I wouldn’t bother getting out of the water if a 65’ Megalodon shark approached, but I would if he had a trillion teeth.
They would have to be Mandelbrot teeth to fit in the mouth.
I suspect what this is just some journalist using a set of questions his boss expects hm to ask, and then not bothering to actually think about the answer that he actually got. After all, stories like this are advertising for lotteries.
“So, what strategy did you use to buy your tickets?”
Expectation: “I consulted my dog, who is also an astrologer, and he yawned every time I suggested a number divisible by 3 but not divisible by 5, and then I won!”
Reality: “I just bought $25 bucks a week”.
I bet there are more people than you think who think they’re the only ones who think this way. After all, 1-2-3-4-5-6 are the most played lottery numbers, so my intuition is that others, using your logic, play sequences. It only takes one or two people in millions to have your logic.
I love your earnest engagement with this topic, but I kinda get the feeling that Asuka was kidding. 
I can never tell. My dad had this strategy. Plus I don’t really see any context clues that sarcasm was intended. If so, my apologies.
Pretty much.
On a pure odds basis, it doesn’t matter how you choose your numbers.
But if your criterion also includes avoiding split jackpots, there is a slight advantage to avoiding 1-30 in your picks. Unsurprisingly, a fair number of people use birthdays or sequences, often with fairly small number, i.e. while the overall distribution of winning numbers is uniform, the distribution of numbers on purchased tickets is slightly skewed towards smaller numbers.
Of course, in order to effectively take advantage of this, one must play enough times for it to matter. And if one has either that sort of longevity to play repeatedly or enough scratch to buy millions of tickets, I imagine playing the lottery is low on the list of priorities.
That’s why I choose anti-sequential numbers! 6-5-4-3-2-1 is never chosen! 
For a while, I played 1, 4, 9, 16, 25 and 36 as my lotto numbers.
“It says ‘SDialing for Dollars’…and that really irritates me.”
My lottery strategy is not to play. 
Since I have refrained from playing for 45 years at $25 / week, I have amassed $58,500.
Allowing for simple 4% interest, I now have $60,840. 
nevermind. Just that interest wouldn’t really be calculated like that. If you had an account with 4% interest over 45 years, you’d earn way more than $2K and change. That’s just earning 4% of the final amount, not over 45 years.
If you’re only getting 4% overall, not annual, interest after 45 years, maybe playing the lottery actually is a better idea.
So Googling around, it look like all news articles about this are just copying from a press release from the lottery itself. But what’s interesting is that in the original story, the man never calls it a “strategy.” He says it was an “Experiment.”
Right. I’m not wasting a fortune at the casino, on drugs and on prostitutes. Instead I’m conducting an “experiment.”
At least you listened to WOPR.
Of course - I nearly didn’t put any interest at all.
So my challenge is for Dopers to work out that if I save $1,300 a year and get end-of-year annual interest at 4%, how much would I have after 45 years?
If it’s allowed to be lazy and use an online compound interest calculator, I explained to the calculator on investor.gov that I wanted to invest an initial $1300, with a $108.33 (= $1300/12) monthly contribution, at 4% compounded annually for 45 years.
And they came up with the figure of $164,447.62 for my total, along with a cute little graph.
Now I wish I had actually started doing this 45 years ago!
Which is, of course, how they teach it in school.
The next level up is considering that it is difficult to find any investment that consistently and reliably generates 4% annual interest over the last 45 years.
I guess a regular savings account would have done the trick for the first 20 years or so when interest rates dropped below that point. Then you’d have enough saved up to get into an index fund. Of course, the flip side is that you’d want better than 4% growth until the early 90s, otherwise you’re losing money due to inflation.
Not sure where the line between “screw it, I’m buying scratchers” and “let’s invest” is but not as simple as it seems in high school math where inflation and interest rates aren’t considered at all.
It’s something Heinlein wrote (though perhaps not entirely correct about the implications since he wrote it during a period of higher average inflation than the last couple decades): “$100 invested at 7% interest for 100 years will become $100000, at which time it will be worth absolutely nothing”.
Of course the comparison is with buying lottery tickets at -50% ‘interest’.