Lotto Probability

[Rasmus]

Maybe I missed this point, forgive me for repeating it, if so.

Since you picked your Hot list from winning numbers, taking the numbers that showed up most, then went back over the same list of winning numbers that the Hot list was drawn from (that is correct?), you sorta forced your winnings higher than would be likely I think.

In other words, you took the numbers listed most, and went back and looked for how many times those numbers showed up, in effect.

My only point is that I think if you used those same numbers going forward, your winnings would be less (or your losses would be higher, in your example).

That make sense?

ETA: Maybe you could take your Hot list from the first half of your winning numbers list, then see how well you do on the second half of the list? Would be interesting to see the outcome

In fact, what you would have to do to be *really* accurate, would be analyse one game at a time, and for any game n play the numbers that have been drawn in all previous games up until n-1. I would assume that the hot list does change over time ...

 

[Rasmus]

My most recent discussion with my brother-in-law went something like this...

me: Do you think 1,2,3,4,5,6 will ever come up?

him: No.

me: Then why do you spend your money on the lotto?

him: I don't pick those numbers.


regards,
BillyJoe

I don't think the numbers I play will come up in the game that I am playing - but they might come up nonetheless. There actually are people that do win the lottery.

Do I think the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 will ever come up? Probably, yes.

Could you catch me off-guard and find me answering "no"? Sure, if I am not paying attention.

So, playing the lottery is almost like throwing money away, but not quite. What utility I derive from almost throwing my money away is a personal thing. It may or may not be a better deal than getting some utility from buying a pint. So sometimes, I play the lottery, and sometimes I'll buy a pint. I might even do both, and I realize that I shouldn't do either when I can't spare the money.

 

[This Guy]

In fact, what you would have to do to be *really* accurate, would be analyse one game at a time, and for any game n play the numbers that have been drawn in all previous games up until n-1. I would assume that the hot list does change over time ...

I agree, to get a usable list of numbers using this method, you would want to adjust your numbers with each drawing.

But for testing purposes, it would be interesting to see how the winnings stack up when the hot list is taken from half the available numbers (the earliest half) and compared to the winning numbers on the later half.

You could even go farther, and after the half/half check, add in the first drawing after the first half, and refine your Hot list, then check against the remainder of the list. Then keep doing that until you have only one winning number not used for the Hot list, and see how that fairs. A bit time consuming, but could be interesting.

My guess is it would be unspectacular

 

[tsg]

Maybe I missed this point, forgive me for repeating it, if so.

Since you picked your Hot list from winning numbers, taking the numbers that showed up most, then went back over the same list of winning numbers that the Hot list was drawn from (that is correct?), you sorta forced your winnings higher than would be likely I think.

In other words, you took the numbers listed most, and went back and looked for how many times those numbers showed up, in effect.

My only point is that I think if you used those same numbers going forward, your winnings would be less (or your losses would be higher, in your example).

That make sense?

Possibly. Or it could mean that this ordering of how often the numbers are drawn isn't particularly meaningful and my results are pretty close to what you would see with any randomly chosen numbers in the same test. With only 90 occurrences separating most from least common, the ordering could be significantly different in as little as a year (for a lottery that has been running for 25) with nothing else changing. If there was any significant difference in the frequency of the numbers drawn, we could expect to see it here.

 

[BillyJoe]

There actually are people that do win the lottery.

The odds of someone winning is one. The odds of you winning is, for all intents and purposes, zero!

Do I think the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 will ever come up? Probably, yes.

Fair enough. But, considering the odds, do you think that you will ever see them come up? In other words, do you think that you would ever win with these numbers? This is important because it brings the possibility of you winning with any numbers into sharp relief.

So, playing the lottery is almost like throwing money away, but not quite. What utility I derive from almost throwing my money away is a personal thing. It may or may not be a better deal than getting some utility from buying a pint. So sometimes, I play the lottery, and sometimes I'll buy a pint. I might even do both, and I realize that I shouldn't do either when I can't spare the money.

But, the utility you get from playing the lotto is, I assume, the thrill of possibly winning and this is, for all intents and purposes, an illusion. If you analyse the odds you are "never" going to win in your lifetime. Sure, someone wins every week, but it's not going to be you. To get that thrill you have to create a cognitive dissonance between your heart and your mind.
You might as well go to church every sunday, if you know what I mean.


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Rasmus]

The odds of someone winning is one. The odds of you winning is, for all intents and purposes, zero!

Then where do all the people come from that do win the lottery?

Fair enough. But, considering the odds, do you think that you will ever see them come up? In other words, do you think that you would ever win with these numbers? This is important because it brings the possibility of you winning with any numbers into sharp relief.

My chances of winning the jackpot in the German lottery are about 1:140 Million.

But, the utility you get from playing the lotto is, I assume, the thrill of possibly winning and this is, for all intents and purposes, an illusion.

Then how do you explain the people that do win the lottery? Am I imagining them?

If you analyse the odds you are "never" going to win in your lifetime. Sure, someone wins every week, but it's not going to be you.

No, you claim it is going to be someone else. Following that logic .... should everyone else be playing the lottery, just not me?

To get that thrill you have to create a cognitive dissonance between your heart and your mind.
You might as well go to church every sunday, if you know what I mean.

I have seen many believable, plausible reports about lottery winners. I am still waiting for God to make an appearance....

I am not suggesting that anyone should play the lottery, I am fully aware that it is not rational to play. But does that matter? Because I could save a few bucks once every few weeks that I would waste on something else?

 

[Dali's Ghost]

"I've done the calculation and your chances of winning the lottery are identical whether you play or not." - Fran Lebowitz

 

[Rasmus]

"I've done the calculation and your chances of winning the lottery are identical whether you play or not." - Fran Lebowitz

Now, not only do I feel compelled to ask where all the lottery winners come from, I also want to know how many of them haven't been playing or didn't have someone else play for them ....

 

[RandFan]

I have a sure bet method of winning the lottery. Send me $10. and I'll send you my book.

 

[nimzov]

"I've done the calculation and your chances of winning the lottery are identical whether you play or not." - Fran Lebowitz

I won 10$ last week. how do you explain that ?

nimzo

 

[tkingdoll]

"I've done the calculation and your chances of winning the lottery are identical whether you play or not." - Fran Lebowitz

That's perfectly true if you employ rounding. However, whilst the chances of winning may be practically zero, they are not actually zero. Hence, you do get winners.

What amuses me is the spin people put on the odds if the percieved outcome is favourable.

Example: you travel in a plane because although you know there is a slim chance you will die in a horrible crash, you believe the chance is so tiny, that it won't happen to you. Conversely, you do the lottery because you know there is a slim chance that you will win, and you believe that chance is large enough that it will happen to you.

 

[Rasmus]

What amuses me is the spin people put on the odds if the percieved outcome is favourable.

Example: you travel in a plane because although you know there is a slim chance you will die in a horrible crash, you believe the chance is so tiny, that it won't happen to you. Conversely, you do the lottery because you know there is a slim chance that you will win, and you believe that chance is large enough that it will happen to you.

Now THAT is putting it in perspective!

I shall continue to enjoy my little irratioinalities, though.

Oh, and I've heared that it is more likely to be struck by lightning than winning the lottery, too. I try to stay inside during thunderstorms, I absolutely love flying, and I play the lottery.... *sighs*

 

[tsg]

Then where do all the people come from that do win the lottery?



My chances of winning the jackpot in the German lottery are about 1:140 Million.



Then how do you explain the people that do win the lottery? Am I imagining them?



No, you claim it is going to be someone else. Following that logic .... should everyone else be playing the lottery, just not me?



I have seen many believable, plausible reports about lottery winners. I am still waiting for God to make an appearance....

I am not suggesting that anyone should play the lottery, I am fully aware that it is not rational to play. But does that matter? Because I could save a few bucks once every few weeks that I would waste on something else?

Someone winning the lottery is an entirely different probability from any one, preselected person winning the lottery. It is the difference between, in a room full of people, any two people sharing the same birthday and someone else having the same birthday as you.

 

[macgyver]

Someone winning the lottery is an entirely different probability from any one, preselected person winning the lottery. It is the difference between, in a room full of people, any two people sharing the same birthday and someone else having the same birthday as you.

Also keep in mind that the lottery (6/49 type at any rate) is not ALWAYS won every draw....many times the jackpot prize carries over one or two drawings until it's claimed.

That should also help clarify how remote the chances of winning are.

 

[tsg]

Another way to see it is that someone else winning is (almost) the same as you losing.

 

[Rasmus]

That should also help clarify how remote the chances of winning are.

I know they are remote.

I am not betting my life savings, I am not playing clever systems, and I don't expect to be winning. I think it is possible to win, and it would be nice if I did.

I think it is really rather pointless arguing about the number of zeros behind the comma before the first non-zero digit.

It is irrational to play. Fair enough. As long as you all let me cling to the believe that it's not impossible I am all happy.

And I think that fraction if a difference is important. I wouldn't spend that kind of money on homoeopathic remedies or a remote reiki healing.

 

[macgyver]

Hey, I play the lotto too! Just not very often. I was just more interested in the ways that we justify our irrationality.

The truth is that there IS a chance if you play, and NO chance if you don't.

 

[Rasmus]

Hey, I play the lotto too! Just not very often. I was just more interested in the ways that we justify our irrationality.

I don't, really; or at least i try not to.

Then again, it was an interesting experience to realize that it didn't feel nice to be attacked for something silly I am doing. I wonder how that tranlates to the woos when they have to face the voice of reason.

Maybe it is time for a big reality check to try and find out just how many irrational things I do. Should be interesting...

The truth is that there IS a chance if you play, and NO chance if you don't.

Yes. I hope this does somehow set me apart from the average woo.

 

[tsg]

The truth is that there IS a chance if you play, and NO chance if you don't.

And the fallacy is that there is a significant difference between the two.

 

[rudar]

See, if you want to rationally justify playing the lottery occasionally, stop calculating in terms of dollars, and start calculating in terms of happiness

A buck or two every week or so has no effect on your ability to use money to buy happiness (assuming you can afford that buck or two). So the cost in happiness units *is* zero. Not just approximately zero, but it really does not make any difference.

Whereas winning would be *huge*. So even if it's infinitesimally probably, the payoff in terms of happiness-buying potential (assuming you assume being uber-rich would be uber-nice) is huge*tiny>0.

So in terms of utility/ happiness-buying-potential, as long as you keep your playing within bounds you can well afford, the expected payoff actually is positive.

That said, I've only very occasionally bought a scratch and win, and don't really ever play the lotto...