Buying a ticket is silly. Maximizing your payout on a silly bet is smart.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:40, topic:659608”]
Playing the lottery in the first place is silly.
[/QUOTE]
My lottery strategy is to find a winning ticket lying in the street.
I save my dollar and surprisingly my odds aren’t that much worse than somebody who buys their tickets.
I guess it isn’t such a wonderful idea after all. The lottery is a tax on stupidity.
Since a lot of people play birthdays, I always choose four or more numbers that are (A) greater than 34 and (B) in the Fibonacci series. My other choice is to pick powers of two that are greater than 34.
I assume we are agreed that any set of numbers played is equally as likely as any other set of numbers. Given that, why is it silly to play a set of number that would give you the maximum payout? You are essentially saying it is silly for someone to say,“I’d really prefer to win the whole jackpot rather than split it.”
The odds of winning are small, almost vanishingly small, but why not maximize your payout if you do happen to beat the odds?
This I tend to disagree with. I agree the lottery is a tax on stupidity (I prefer to call it a tax on hope), but playing what to 99% of the population appears to be a random sequence isn’t a good idea. If you are going to go for a sequence that is not likely to be picked by anyone else, pick one that is obviously a sequence. Most people playing the lottery will think an obvious sequence is not going to happen, like 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 with a powerball of 37. Or increase every term by 1. Or 2. By using advanced mathematical sequences, you are venturing into the realm of people that understand math and understand wanting to maximize expected value by playing something sort of/pseudo random that no one else would pick.
I honestly have no idea what I would pick. But I don’t think it would have any chance of being picked by anyone knowledgeable in odds and statistics.
I only play three-digit numbers. Nobody chooses those!
I’m willing to bet that obvious sequences are much more likely to played by multiple participants in a lottery. I would think that the fact that 1-2-3-4-5-6 is the most played combination would hint at that. Sequences, multiples, selections ending in the same digit, patterns on the ticket, etc., I’d expect to be most common. The fact that these “how to win the lottery” books advise against such play also suggests to me that it’s pretty common.
True, but enough people will pick a sequence under the theory that one-number-is-as-good-as-any-other-number.
In looking at four years worth of Massachusetts daily lottery numbers (pick a 3 or 4 digit number, with median payouts of $700 or $5000 respectively), those numbers with 3 consecutive digits (e.g. 3-4-5-0) typically paid about 8% less than the median. Twice, the number had four consecutive digits (0-1-2-3, and 6-7-8-9). In those cases, the payouts were 18% below the median.
There’s a great quote from Richard Feynman along these lines, and how we ascribe meaning to some combinations but not others:
That’s the kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!
Now that I know that a large number of people *actually *do play 1 thru 6 then yes, it would make (a little more) sense to NOT play those. But like I said, you’re still making plans *after *beating the 175,000,000:1 odds!
I only rarely play the lottery, usually when the jackpot is high (again, other than splitting it the odds of winning are the same as when the jackpot is ‘small’). I figure that spending a couple of bucks increases my odds from zero to 175M to 1, which relatively speaking is worth a couple bucks. And there’s no denying that yours has just as much chance as any other ticket. But I always use quick pick (the machine picks random numbers for me) and that’s the end of it. No planning, no systems, no lucky numbers.
I have a coworker who is CONVINCED that you can use statistics to tilt the odds “ever so slightly” more than they otherwise would be, by picking certain numbers based on past numbers chosen and whatnot. He says that the effect is so slight though, that it’s basically impossible to measure in the real world. rolls eyes
If Srinivasa Ramanujan was at the lecture, I’m sure he’d instantly see some interesting mathematical property in “ARW 357”, like it corresponds to the first prime number that can be expressed as the sum of five cubes and the sum of three fifth-powers, or something.
I wonder how many people play the numbers from Lost, and if they have ever come up.
This guyhad the right idea.
Instead of trying strategies like 1,2,3,4,5,6 to avoid a split pot, which as noted have become some of the most popular picks because lots of other people also had the same idea, he just bought 2 identical tickets every week. This assured he would get 2 shares of the jackpot instead of 1 in the event of a split.
After 53 years his numbers hit and instead of winning 1 share of a 3-way split, he won 2 shares of a 4-way split, increasing his win by over $10 million.
Of course now that this happened a lot of people will start buying multiple, identical tickets too, and you probably need to buy 8 or 16 identical tickets to get the same results in the future.
Maybe if he’d been playing two different tickets each week, he would have won his first jackpot 26 years earlier.
If you’d been playing the Lost numbers since the start of the UK lottery in 1994 (well before the TV series appeared, of course), then you’d have won £354 in total, for a loss of £1,466.
In January 2006, less than a year after the numbers were revealed on Lost, four of the six numbers did come up. The prize was only £34 (normally around £50-£60), and 2.29% of tickets won a prize - which, from comparing with a few draws before and after, does seem like a higher than average proportion.
Edit: 4 of the numbers also came up in the Mega Millions in America a couple of years ago.