Slashdot Mirror
Patterns in Lottery Numbers
markmcb writes "Most everyone is familiar with the concept of the lottery, i.e., random numbers are selected and people guess what they will be for a cash prize. But how random are the numbers? Matt Vea has conducted a pattern analysis of the MegaMillions lottery, which recently offered a sum of $370M (USD) to the winner. Matt shows that the lottery isn't as random as it may seem and that there are 'better' choices than others to be made when selecting numbers. From the article, 'A single dollar in MegaMillions purchases a 1 in 175,711,536 chance of landing the jackpot ... a player stands a mildly better chance of winning a partial prize through the selection of weighted numbers.'" Includes some excellent charts of his analysis.
Most lotteries (as opposed to raffles) have less than half the money spent by lottery ticket buyers going into the payout pool.
You're already losing by buying the ticket.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42.
These differences aren't that compelling. To me I would say, "Congratulations, you have found some deviation from equal frequency for all balls. But this would happen in any instance of drawing these balls."
I'm concerned that this has been an exercise in deviation in pseudo random systems. The same could be done with a computer simulation and similar results would be found.
I hate to say it but this study points out to me that the lottery is actually pretty much as close to random as it could get. In fact, the summary of the paper states that if there were some event to skew this, then you could achieve a small bonus: However, in the event there is some peculiar factor skewing the ball selection such that any of these trends continue, a player stands a mildly better chance of winning a partial prize through the selection of weighted numbers. However this peculiar factor can not only be identified but if it exists, it is highly unlikely it is anything even remotely observable.
My work here is dung.
And if you look up in the night sky, you'll see an archer, a bull, a big and a small dipper.
What's your point?
Of course you can't conclude much from this analysis. In any random distribution you're going to see random statistical fluctuations causing some clustering. Some numbers will get picked more than you'd predict by chance, just by chance. And necessarily some numbers will be picked less often than you'd predict by chance. The upside of this is that you can predict the extent of this clustering and compare that to the actual data to see if it's rigged.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
One of the slogans for the Illinois lottery used to be "you can't win if you don't play", but I figured every time I didn't play, I won $1. Its both stupid and ironic that many of the same people bitching about taxes pay this voluntary tax!
At the astronomical odds against winning, I figure my chances of finding a winning ticket on the ground are only marginally worse than my chances of buying a winning ticket. So rather than give extra money to the government so it will be funnelled to politically connected rich people, I just watch the ground.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
While you can analyse the numbers that come up, the interesting data isn't usually available to you: namely what numbers people are betting on. For example in the UK lottery it is known that about 10,000 people a week bet on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. So that automatically is a really bad choice because if that combination came up, you would get £prize / 10,000.
Example: if lots of people bet on (eg.) birthdays, then you'd expect the people to select numbers > 31 less frequently, which means you could try to cover bets with numbers > 31 and have a greater payout. Without the distribution of betting numbers though you can't tell.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Exactly, a couple years back at vegas, the roulette wheel spun black 13 times in a row.
Thats like 1/.48^13th.
Random things.. happen.
Randomly- some poor investing sod out there has made every choice correctly and been hammered by random market events.
Likewise- some lucky fool (that thinks he is brilliant) has picked google or tasr or crox on some non-logical basis and won big.
That's why you use Mutual Funds and ETF's. You get average performance. You lose the home runs, but you also lose the strike-outs.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Thats like 1/48^13.
Random things.. happen.
And guess what? Last night in Vegas, the roulette wheel spun this:
Red, Black, Black, Red, Black, Red, Red, Black, Red, Red, Red, Black, Red.
That's like 1/.48^13th.
A lot of people would be better off in understanding "randomness" if they would just realize that these two situations have exactly the same probability. Humans just assign more "meaning" to certain sequences than others.
I was quite amused when I first heard of it. I d onot know if it has ever actually been done, however.
Pick some random stock, send email to 2*10 suckers that it will go up, and to an equal number of suckers that it will go down.
Whichever direction it moves, divide that batch of suckers in two, pick some other random stock, send half email taht it will go up and half email that it goes down.
Repeat until you have only a few suckers left. They will see you as a genius who has correctly predicted the last {n} stock moves correctly. It may be the final sucker, or the last 2, or 4, etc.
Now tout a stock you have just bought and make some money!
Infuriate left and right