more concisely to Linda.

ETA: You do have a good point. I was thinking that for every $ won, there are 1.X dollars lost, so the distribution would stay the same, but a consistently good predictor could clean up if they were allowed to play for long enough.

 

[fls]

Ah, but now you've added an additional caveat (bolding mine). Yes, people who were consistently much better could skew the odds, so it is reasonable to assume that if such abilities exist, they do they not provide a consistent large improvement over random chance in the environment of a gambling casino. That, however, is much weaker claim blobru originally made, which was that the existance of profitable casinos disproves the existance of such abilities.

It crossed my mind that that phrase could be misunderstood. I should have removed it when I had the chance.

I did not mean to imply anything different from what you were referring to. If ESP and Synchronicity are meant to be anything different than simply a post hoc application of the label "lucky" to those on the top half of the distribution, it has to represent some improvement over chance - an actual change in the distribution. And when you are dealing with the very large numbers generated by casinos, they have the sensitivity to demonstrate very small changes. And it is in the casinos best interests to watch this very carefully - not necessarily to identify the player who is winning a little more than expected, but in order to detect employee fraud. I agree that a few people, careful about spreading out their success, could stay below the limits of detection. But when the potential reward is huge, why assume most would resist temptation?

In addition, my understanding is that casinos are quick to bar players who consistently win large amounts and they share such information amongst themselves. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it weakens the argument even more because if any player with a consistent edge over the house (for whatever reason including cheaters and highly skilled players) is not allowed to play, then naturally the outcomes will follow the distribution of random chance.

But other than fraud and collusion, the only real edge is through card-counting in blackjack. And the amount of pay-off is directly related to the time played (you have to play a lot to make a lot). So it is relatively easy to nip this in the bud. On the other hand, it only requires two or three bets at roulette (as pointed out earlier) to walk away set for life, something that cannot be controlled by excluding previous winners. Any hint of psi would show up right away at the roulette tables.

Also, excluding the winners from further play will skew the results, rather than leading to a chance distribution, as it means that you will be excluding people who would have gone on to lose.

Linda

 

[Beth]

It crossed my mind that that phrase could be misunderstood. I should have removed it when I had the chance.

I did not mean to imply anything different from what you were referring to. If ESP and Synchronicity are meant to be anything different than simply a post hoc application of the label "lucky" to those on the top half of the distribution, it has to represent some improvement over chance - an actual change in the distribution.

I don't agree with that. While I haven't given a lot of thought to every game available (I don't gamble, so I'm not even acquainted with all the games), clearly it is not the case for all games that the distribution of outcomes would be affected. For example, if someone could consistently pick the poker machine/table at the right time and walk away with winnings, that would not affect the distribution of payoffs overall. They are simply positioning themselves at the top of the distribution (as a winner) rather than the bottom.

And when you are dealing with the very large numbers generated by casinos, they have the sensitivity to demonstrate very small changes. And it is in the casinos best interests to watch this very carefully - not necessarily to identify the player who is winning a little more than expected, but in order to detect employee fraud. I agree that a few people, careful about spreading out their success, could stay below the limits of detection. But when the potential reward is huge, why assume most would resist temptation?

I don't assume they resist temptation. I just don't assume that such abilities, even if they exist, would be particularly useful in a casino type situation. My limited experience with people who claim such abilities (and are not such obvious frauds that even I can tell they're foolin') is that they require some time and concentration to pick up rather vague impressions on an inconsistent basis. I'm never met a psychic who claimed to be be able to predict very specific things at a high level of accuracy in rapid quick succession, which is what would be required in a casino situation.

But other than fraud and collusion, the only real edge is through card-counting in blackjack. And the amount of pay-off is directly related to the time played (you have to play a lot to make a lot). So it is relatively easy to nip this in the bud. On the other hand, it only requires two or three bets at roulette (as pointed out earlier) to walk away set for life, something that cannot be controlled by excluding previous winners. Any hint of psi would show up right away at the roulette tables.

See my paragraph above. You're making an assumption that if such abilities exist, they're of a nature that would be useful in such a situation. I don't think that assumption fits very well with the anecdotal descriptions of how such abilities actually work -that is, it's usually described by practioners as working sporadically rather than consistently, accuracy is not expected to be 100%, just better than chance, and that one needs to meditate or concentrate on something before recieving impressions about it. Thus, the idea that a psychic would be able to win 3 times in a row at roulette seems unlikely if such abilities do exist but have the charactoristics described above.

Also, excluding the winners from further play will skew the results, rather than leading to a chance distribution, as it means that you will be excluding people who would have gone on to lose.

Hmmm. You might think so, but if they are in fact eliminating those who actually do have an edge of some sort (whether by cheating, counting cards, esp, whatever), then they are eliminating the players who would be skewing the results if they were allowed to continue and only those who win or lose by random chance remain. Then I would expect that the results would closely match random chance.

 

[fls]

I don't agree with that. While I haven't given a lot of thought to every game available (I don't gamble, so I'm not even acquainted with all the games), clearly it is not the case for all games that the distribution of outcomes would be affected.

I am talking about those games where the advantage is in correctly predicting the outcome, not the actual outcome.

For example, if someone could consistently pick the poker machine/table at the right time and walk away with winnings, that would not affect the distribution of payoffs overall. They are simply positioning themselves at the top of the distribution (as a winner) rather than the bottom.

Yes. That would be similar to the slots machines. I specified that I was not referring to those kinds of games.

I don't assume they resist temptation. I just don't assume that such abilities, even if they exist, would be particularly useful in a casino type situation. My limited experience with people who claim such abilities (and are not such obvious frauds that even I can tell they're foolin') is that they require some time and concentration to pick up rather vague impressions on an inconsistent basis. I'm never met a psychic who claimed to be be able to predict very specific things at a high level of accuracy in rapid quick succession, which is what would be required in a casino situation.

I'm referring to what is claimed by parapsychologists in the Ganzfeld and precognition experiments. If abilities existed as demonstrated in those experiments, then they would be useful in a casino type situation.

See my paragraph above. You're making an assumption that if such abilities exist, they're of a nature that would be useful in such a situation. I don't think that assumption fits very well with the anecdotal descriptions of how such abilities actually work -that is, it's usually described by practioners as working sporadically rather than consistently, accuracy is not expected to be 100%, just better than chance, and that one needs to meditate or concentrate on something before recieving impressions about it.

I was trying to avoid relying on anecdotes, especially as how the anecdotes I can scrape together give a markedly different impression from what you just described, and would be useful in a casino type situation.

Thus, the idea that a psychic would be able to win 3 times in a row at roulette seems unlikely if such abilities do exist but have the charactoristics described above.

It should be possible if the characteristics are as described in the precognition experiments.

Linda

 

[blobru]

...
You're making an assumption that if such abilities exist, they're of a nature that would be useful in such a situation. I don't think that assumption fits very well with the anecdotal descriptions of how such abilities actually work -that is, it's usually described by practioners as working sporadically rather than consistently, accuracy is not expected to be 100%, just better than chance...

Well, instead of 100% accuracy, let's downgrade ESP guy, all the way down to 1.3 % (1/77), and see how he fares...

Ok, Mr. Esp scrapes together $100 and walks into a casino. At the roulette table, he stands, concentrates, and waits for the psychic go-code. Once he gets a number in his head, he plunks down a buck on that number. After 100 spins, with 1/77 accuracy, on average he wins once at least due to his ESP ($75). On the other 99 spins where his ESP wasn't workin' so good, he still on average wins at least once by chance ($75). So after 100 spins --probably around 1/2 hour -- even allowing for bad luck, he's increased his initial stake by 50 % ($100 x 1.5 = $150). He now repeats the pattern, this time making 100 $1.50 bets however; $150 x 1.5 = $225. So after an hour, with only 1.3 % accuracy, and with fairly bad luck (winning only 1/99 spins vs. 1/76 by chance) Mr. Esp has gone from $100 to $225. If he keeps repeating this pattern, each hour his stake increases by the same amount: 2.25. Let h = hours, we can gauge his progress by: $$$ = (100) x 2.25^h.

So how's he doing after 5 hours? He's gone from $100 to $5766.50. After 10 hours? Up to $332,525.67. After 15 hours? $19,175,092.93. 20 hours? $1,105,731,733.80. 25 hours: $$$ = 63,762,020,430.06. In a little over a day, from an initial stake of $100, with only 1.3 % accuracy and not very good luck, Mr. Esp is now one of if not the richest man in the world, worth in excess of $63 billion dollars! So no, you don't have to be 100% accurate as a psychic, not even 1.5 %, to atrociously skew the odds in your favor, and bankrupt every casino in Vegas.

 

[Rodney]

Okay, let's do a little probability analysis, shall we?
23,750,000,000,000 to 1 = the odds of these two tickets belonging to this one person winning on the same day.

Actually, since the article says he bought an average of 20 lottery tickets a day, the odds would be "only" 23,750,000,000,000/20 to 1 = 1,187,500,000,000 to 1 against him winning both with picks made on the same day, assuming he bought his average number of tickets that day and split them between the two lotteries.

How many people in the US play lotteries? Current population US = 300 million. Let's say 2/3 are adults. Let's say 2/3 of these play the lottery, and 3/4 of these play more than one lottery.

300,000,000 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 3/4 = 100,000,000

I have to think those numbers are much too high because I doubt if most people play more than one jackpot-style lottery. I think most people play only one (in addition to lower-stakes scratch-off games and Pick 3 and Pick 4 drawings), and so I think 25,000,000 is a generous estimate for the average number of people playing two jackpot-style lotteries each month.

Now how many tickets are they buying on average? Angelo Gallina was buying 600 tickets per month, which is way above average I suspect. Let's say it is, and put the average at 1/6 of that, or 100 tickets per month.

In California, the Super Lotto is played twice per week and the Fantasy 5 is played every day; and I think this is more or less typical of other states. I would figure that the 25 million that I estimate play two jackpot-style lotteries buy an average of only one ticket in each daily drawing and one per day in each Lotto drawing, which equals a total of 3.5 tickets per Lotto drawing and a total of about 61 lottery tickets purchased per month, not including scratch-off tickets and other low stakes lotteries, such as Pick 3 or Pick 4 games.

But we can't factor in the 100 just yet. We have to work out the combinations between the 100 tickets. That is, if I have 6 tickets -- A1, A2 & A3 from lotto_A, and B1, B2 & B3 from lotto_B -- I have 9 chances of winning both lottos (A1 with B1, B2, or B3; A2 with B1, B2, or B3; A3 with B1, B2, or B3). So let's assume our average lottery player buys 50 of each: works out to 50 x 50 = 2500 combinations.

That's absurdly high. Only, on average, 8.7 times a month (2 x 52.143 weeks per year divided by 12 months per year) do the two lottery draws even fall on the same day, and so the number of combinations with 1 ticket purchased in each daily drawing and 3.5 purchased in each Lotto drawing is 8.7 x 1 x 3.5 = about 30.5 per month.

Now we factor in:100,000,000 x 2500 = 250,000,000,000 (chances for one person anywhere in the US winning both lotteries in the same... day? Actually, same month. With 4 draws per month say falling on the same day, it would be 4 times less likely. However, lotteries aren't always won by single winners; let's say 2 winners on average, then 2 x 2 = 4 winning combos, 4 times more likely, and the two cancel out.)

Bear in mind that Angelo Gallina purchased both winning tickets on the same day, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the coincidence would be just as great if he had purchased the Lotto ticket on a different day. The fact is he won both lottery jackpots outright, with no sharing of either jackpot. So my calculation of the total number of possibilities of one person anywhere in the US winning both lotteries on the same day is: 25,000,000 X 30.5 = 762,500,000.

Let's assume anyone's odds of winning two lottos on the same day are about the same as Angelo Gallina's: one in 23,750,000,000,000.

A very flawed assumption, but even for the average person, the odds are a bit high. If (s)he is purchasing one Fantasy 5 ticket per drawing and 3.5 Lotto tickets per drawing, the odds against would be 1 in 23,750,000,000,000/3.5 = 1 in 6,785,714,200,000.

So, odds against --> 23,750,000,000,000 / 250,000,000,000 <-- chances for = 95 to 1.

My corresponding odds would be 6,785,714,200,000/762,500,000 to 1 = 8899 to 1.

Since our time frame was over one month, this means somewhere in the US one person should win two lotteries on the same day once every 95 months / 12 = ~8 years.

But 8899/12 = 741.6 years.

A pretty rare event to be sure, but not the fantastical impossibility implied by the San Jose Mercury News' vein-poppingly lax coverage.

Oh, I don't know about that.

 

[blobru]

Actually, since the article says he bought an average of 20 lottery tickets a day, the odds would be "only" 23,750,000,000,000/20 to 1 = 1,187,500,000,000 to 1 against him winning both with picks made on the same day, assuming he bought his average number of tickets that day and split them between the two lotteries.

Even assuming that, you're neglecting combinations. 10 x 10 = 100 chances of winning both, not 10 + 10 = 20.
It would depend on also how long each ticket was valid. Some tickets are good for a time period; some for a single draw; the low-end assumption of single draw seems more likely in this instance. On your later info that one is played everyday and one is played twice a week, we still have to work out combinations of winning tickets. Assume he was buying ten of each each day, then he would have 10 chances from his Fantasy 5 tickets and either 30 or 40 from his accumulated Super Lotto tickets. Take the lower number, he has 10 x 30 = 300 chances of winning twice.

I have to think those numbers are much too high because I doubt if most people play more than one jackpot-style lottery. I think most people play only one (in addition to lower-stakes scratch-off games and Pick 3 and Pick 4 drawings), and so I think 25,000,000 is a generous estimate for the average number of people playing two jackpot-style lotteries each month.

Yeah, there's a lot of rough assumptions here based on the skimpy data in the newspaper story. We're assuming buying patterns are flat lines. But that's not true of course. There are huge spikes. People tend to play favorite lottos until a jackpot hasn't been won in a while, then suddenly everyone who's eligible to is buying lotto tickets. So we might go from 25 million people buying 2 of each to 200 million people buying 25 of each, daily average, for a particular drawing. During such spikes, the odds would be (200/25) x (25x25/2x2) = 1250 times more likely of one person winning both.

In California, the Super Lotto is played twice per week and the Fantasy 5 is played every day; and I think this is more or less typical of other states. I would figure that the 25 million that I estimate play two jackpot-style lotteries buy an average of only one ticket in each daily drawing and one per day in each Lotto drawing, which equals a total of 3.5 tickets per Lotto drawing and a total of about 61 lottery tickets purchased per month, not including scratch-off tickets and other low stakes lotteries, such as Pick 3 or Pick 4 games.

If we assume this is typical of other states, and accept your low-end estimates, these averages still don't tell the whole story, because of combinations. If 2 people follow these averages, 1 x 3.5 = 3.5 each. But it's unlikely both spend the same amount. If one buys on average .2 & 1, and the other 1.8 & 6, we get .2 x 1 + 1.8 x 6 = 11 vs. 3.5 + 3.5 = 7, a jump up of 57%. Some will be in the middle or very close to it, but many won't. So any linear assumption should be adjusted upwards by (est.) 25% to reflect combinatorial deviation.

That's absurdly high. Only, on average, 8.7 times a month (2 x 52.143 weeks per year divided by 12 months per year) do the two lottery draws even fall on the same day, and so the number of combinations with 1 ticket purchased in each daily drawing and 3.5 purchased in each Lotto drawing is 8.7 x 1 x 3.5 = about 30.5 per month.

Might as well just calculate it per draw; so 1 x 3.5 = 3.5 chances using your figures.

Bear in mind that Angelo Gallina purchased both winning tickets on the same day, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the coincidence would be just as great if he had purchased the Lotto ticket on a different day. The fact is he won both lottery jackpots outright, with no sharing of either jackpot. So my calculation of the total number of possibilities of one person anywhere in the US winning both lotteries on the same day is: 25,000,000 X 30.5 = 762,500,000.

Well, limiting successes to tickets bought on the very day would require another assumption. Did Angelo go out and but 10 Lotto tickets per day? Or did he buy 30 or 40 tickets the day of the draw? The latter would make more sense to me, but who knows. Ignoring whether they were bought on the same day erases the guesswork.
Using your figures, per draw it is: 25,000,000 x 3.5 = 87,500,000 (actually, am going to work it all out below, anyway).

A very flawed assumption, but even for the average person, the odds are a bit high. If (s)he is purchasing one Fantasy 5 ticket per drawing and 3.5 Lotto tickets per drawing, the odds against would be 1 in 23,750,000,000,000/3.5 = 1 in 6,785,714,200,000.

That's the figure from the newspaper story for one person having one ticket for each draw. It's not worded clearly, but I'm assuming other draws have the same odds as Angelo Gallina's.

My corresponding odds would be 6,785,714,200,000/762,500,000 to 1 = 8899 to 1.


But 8899/12 = 741.6 years.


Oh, I don't know about that.

Using your figures: 23,750,000,000,000 / 3.5 = 6,785,715,000,000 to 1 double-lottery player.
Assuming 25,000,000 double-lottery players per draw,
6,785,715 / 25 = 271428.6 draws.
There are on average 104.357 double-draws per year,
271428.6 / 104.357 = ~ 2601 years.
Factor in combinatorial deviation estimate:
2601 / 1.25 = 2080.8 years.
Factor in "spiking" (I calculated this at 1250, but will use only 20% of that, guessing that only one in 5 drawings has significant spiking):
2080 / 250 = ~8.33 years between two Americans winning two lotteries on the same day. Hmmm... those odds ain't too bad; think I'll go buy me a coupla them lotto ticketz!

 

[Beth]

I am talking about those games where the advantage is in correctly predicting the outcome, not the actual outcome.

Yes. That would be similar to the slots machines. I specified that I was not referring to those kinds of games.

And I conceded you have a point with those type of games in regard to someone being able to make quick accurate predictions consistently. I don't think such amazing abilities exist and I'll grant you and blobru that the existance of profitable casinos is a valid argument against such abilities.

I'm referring to what is claimed by parapsychologists in the Ganzfeld and precognition experiments. If abilities existed as demonstrated in those experiments, then they would be useful in a casino type situation.
I was trying to avoid relying on anecdotes, especially as how the anecdotes I can scrape together give a markedly different impression from what you just described, and would be useful in a casino type situation.

It should be possible if the characteristics are as described in the precognition experiments.

Really? How so? My impression of those experiments is that they show a small but statistically significant difference in the mean score above what random chance. My recollection (it's been awhile since I read about those experiments) is they allow their subjects time to concentrate on receiving an impression in a quiet environment free from distractions. To me, that seems a far cry from being able to quickly predict a consecutive roulette rolls in a casino, which is typically filled with noise, lights and other distractions.

That's why I don't see profitable casinos as a valid argument against the abilities tested in those experiments.

 

[fls]

Really? How so? My impression of those experiments is that they show a small but statistically significant difference in the mean score above what random chance. My recollection (it's been awhile since I read about those experiments) is they allow their subjects time to concentrate on receiving an impression in a quiet environment free from distractions. To me, that seems a far cry from being able to quickly predict a consecutive roulette rolls in a casino, which is typically filled with noise, lights and other distractions.

The claimed differences are large - relative increases on the order of 1.5 to 3 times chance. Although the numbers become smaller when opportunities for bias are reduced - more like 1.2 to 1.5. The allowed time varies and is sometimes short (e.g. within a second or two in some precog experiments). I can concede that some may find the environment distracting, but even if it reduces the ability, it takes very little (as previously illustrated) to tip the odds in your favour. And we're not talking about a few special individuals, but rather everyone who is playing. I understand the desire to find excuses, but at some point, if everyday conditions can eliminate these effects, you have to ask why anyone can claim to notice these things in the first place.

That's why I don't see profitable casinos as a valid argument against the abilities tested in those experiments.

I think that's part of the problem (and why Randi started the MDC). Since the characteristics of claimed paranormal abilities aren't constrained, any argument against them can be made invalid through careful selection of which characteristics one is willing to concede.

Linda