I don’t play the lottery (lousy odds, lousy investment) but it’s my understanding that one should shy away from the numbers 1 and 2, since your fellow punters are more likely to choose them. Apparently, some people like to use dates when picking “lucky” (ha!) numbers.
This won’t affect your odds of victory, but it will allow you to share your winnings with a smaller group of players, should lightning strike.
Similarly, if 2 digit numbers are to be filled in, choosing a number above 31 may prove advantageous.
Should you win, I second Dex’s advice to hire a financial planner: don’t forget to take taxes into account if appropriate. Install a burglar alarm. Obtain an unlisted number, if you don’t have one.
Also, since people tend to scatter their numbers, it’s a good idea (relatively, mind you) to pick consecutive numbers.
And, while you have a very small chance of winning if you play, your chance of winning if you don’t is zero. If you’re spending the rent money on lotto tickets you have a problem. If you can afford a couple bucks a week, why not take a chance?
Discussion of the ethics or logic behind playing the lottery belongs in another forum, please. This forum should stay limited to comments on the Staff Reports, so annuities vs lump sums… not how to pick winning combinations.
Dex, you are obviously a really smart guy, but sometimes I just don’t get you. These guys ARE commenting on your column. You were asked a two part question, one part of which you blew off. These guys are just offering a legitimate (and interesting) answer to the part that you chose not to address. Considering your own propensity to digress, can’t you cut them a little slack? And, by the way, isn’t this a separate forum?
By the way, the answer to the lump sum question seems obvious: There are too many variables (age, personal goals, needs, etc.) to offer a definative answer.
OK, I’m cutting slack. What I didn’t want to see was some stupid beat-the-system comments.
My theory is that picking winning numbers depends on the lottery being used. If the lottery picks numbers between 1 and 30, then my algorithm indicates that you have a much better chance of winning if you pick positive integers between 1 and 30. Picking numbers like 3.1416 or 10,000 however attractive, is much less likely to win.
The best way to win money through lottery tickets, however, is not to buy them at all. Take the money you would have spent on lottery tickets and put it in a jar. After some period of time, let’s say a year, open the jar and consider the amount in there to be your winnings. You’ll come out even, and be ahead of the millions of people who actually bought tickets.
Clearly, playing the lottery isn’t a sound retirement plan, and is a losing proposition. Also, any sensible person would agree that one number choice is as good as another (in terms of their chances for being drawn). However, if you are going to play, it makes sense to choose numbers that other people DON’T choose so that, on the chance that they are actually drawn, you are unlikely to have to split the jackpot. I think that was the point of the original posters.
Apparently this is untrue. I made this comment to a friend who was buying a lotto ticket. The ticket seller said that if ever 1,2,3,4,5,6 comes up half of Australia will win because he sells many tickets with that game filled in each week. I think the most winners on lotto here was 17 on a weekly draw where usually one person wins $1,000,000. They each got about $60,000 which would have been a rude shock.
You mean to say that if you won a $90 million jackpot, you’d be disappointed and bitter because you had to split it with someone and so would ONLY get $45 million? Or if you had to split it three ways, you’d be sad and forlorn because you’d only get $30 million?
And, of course, there’s a trade-off if you’re eliminating numbers to pick. While it’s true, mathematically, that every combination has equal chances, it’s far less likely that all the winning numbers will be (say) over 31. That is, if you look at 1000 lottery results, how many of them will have numbers scattered over the whole range of 00 to 99 and how many will have only numbers in the range 32 to 99 ?
On a slightly related topic, does anyone know the truth behind this piece of advice: If you’re getting a quick-pick, where you let the lottery computer select your numbers, it’s best to wait until close to the deadline. Supposedly, this increases the chance of your ticket being the only winner, because the quick-pick program has a list of all ticket combinations already purchased and will not choose a set of numbers that’s already been used. If you buy a quick-pick ticket early, there’s a chance that someone else could randomly select the same numbers later, causing a split of the prize money.
Sounds like BS to me, as there would be no reason for the lottery people to care how many winners there are and no incentive to complicate the (presumably) random number generator that selects numbers by having it consult a constantly expanding database before printing a ticket.
Huh? Where is the tradeoff? So what that there are more combinations “scattered over the whole range” (whatever that means) than combinations using only the numbers in the range 32 to 99? You only get to bet on ONE combination per ticket. If all combinations are equally likely, then it makes absolutely no difference (to the probability of winning) how you choose your numbers, although (as others have said) it may affect the chances that you will have to split the prize.
Tsk, tsk, Dex, you are allowing your dislike of the topic to cloud your thought processes.
Any combination has an equal chance of success. All you are doing is reducing your options for selection; you aren’t reducing your chances of success in any way. In a lottery with the numbers 1 to 57 available, there are plenty of combinations you can choose from using 32 - 57 only; you aren’t exactly painting yourself into a corner.
Most lottery wins aren’t of the Mega Millions variety; often the amount won is a relatively paltry sum like $15M paid over 20+ years, which reduces the amount to less than $1M a year. And yes, in such circumstances, the difference between taking $800,000 and taking $400,000 a year is substantial. Given that it can’t “hurt” you to choose from a smaller pool of numbers, why not do so if there really is an increased chance of avoiding a split prize?
No reason. But this thread would not be the first to suggest that a lot of bozos pick birthdays. Why would you suppose that this niche is not fully exploited?
For what it’s worth the last three draws in California–which nobody won, increasing my prize tonight to $42 million–have each had three consecutive numbers. Check 'em out here.
Because most lottery players don’t understand the issues well enough to see why this would be a good idea?
Dex’s comment seems like a new version of the Gambler’s Fallacy to me. You’d actually have the same chance of winning if you played the same number, or even the number that just won.
While I agree it is a bad bet, there are other factors involved. The only time I played the Illinois lottery it was on a shared ticket with one of the worlds leading authorities on combinatorics.
I guess it depends on whether there is only a winner/loser set up, or whether there is a second-tier prize if you have five of the six numbers correct, for instance. In that case, you are cutting your chances at second prize if you don’t allow yourself to pick any numbers under 31, say.
And while it is true that any sequence has equal chance, in a pure math-theoretic world, I can practically guarantee that a sequential sequence (12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 or 26 - 27 - 28 - 29) will NOT turn up.
The question of “equal chance” depends on where you stand. Let’s suppose the numbers are picked between 00 and 99. What is the probability that five numbers picked at random are all over 30? Less than 100%.
But if you’re playing, at some point you have to pick only 6 numbers; that’s what really restricts your chances. If you’re picking, say, six numbers from 1-50, it doesn’t matter if you first restrict the range to 31-50, then pick six from that, or if you just randomly pick six from the full range 1-50, or whatever; the bottom line is that, ultimately, you only get six numbers. What range they originally came from doesn’t matter, since ultimately it’s only that range of six numbers that matter.
Of course, if you’re playing multiple tickets, then some things have to be considered. For example, it would be somewhat foolish to buy two tickets, one with the numbers 43-23-25-3-34-14, and another with 43-23-25-3-34-32; if you do, you’re limiting the possibilities of winning one of the second or third tier prizes, by not covering as many four and five number combinations as you possibly can with your two tickets. (Then again, now that I think about it, if you win one of the smaller prizes on one of the tickets, there’s a good chance the other ticket will also win, doubling your prize, so maybe that kind of evens out).
But only so far as I can guarantee that some particular “random” sequence, such as 23-12-9-32-15-47, will NOT turn up.
I repeat, it depends on where you stand. And yes, sorry, I was thinking of multiple tickets. Please note, I’m not disagreeing that any six-number sequence has equal chances. I understand how probability works, I took probability courses before you were born (probably.)
You pick six numbers at random from 00 to 99. What is the chance that all six numbers are over 30? What is the chance that all six numbers are sequential? If you are playing multiple numbers, then you are decreasing your chances by imposing any restrictions (birthdays, non-birthdays, etc.) on your choices… even though any set of numbers has exactly the same chance as any other set.
Sorry, I still don’t get this. It sounds like you’re confusing the chance of one of your combinations being picked with the chance of one of a set of combinations to which your selections happen to belong being picked.
I’m saying that, if there are second-place winners for five-out-of-six matches, and if you’re playing mutliple tickets, then you are restricting your chances by playing only a select set of numbers. The most extreme example is the one cited by **Cabbage]/b], where you buy ten tickets that include the numbers 43-23-25-3-34-X where X varies with each of your tickets. While the chances for winning the full jackpot are identical, even if you do purchase similar tickets, even if you purchase 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6… the chances of winning the second place are reduced.
Dex, you are making flatly incorrect statements, unusual for one of your acumen.
Incorrect as a matter of fact, except in the sense that ANY five or four digit combination will turn up.
Again, incorrect. There is just as much chance of any five-digit second place prize occuring as any other five-digit prize. Each five-digit combination has exactly the same chance of occuring. In a six-number lottery with any five-of-six correct combination winning “second prize” your chance of winning second place is the same if you pick 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 45; or 1, 5, 9, 20, 23, and 57.
Not true, again. Assuming your statement is “corrected” to say: “If you are playing multiple tickets,” it is still untrue. If I play two tickets as follows: A - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and B - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 I have exactly the same chance of winning as I do if I play B - 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Namely 2 out of the total number of possible combinations. Have I affected my chances regarding “second prize”? It depends on whether the second place pays out of a common fund or whether it pays a set amount to each winning ticket.
The only thing that setting an arbitrary limit on the range of numbers does is limit the range of choices I have. But suppose I play the same ticket over and over. Same six numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I play these Wednesday and Saturday. Each time I play, I have just as much chance of winning as does anyone else who plays only “play” (paying $5 and playing 5 “plays” increases my chances, but not my odds). And here is the great thing! If I win, and play the same numbers the very next drawing, I have just as much chance of winning again the next drawing; the balls simply do not remember.
Now, Dex, I know you know this; I think that, either you are trying to say something that your words are not sufficiently explaining, leaving your shorthand efforts sounding incorrect, or you are falling prey to inaccuracies because the concept of trying to use some sort of “system” to pick numbers gets you all hot and bothered, sounding too much like the people who offer ways to guarantee profits at craps, or blackjack, etc. Perhaps you could ellucidate, or, if neccessary, admit of error?