-   Probability & Probabilistic Number Theory (
-   -   Lottery pick-3 odds? (

chalsall 2017-05-05 19:59

[QUOTE=schickel;458324]Nevada is a state that could be considered a big gambling state and they don't have a lottery, but New Jersey, which would also be considered a big gambling state, does. Utah should be understandable in not having a lottery or gambling.[/QUOTE]

The point I was /trying/ to make was that for the experienced gambler, the odds of winning via a lottery is *much* less than most games at a casino. As in, the state lottery "house" has much better odds. Don't let the *very* unlikely (but possible and occasional) big pay-off you see others get distract you.

I have never understood the thrill of gambling (other than in business calculated risks) -- it just doesn't make mathematical sense to me. But if one must gamble (or enjoys it), I would argue a game of poker amongst independent agents (possibly also friends) makes far more sense.

chalsall 2017-05-05 20:15

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;458273]I'm loathe to draw conclusion based on Monty Hall. I've seen many formulations which are underspecified, and the actual practice on the show does not match the mathematical version generally/always presented, so this seems like a questionable example to generalize from.[/QUOTE]

Again, the point I was /trying/ to make is that statistics can be exceedingly counter-intuitive.

Humans are great at pattern recognition, but sometimes they perceive things which aren't really there. They make (sometimes bad) decisions based on this.

This was fine when our ancestors ran from a field thinking they had seen a predator; in such cases a "false positive" didn't have a huge amount of downside compared to a "false negative".

retina 2017-05-07 13:45

[QUOTE=schickel;458328]For a really bizarre game outcome, check out this 5/39 [URL=" 12:00:00 AM&DrawNumber=7009"]result[/URL]. The jackpot starts at $75,000 and rolls until it hits. Whenever I mention this one to someone, I always image the winners at home, jumping up and down because their numbers came up.

The real question to me is: [SPOILER]how many of the players picked these numbers themselves, and WTF were they thinking?[/SPOILER][/QUOTE]Hopefully they were thinking: "I just want to pick numbers that no one else chooses, so then I get the entire prize to myself and don't have to share it with anyone else."

Otherwise that number sequence is just as good as any other. There is no reason in particular to either avoid or choose that sequence (except for the thought I posted above).

LaurV 2017-05-07 14:02

This reminds me, there was a very-VERY good russian comedy long ago, called [URL=""]"Sport-Loto '82[/URL]", where the winning sequence was "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6", or so. No math in it, but the movie is extremely funny, nice to see, good Russian humour in it, and will make you laugh hard, assuming you can find En subs for it (the original version with original Russian sound can be easily found on torrents).

Edit: [URL=""]wki link[/URL] (no spoilers, safe to read)

jwaltos 2017-05-07 17:17

I haven't posted anything for a while so just to keep my stats up...
Xyzzy's post is one of the best in this thread.
To address the question in general use the double slit analogy for coherence regarding what is random and what is not; Fermi, Bose- Einstein....
Combinatorial methods discretize unique choices, probability paths develop a manner of choosing and statistically the multinomial distribution
provides an overall picture of draws without replacement like the Canadian 649 lottery.
Epstein's book, Hamming's "Numerical Reference for.." describing Herschel's derivation of the normal curve,Benford's Law (some excellent
peer reviewed papers exist on this topic) are some good sources as well as some popular articles (ie. Southampton lottery analysis) give some
tips like choosing "unpopular" numbers... .
Recent results in AI/GPU research such as the GO and Poker tournaments and blackjack software such as what Qfit provides are good technological
approaches to exploiting entropy for fun and profit.

schickel 2017-05-20 03:17

The insanity goes on....
1 Attachment(s)
....or, "How to Develop a Problem Gambling Habit in 4 Easy Steps".

So, after reading everything here, I decided, what the hell, I'm up a little, let's just waste some money (up to what I've won), just for laughs. As I said, I like to put everything on autopilot, so I bought in again with the 14-play (7 day) plan. It ran a week with no hits and had one draw left. For some reason that day, my OCD bone was tickling me more than usual, and since I had bought in starting with the evening draw, I decided to pull the trigger early and buy the next round starting on the afternoon draw, overlapping the last run by the afternoon draw.

Luckily, I'm not superstitious or anything, because this was the result:

schickel 2017-05-20 03:39

[QUOTE=retina;458495]Hopefully they were thinking: "I just want to pick numbers that no one else chooses, so then I get the entire prize to myself and don't have to share it with anyone else."

Otherwise that number sequence is just as good as any other. There is no reason in particular to either avoid or choose that sequence (except for the thought I posted above).[/QUOTE]Yeah, well even before I got really heavy into this, I had read stories about the number of [URL=""]people[/URL] who play (to me) "stupid" picks, like [I]the first X numbers[/I] or any [I]X sequential numbers[/I].

Granted, I've wasted a lot of money but we have several regulars who put me to shame. I just realized the other day that I have not seen one of our Fantasy 5 players who played every day to the tune of $35-$40. And talk about optimism, he wanted all his played register receipts done separately from his cashing receipts, because he was going to use all of them to write off against any jackpot that he might win.

a1call 2017-05-20 04:12

Here are some facts which unfortunately are likely to cause some to ignore the first fact.

* In the long (enough) run the-house will be the winner.

* If the casinos did not have upper table limit, they would go bankrupt probably in a day by people with deep pockets (or on very lucky streaks ) playing double or nothing

* In absence of an upper limit such as is the case with some daily draws the limit is set by the amount of money that you have

* Due to the slight bias in favor of the house such as paying double on a probability of 18/37 in roulette, in the long run the house will always win( unless you can make them run out of money breaking the iterations). It is easy to verify this by computer simulation. It never fails to work in favor of the house given large enough number of iterations.

a1call 2017-05-20 13:54

I need to add the following:
* In double or nothing style gambling, where you play the minimum bid in the beginning and after each win and double your bid after each loss( assuming there is no maximum bid), the expected winner is the party with more money which is usually the lottery corporation.

science_man_88 2017-05-20 14:22


6 minutes 9 seconds in is semirelevant to a1call's point

jwaltos 2017-05-20 15:17

This thread piqued my interest because it touches on the concept of randomness and other fundamental notions. The original post referenced a system with replacement of the draw numbers chosen. As a simple extension, miniaturize this system to the dimensions of a quantum state where Bell's theorem applies. (The added assumption of miniature people choosing their quick picks in this system may/may not apply.)

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:50.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.