RTFirefly --"The odds of winning this particular lottery were around 100 million to 1 against. If they have two drawings a week (normal), and you buy one ticket to each drawing for 20 years, the odds are still 100,000 to 1 against your ever winning.
If you buy 100 tickets each time, the odds are still 1000 to 1 against your ever winning. It’s not like you can buy a win."
Any math folks want to help out on this? Buying 100 tickets twice a week, at arguably 1 in 100 million odds for each individual ticket, will eventually lower the odds to 1 in 1,000? My word. Did someone change the laws of probability when I wasn’t looking?
IIRC, if the odds of winning are 1 in 100 milllion, buying 100 unique tickets will change your odds to 100 in 100,000,000.
Buying a ticket each drawing does not improve your chances of winning. The odds are still 1 in 100,000,000 each time because all the balls are put back in the hopper.
Right! The balls don’t remember which ones were just picked, so every pick any number could come up.
The fallacy is that in games of chance, roulette for example, people think that the numbers will come up in an even distribution, so after 34 rounds, if the number 13 hasn’t come up, it is ‘due’ to come up. Laws of statistics and probability say that the chances for any number to come up are the same every round.
Since any number can come up, the best lotto stragety is to pick un-popular numbers, i.e. else than 1,2,3,7,11,13, etc… so that if you numbers do come up, you won’t have to share the prize.
Actually, msmith357’s comment isn’t that far off the mark. Since the United States gov’t first established an “official poverty level,” that mark has been raised, in real dollars several times. Thus, a large portion of people that would have been considered middle class early in the 20th century would, all other things being equal, be considered poor today.
I heard similar beefing about the 20 year old woman from Georgia who won several million with the first ticket she ever bought. “I’ve bought thousands of tickets and never won. It’s not fair.”
The rules are simple: Whoever buys the winning ticket wins.
People often complain that the lottery is a tax against the poor (or people who are poor at math) simply because the odds against winning are soooooooo long and that rich people don’t (need to) play because, well, they already have money.
Now that someone who is “rich” has won, there are more complaints.
Argh, not probability statistics. Especially not mutiple roll ones…
The real chances of getting 6 blacks or 6 reds in a row (discounting greens, as it makes my math easier) is 1 in 127. However, you’re not betting on 6 combined tries, but individual tries, so that 6th spin, no matter what colors came before, still has a 50/50 chance of coming up black.
Previous attempts, rolls, spins - they have nothing to do with the current one, unless you are betting against a series of them. When each bet is counted individually, there is no such thing as a color being “due” or previous outcomes effecting the current chances.
It’s the same with the lottery. Playing 1 ticket a day, at 1 in 1000 chances, for 1000 days does not mean you will win, nor do your chances get reduced at all, as previous days don’t effect the next day’s outcome.
msmith537 - That is exactly what the gambling institutions want you to believe.
You are right and you are wrong. The odds of getting a particular series of red or black events may be high, but you are not betting on a series of events, you are only betting on one event.
For that ONE event, the odds are always going to be 50/50. Roulette is actually less than that due to the green slots.
Good luck finding a roulette game that lets you bet on a series of results.
Do a google search on the martindale betting stragety for more information.
There is a 1/32 chance that you will get 6 same events out of 6 attempts at a 2 condition event.
The chance of extending the streak to 7 is 50-50 because there is a 1 in 2 chance of one event becoming true. The chance of a streak of 7 happening is 1/64.
Lottery drawings are independent events from each other, chances of winning do not accumilate.
100 tickets of a 1 in 100,000,000 drawing = 1 in 1,000,000.
Using compound interest rates you will find out that if you take the 1 time payout option you will get the money required to be invested at standard intrest rates to give you the lump sum by the end of the payout plan. (so that 300mil over 20 years would be generated by 111mil invested in the bank over 20 years). Economically, you have no idea what inflation will do from year to year, so the yearly payouts will become less and less valuable each year as inflation causes the yearly payment to decrease in terms of ‘real dollars’. So the best thing to do, is take your winnings in a lump sum, invest some for living off of and dump the rest into investment hedges.
Or just realize that 300million is a CRAP LOAD of money and go C R A Z Y buying stuff.
Actually, it’s 1/64 for 6 coin flips or red/black things. I blame work for my inability to do binary properly, as it’s been busy for the first time in many months. Just to verify, I will write it here, so I can see it.
No, but I think this was perhaps not stated well. IMHO, Gairloch meant that the global chance of a win over the period was 1:1000, not that the odds for the later plays were affected by the earlier ones. As noted by other posters, each play is a separate entity with it’s own probability; it doesn’t matter how many previous plays are made.
But Gairloch is correct in that for large n, an estimate of the probability of a win occurring sometime over the interval can be made.
