Im Not Lucky

Shifrin · 13 May 2006

I'd have had all six if only I'd chosen them 😉

Shif.

doug4350 · 17 May 2006

Those one off errors can cost a fortune! 🙂

I had one, caused by one of my instructors way back when that cost me the class honor roll 😠 .

Aloha, Doug

cAPSLOCK · 12 Jun 2006

Strange the ways numbers can play with our heads. One distinct thing we human beings are is excellent organic pattern recognition machines. We look for patterns. We believe in patterns. Like the first imprint of parents faces. And like "the man in the moon". And we love them in music.

We want to love an ideal, or hate a world leader. So we find the patterns that back up our desires. AIDS statistics, poverty, WMDs, nature, maps, history, and a beautiful face. Numbers. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened. We love patterns. If it werent so we would never play the lottery anyway.

Once I was standing in line at a 7-11 here (USA corner store) and waiting with others for a woman to choose her lottery numbers. The line-people were getting tired with waiting. The woman was mumbling something like "Hmm.. what numbers should I play? Hmm, usually I do my children's bithday numbers, but I want something different, hmm...." and so on. I was waiting in line for nicotine myself... soo... umm... I spouted this foolish statement off: "Maybe you should pick 1,2,3,4,5,6! It has exactly the same chance as winning as any other combination."

I thought maybe SOMEONE in the line would think that was funny. I was wrong. They all slowly turned around and looked at me like *I* was the man in the moon. The woman said "If you think that's true honey, maybe you should never play the lottery."

Maybe I shouldn't. But I do. Once or twice a year I might buy a powerball ticket. Who knows?? Right?

Here's to the pattern. Our numbers gotta come up eventually right??

cAPS

skOre · 12 Jun 2006

Hmm, numbers and patterns... gotta watch the movie pi once again soon...

angstrom · 12 Jun 2006

cAPSLOCK wrote: "Maybe you should pick 1,2,3,4,5,6! It has exactly the same chance as winning as any other combination."

I thought maybe SOMEONE in the line would think that was funny. I was wrong. They all slowly turned around and looked at me like *I* was the man in the moon.

yes, the odd thing is that it doesn't take much to work out that 1 2 3 4 5 6 is statistically as likely as 41 23 7 11 33 12

but people actively avoid the conclusion - because once accepted the very large odds against winning suddenly become personally conceivable.

everyone can imagine how unlikely it is to be dealt a straight flush, because of hands on personal experience (1:81,218 btw)

but the lottery has an air of numerology.

"41 i show old I am, 23 is the age that I left the asylum, 7 is the number of the ... " etc. then, spin around three times and say the name of your cat backwards while holding a bats tooth!

I really, really want to start playing the lottery just to use your 'lucky numbers'

I am convinced that everyone would think I stood statistically less chance with a sequential set than with a set chosen via birthdays of relatives and ages of cats.

odds of winning the Uk lottery top prize 1 in 13,983,816

an article on the deluded lottery punter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_t ... tery.shtml

skOre · 12 Jun 2006

Still you say it wrong - It IS less likely to draw a certain pattern (like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) than completely random numbers, since you look for one rule more (than 'completely random'), you are narrowing the odds. And I don't think that its this point the people have problems with. The problem is, that either this or that way - the odds are still astronomically against you and that little difference between a straight line of numers and a few numbers without a pattern might be there, but its nonsense to argue about it...

In the end, 80% of all lottery winners lose _all_ the money they've won within about a year. So why bother...

Last story I heard about lottery playing, and I think this is the actual sad thing, was of a friend who visited one of his customers. The father of this customer had died, and it was their turn to split the belongings and money.

They found lottery lots in the value of a house, and that man had never won more than worth a couple of lots.

Lottery - the gambling methadone.

Its as angstrom pointed at - If you want people to do very stupid things, you only have to promise them lots of money. The less likely it is, that it will work for them, the more money you have to promise. And about after 10k, most of the people who have to work a year to earn that money will directly switch their brains off. Not seeing, that they are actually not only _not winning_, but losing.

Dave B · 13 Jun 2006

skOre wrote: Still you say it wrong - It IS less likely to draw a certain pattern (like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) than completely random numbers, since you look for one rule more (than 'completely random'), you are narrowing the odds.

Since there is no requirement to draw the sequence in sequencial order, I would be interested in how you determined that the probability is different than ANY predetermined set of the same size from the same size pool.

skOre · 13 Jun 2006

well, I was thinking basically logic - if you search for no order, you have an equal chance on any combination. But the pickyer you get with what the outcome should be, the overall probability should shrink was my guess. So for every number drawn you have the same probability, but overall your probability to draw a line of numbers is shrinking.

Don't have any maths to prove this, so it might just as well be b/s 😉

Actually I just looked to the 'pedia and found out that somebody has won with 2 3 4 5 6 26... well it was 38000 players that won this, and every one got about 400 bucks 😀

cAPSLOCK · 13 Jun 2006

No, you are right. It is BS. Nothing you THINK will change a statistical probability when it comes to lottery balls, unless you have psychic powers. If so, we need to have lunch. 😉

This is less and less lottery and more and more Schrodinger's cat.

cAPS

skOre · 13 Jun 2006

cAPSLOCK wrote: If so, we need to have lunch. 😉

I do take money to show my powers... a lot of money 🙂

angstrom · 13 Jun 2006

skOre wrote: Still you say it wrong - It IS less likely to draw a certain pattern (like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) than completely random numbers, since you look for one rule more (than 'completely random'),

no, sorry I think YOU have it wrong.

12345678 is a random sequence, there is nothing less random about that sequence than 73628451

I am not looking for "one rule more than completely random", the odds between the two numbers above coming up are exactly the same.

and the odds are the same every week, so if I continually use that number the odds are the same as any other number, they do not reduce or increase.

skOre · 13 Jun 2006

I think I already said I was wrong somewhere between the lines 😉

doug4350 · 17 Jun 2006

Hmmmmm, Wouldn't it be easier to make friends with the lotto geeks to see what "random" algorithm they're using to create the careless temporary bazillionaire winner 🙂 . There is no true random number generator 2 my knowledge as taught me in cs101, still, so, hmmmmmm.

We don't have the lotto over here in paradise, but I do frequent Vegas and feel the "charma" of much better odds over there outside the lotto scene. I can't really say I'm a gambler, I only (sort of) go there to see family. Hey, when in Rome... 🙂 I do prefer machines to table games for the bigger payoff -- hence the progressive comments.

The years I've been going there, you can observe how the progressive machines pay off. When the lot is low, just say no -- when the lot is high, time to buy 🙂 .

My experiences have been like the tide (and maybe market demand). About ten years ago until about 4 years ago, there were decent returns. (to me, decent is meaning not losing too much of your a$ to winning back your travel costs). After that, with the improving economy, things dried up and the cost of living went up. Hmmmmmmmm the tide went out.

Aloha, Doug

jobro · 24 Jul 2006

I can't really be bothered with this stuff. Seriously I feel sad for your mishap tho.

Acrobat · 30 Jun 2007

Well, I think the numbers we choose are better than the others people's simply because we have actually chosen them over all other combinations and logically we do care about them, sure until the lottery's over.

It's only when the lottery's over we are legitimate to think "rational", to stay up and don't be too sad for having lost again.

But 'till that day, it's wise to exercise that kinda suggestion because it generates a positive thinking. And positive thinking is so important in our life!

Fool yourself to be happy.

A.

Tom7777 · 2 Jul 2007

Hehe i have stopped buying lottery tickets now, i still do bonds though i have won a fair amount of times with those and usually use the money won to get more of them, it's always £50 i win with those though, would be nice to get the 1 million sometime 😉

Acrobat · 2 Jul 2007

Tom7777 wrote: Hehe i have stopped buying lottery tickets now, i still do bonds though i have won a fair amount of times with those and usually use the money won to get more of them, it's always £50 i win with those though, would be nice to get the 1 million sometime 😉

Well it appears to be an typical anglosaxon sport to "bet". In southern europe it's not so diffused but, for example, in Naples there' an old tradition of traducing dreams into numbers and bet them on a lottery based on 90 numbers. Dead people, in dreams, give you the numbers to bet and every number correspond to an act, object, figure or profession. Recently a big discussion raise on italian newspapers because international web-based casinos wanted to access italian web and they were allowed to. Anyway it's a very dirt biz, imo, that public governments must stop, while I think playing cards or other games, even roulette, it's much more better because the player has a sort of control over the system and can develop some skill at. In lottery there's no skill at all.

A.