# What's the most "non-random" number sequence that's ever won a lottery? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 10, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689 "2016-01-10T15:44:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/1 "2016-01-10T15:44:18Z")
In theory no set of numbers is more or less likely to win the lottery. But somehow picking 1-2-3-4-5-6 seems like a guaranteed lose because it’s hard to imagine a random drawing coming up with that. So what’s the least random-seeming sequence ever to win? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/2 "2016-01-10T17:59:36Z")
First you need to rigorously define what you mean by “non-random” or “random-seeming”. 1-2-3-4-5-6 is a completely valid random number. If and only if it was arrived at via a random process. 19 72 23 12 67 4 is also a completely valid random number. If and only if it was arrived at via a random process. If either of those number sets came from a non-random source, they’re not random numbers. You either need a mathematically rigorous definition or you’re simply asking nonsense. There isn’t much middle ground that I can see. ---
**Author:** ![Atomic\_Alex](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atomic_alex/32/175_2.png) [@Atomic\_Alex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atomic_Alex)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/3 "2016-01-10T18:11:38Z")
This was a pretty odd event: > **[BBC NEWS | Europe | Bulgarian lottery repeat probed](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8259801.stm)** > > An investigation is ordered after the same six numbers are drawn in two consecutive rounds of Bulgaria's national lottery. The same numbers being drawn in two consecutive lotteries. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/4 "2016-01-10T18:15:48Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > First you need to rigorously define what you mean by “non-random” or “random-seeming”. > > 1-2-3-4-5-6 is a completely valid random number. If and only if it was arrived at via a random process. 19 72 23 12 67 4 is also a completely valid random number. If and only if it was arrived at via a random process. If either of those number sets came from a non-random source, they’re not random numbers. > > You either need a mathematically rigorous definition or you’re simply asking nonsense. There isn’t much middle ground that I can see. I’m pretty sure you know what I mean, but if you must be pedantic let’s say a number sequence that can be defined by a polynomial shorter than the sequence. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/5 "2016-01-10T20:34:32Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > But somehow picking 1-2-3-4-5-6 seems like a guaranteed lose because it’s hard to imagine a random drawing coming up with that. So what’s the least random-seeming sequence ever to win? Regularly playing a sequence like 1,2,3,4,5,6 is a bad strategy because if/when it does hit, there are likely to be a lot of other wiseguys playing those same numbers that you have to share the proceeds with. You’d be much better off playing numbers that aren’t as likely to be shared with many others. From this article, speaking of the UK lottery: > [@](#): > > It is estimated that in each draw, 10,000 people choose the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Of course, numbers that form a nice pattern like this are as likely as any other combination, so they are in no way reducing their chance of winning. But given most jackpots are around the £4m mark, if those numbers do come up, everyone will walk away with £400 each. Another extreme example of lots of people choosing the same number: (Can anybody suss out why those numbers were so popular?) > [@](#): > > The most people to win the same jackpot was 133 – they all picked the numbers 7, 17, 23, 32, 38 and 42 on 14 January 1995. It’s hard to imagine the emotional rollercoaster of thinking you have won the £16,293,830 jackpot only to end up with 1/133 of that total: £122,510. They also mention the Bulgarian lottery choosing the same sequence of numbers twice in the same week: > [@](#): > > The Bulgarian lottery uses the same run of numbers from 1 to 49 as the national lottery in the UK, and on 6 September 2009 the winning numbers were 4, 15, 23, 24, 35 and 43. This was completely unremarkable until exactly the same numbers were drawn again on 10 September 2009. At which point, it was still unremarkable. People demanded an inquiry into draw fixing, but with so many lotteries around the world, some of them will occasionally have freaky matches. Even the most unlikely results happen at a very predictable rate ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/6 "2016-01-10T20:36:27Z")
[^^forgot the link^^](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/17/national-lottery-numbers-20-years-katie-price-win-jackpot) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/7 "2016-01-10T20:44:04Z")
The 17/23 Correlation!! ---
**Author:** ![Quimby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/22d042/32.png) [@Quimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quimby)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/8 "2016-01-10T22:29:23Z")
Several years ago there was a plane crash in the New York area and either that same day or the next the flight number of the plane came out. I also remember a story where an inordinate number of people won a particular lottery drawing. Fearing collusion, they investigated and found out the numbers that hit were the same as the “lucky numbers” in a large batch of fortune cookies. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/9 "2016-01-10T23:33:54Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Another extreme example of lots of people choosing the same number: (Can anybody suss out why those numbers were so popular?) [I sussed it out myself:](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/240734.stm) > [@](#): > > The remarkable draw on 14 November 1995 when 133 tickets shared the £16 million jackpot prize is a clear example of the effects the team had deduced. > The winning numbers were **7, 17, 23, 32, 38, 42 and 48, all of which lie in central columns of the ticket** , and the players won only £120,000 each. The average number of jackpot winners is five and the average amount won is £2 million. ---
**Author:** ![HowSoonIsThen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@HowSoonIsThen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HowSoonIsThen)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/10 "2016-01-11T02:03:17Z")
I don’t buy lottery tickets, but if I did I wouldn’t choose my numbers. Because I’d blame myself if the winning numbers were close or even other numbers I considered. I’d rather it just be 100% chance. Sorry for the derail (but I still posted it so I guess it’s a superficial apology). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/11 "2016-01-11T07:31:15Z")
In 2008, one of the draws for the UK national lottery picked the numbers: 24, 25, 26, 38, 39, 40 (two sequences of three consecutive numbers) ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-non-random-number-sequence-thats-ever-won-a-lottery/742689/12 "2016-01-11T10:45:30Z")
[This sequence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Pennsylvania_Lottery_scandal) wasn’t random, but there was a reason. 😉