Are you poor?

Post Reply New Topic

Lottery pools are used to split huge sums and create group solidarity. There have been a few state lotteries where a clever player had the odds in their favour, but some math students cleaned up, and they got fixed.
Rich people gamble for fun, not for profit, and so should you if you can afford that. Buying raffle tickets is to benefit the charity, not waste my time on imagining winning.
When a random number generator has selected some digits, they have ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE on its next selection. If you want to argue, please send references on that.

Are you going to make the argument that the ability to purchase vast quantities of tickets does not give you a higher probability of victory than the lack of that ability? This statement is not a comment on motivations of wealthy players.

You're correct that previous sequences do not affect new sequences. It's not about previous sequences changing the probabilities.

It's about analyzing the qualities of numbers that do hit. Every new sequence gives us a greater ability to do this kind of analysis. It doesn't change the future...it explains the past.

The more tickets you buy, the greater your chance of loosing. If you buy all the tickets in typical small lotteries, you get half your money back. That is a guaranteed loss, even though you do buy a nominal winner. You never get it all back, unless the lottery has made a mistake in the rules. Who would run one to lose money deliberately?

^^ Agreed. Feynman hung out in Las Vegas, and worked out the odds on several schemes that looked good initially. He also met Nick the Greek, who claimed to make a living on gambling. Richard asked him how, and he explained that he only made side bets with people at the tables, who felt sure about an upcoming number. The regulars knew he wasn't a good risk, but if they won a few dollars, they'd get to brag about having beat him.

You'd have to calculate an acceptable "cost/reward" proportion in terms of buying large quantities. Yes there is a point where the resources you have sank into it aren't worth the reward if you win.

Nevertheless, buying the large quantities does increase the probability of winning vs. an individual buying very small quantities. If I buy 100 million tickets (disregarding cost/reward atm), I am at a supreme advantage compared to someone who has purchased 1 in terms of simply winning the draw.

As to casino games, if I'm not mistaken Blackjack can be won against the house with standard strategy, counting, using appropriate betting variations when you hit certain counts, and optimized betting amounts. I believe it gives you about a 51% advantage, although I know some Vegas casinos reduce that advantage by making Blackjacks pay out less. There's also a "risk of ruin" calculation you can make that will tell you, even with perfect play, your probability of going bust. The higher your initial investment, the closer your risk of ruin approaches 0. Of course this is all assuming you get away with it while you're doing it, and from my understanding knowing how to be deceptive about counting is just as important as possessing the raw ability to do it. I've heard that foreign casinos can be better in terms of getting away with counting unnoticed.

I've become curious recently as to the probabilities regarding this 21+3 Blackjack they're doing in some places (you make a side bet on what your cards + the dealer's face card will be in terms of poker hands) I know a 3 card flush is the most probable(at about 6% with a fresh deck if I'm not mistaken). I wonder if one could count colors (because to hell with counting each individual suit), and what the flush probabilities become once the deck becomes "red heavy" or "black heavy" and how often the deck will be lopsided. It's entirely possible that you never hit a good count or it's too rare to be worth it...but I would love to have the actual numbers on this. If it becomes favorable often enough (and depending on what their payout on flushes is), there would be a certain point where it becomes worth betting.

EDIT: I meant to say variations in standard strategy when you hit certain counts.

If repeats of previous winning numbers are rare, that in and of itself is a piece of data that should govern how you choose your numbers. Don't choose repeats because they are exceedingly rare. There is a question of "previous numbers affecting new numbers" kind of thing here, but I'll be honest and say I don't have the intellectual energy to examine this atm.

The winners are not determined by humans. They are determined by what is drawn, and generally a human just happened be the lucky bastard with the numbers. In this sense, the column of "winners" has a standard mathematical process acting upon it (the random drawing of a sequence of distinct numbers). The losing numbers are just a statistical pile of garbage and tells you nothing because they weren't generated from the same mathematical process. Mostly...humans chose them. Because of that, the set of data regarding "losing numbers" is not so easily compared to the "winning numbers."

Yes this is why I added the part about not having the intellectual energy.

The question I have is whether certain kinds of sequences are even less likely to be repeated. If the lottery hits "1, 2, 3, 4, 5," is that sequence more, less, or equally likely to repeat as a non-linear spread? I suspect it is less.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why numbers composed of "purely odds or purely evens" hit far less than mixtures. I would also like it explained why completely linear sequences appear unlikely. If some sequences are better than others, then one cannot argue that the odds are equal for all possible tickets.

Let's say I could monopolize certain parameters. Let's say I had control of 50% of all available choices, but that I refuse (as much as possible) to have sequences containing entirely linear sequences, pure odds and pure evens, and all the other qualities one can observe that appear improbable based on analyzing the qualities of winners. I stack my numbers as much as possible based on what is observed in the history of winning numbers.

Are my odds actually 50%, assuming all other numbers have been chosen by players? My suspicion is that my odds are higher.

To add to this...

I'm basically suggesting that drawing "sequences" as opposed to drawing one single number between 1 and 350,000,000 changes the odds because patterns emerge when you draw sequences.

You can look it at like a set of 350,000,000 sequences all equally likely to emerge, but does it actually work this way in sequence generation?

Doesn't drawing sets of numbers imply certain kinds of properties? Aren't they likely to have a somewhat predictable amount of difference between "highest" and "lowest" number, for instance?

To use a very crude comparison, if you shoot photons through a hole can't you predict how concentrations will emerge which are different than saying "they are likely to go everywhere equally?" Couldn't one conceive of every position a photon could land as a number sequence?

I'm not saying this comparison is valid. I don't know if it is and I'm curious as to whether one can think of the possibility of drawing randomly generated sets of numbers in a similar fashion of "concentration and scarcity" based on certain parameters. Is it possible certain kinds of sets are more likely to be in a "concentration" position and some in a "scarce" position?

I'm a bit irked at you because you ask me to "read this again" without considering my own statements, which have already addressed your point.

1) Calculate acceptable cost/reward proportion.

2) Having an abundant amount of tickets enables a higher probability of victory than having a scarce amount of tickets.


I didn't say point number 2 equates to winning money. I said it equates to a higher likelihood of winning the draw.

I hadn't realized you knew that "winning the draw" was losing money. It is really hard for me to imagine someone choosing that over buying something more tangible, so thanks for the reminder of the range of human belief.