O/T Lotto

[KerrAvon]

This is a great thread.

As others have pointed out, if the lottery isn't 'fixed' in some way then a 'lucky dip' entry of random numbers has exactly the same odds as any player selected set of numbers.

If a person believes the game is fixed, it's hard to understand why they would play it...

If it's a big win that you want it's probably better to use the random numbers of a lucky dip as the number of people playing makes it likely that any 'system' is being used by multiple players.

To illustrate that point, two people have told me that they enter with the numbers 1 to 6 'because they are as likely to come up as any other numbers but nobody else will think of this'.

My suspicion is that if (when?) 1 to 6 come up there will be tens of thousands of people sharing the jackpot.

Players also like to use birthday numbers to enter, which means that 1 to 31 are used more than the higher numbers with 1 to 12 being hammered. Whether biasing entries towards higher numbers is a good idea is a moot point however as I'm not the only person who knows about the birthday numbers issue.

[gru]

What the ****ing hell has it got to do with averages?

You must be dumb beyond belief 🤣

What's dumb beyond belief it's going on luck on both the draw & lucky dips which let's say are randomly done. That's like trying to find a needle in a haystack! Free lucky dips are like that stupid raffle they had only there to keep you interested. My advice if you pay for lucky dips say for Saturday put them on before the previous Wednesday draw.

[Masbroughstreet]

That's like trying to find a needle in a haystack! .

That's because it is! The odds of winning the jackpot are 1 in 45,057,474, regardless of how you choose them. Every single combination of 6 numbers has odds of 1 in 45,057,474. How can you not understand that?

[UlleyMiller]

I love these threads.

Just offering my learnings:

After 10 heads with a fair coin, the guy with the Aphex Twin song for a username is right, the next flip could be heads or tails, and the prior streak has no bearing on the next flip.

The 'law of averages' is often confused with the principles behind the law of large numbers (in a similar way to how karma gets watered down to make people think if they hold doors open, the same will happen for them). If you're playing with astronomical sample sizes, the logic will hold true, but when you don't properly consider the relatively tiny number in the sample size and the slow rate at which a new draw is added to the sample, you're applying maths to blindfolded darts.

There are claims that 53% of prizes north of £1m have been won by lucky dips. This in itself is also meaningless. If 99% of all tickets are lucky dips, that suggests they're rubbish, if 3% of tickets are LDs it suggests they're epic. The split of lucky dips to non-LDs matters too... although it's not the only consideration.

Lucky dips are not random. They're generated by a computer, and it's not possible to get a truly random set of numbers from a computer (not that I've ever seen evidence for, or even seen anyone proposing evidence for).

Some 'systems' will increase your chances if you are a subscriber to conventional probability theory, but the increases are absolutely miniscule.

[Brin]

What's dumb beyond belief it's going on luck on both the draw & lucky dips which let's say are randomly done. That's like trying to find a needle in a haystack! Free lucky dips are like that stupid raffle they had only there to keep you interested. My advice if you pay for lucky dips say for Saturday put them on before the previous Wednesday draw.

gru, your English is getting better.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

I love these threads.

Just offering my learnings:

After 10 heads with a fair coin, the guy with the Aphex Twin song for a username is right, the next flip could be heads or tails, and the prior streak has no bearing on the next flip.

The 'law of averages' is often confused with the principles behind the law of large numbers (in a similar way to how karma gets watered down to make people think if they hold doors open, the same will happen for them). If you're playing with astronomical sample sizes, the logic will hold true, but when you don't properly consider the relatively tiny number in the sample size and the slow rate at which a new draw is added to the sample, you're applying maths to blindfolded darts.

There are claims that 53% of prizes north of £1m have been won by lucky dips. This in itself is also meaningless. If 99% of all tickets are lucky dips, that suggests they're rubbish, if 3% of tickets are LDs it suggests they're epic. The split of lucky dips to non-LDs matters too... although it's not the only consideration.

Lucky dips are not random. They're generated by a computer, and it's not possible to get a truly random set of numbers from a computer (not that I've ever seen evidence for, or even seen anyone proposing evidence for).

Some 'systems' will increase your chances if you are a subscriber to conventional probability theory, but the increases are absolutely miniscule.

Interesting is that point about computer generated random numbers. With 32 bit systems the numbers generated are " near to random" as makes no difference. With 64 bit systems there are many more possibilities in the algorithm with an astronomical number of possibilities beyond twice as many as a move from 32 to 64 might suggest.

But still as you say not actually fully random

[gru]

Thanks at last someone sees it same lucky dips are not actually fully random they are computer generated. Makes you wonder if the actual draw that's the same that doesn't matter how I see it you've still got to however you do it have your chosen lines in place to match them.

[UlleyMiller]

Interesting is that point about computer generated random numbers. With 32 bit systems the numbers generated are " near to random" as makes no difference. With 64 bit systems there are many more possibilities in the algorithm with an astronomical number of possibilities beyond twice as many as a move from 32 to 64 might suggest.

But still as you say not actually fully random

I've spent (lost?) far too many hours of my life working with Monte Carlo analysis to have faith that 'true' random will ever come from a computer, however small or large the output required, but as alluded to above, the samples being dealt with make questions around the validity of random largely pointless. The OP looking at this from a point of view of fixing, or 'law of averages' needs to take a step back and get some learning done on the maths before getting caught up in a position he can't get close to proving. Clearly a receptive guy, so I'm sure he'll already have taken some of the points on board.

EDIT: Then again, the fact he's taken a version of one comment around the nature of true random to solidify his absurd position, suggests he'll likely never take any points on board unless they align with his prior guesswork.

[Brin]

Thanks at last someone sees it same lucky dips are not actually fully random they are computer generated. Makes you wonder if the actual draw that's the same that doesn't matter how I see it you've still got to however you do it have your chosen lines in place to match them.

Are you saying the free moving balls in the globe have magnets or something in them so the computer pulls only certain ones to drop out?

[gru]

Are you saying the free moving balls in the globe have magnets or something in them so the computer pulls only certain ones to drop out?

Just if lucky dips are computer generated actual draw could be. Not saying it is.