National Lottery - Probabilty and number selection

[SammEl]

So that's why it happened last year (and has happened before in other countries including Mexico)?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ght-draws.html

Did I say it never happens? No, Mr Dimley666 - The official statistic is it happens every 20 - 50 years per lottery, go do another Google search.

You're either trying to just dissagree with me on something over and over again, or being a complete moron and not reading my whole post.

[finlay666]

You're either trying to just dissagree with me on something over and over again, or being a complete moron and not reading my whole post.

I read your while post, realised what nonsense and tosh it was and commented on such, given that you disagreed with what was proven previously to be true that randomly choosing numbers each time is a better method to do.

Do you even understand the concepts of mathematics involved, perms and combs, atomic/sequential events and the like?

You never said for [b]one[/n] lottery it's every x years, given that each lottery is different this isn't exactly accurate either. Given that for your statistic to be correct with 50 years having 5000 draws then the odds of two consecutive draws must be a LOT less than the actual 1 in 1.9554711 × 1014 odds that the UK lottery gives, unless you aren't counting correctly

Where exactly is this official statistic then? As Google is not an alternative to a sound education in mathematics

[SammEl]

Mr Toon - You love a fight init boi.

I won't post anything for you, I know the statistic, it's a fact, if you want to, go and look it up so you can look at yourself and see a prat. I honestly don't care, a forum is not a place for me to prove myself to you.

In other news, I found out Finley was from Newcastle and now is lower on my board than he was before, which was 6 feet under.

Feeling hot in that magma chamber?

[peterb]

Finlay666 and SammEl - enough! Any more of this nitpicking and sniping and
its a 3 month suspension - got it?

[TooNice]

It's not being dumb, it's about approaching the problem the wrong way, there are a lot of puzzles that are very simple if you approach them correctly but most approach them in the wrong way

I will admit that I failed the Monty Hall problem the first time (and even though I understand it now, it still amazes me), but I called it right on the revolver one (scaryjim's solution just seem more intuitive to me).

[Barrichello]

Thanks all for your advice and some very interesting points. Decided we are going to keep our numbers!

[finlay666]

I will admit that I failed the Monty Hall problem the first time (and even though I understand it now, it still amazes me), but I called it right on the revolver one (scaryjim's solution just seem more intuitive to me).

As I said they are questions that on their own are not difficult if approached in the correct way, however many do approach them from the wrong way which makes them far more difficult.

There are a plethora of others including the pirate gold problem (Which someone, through a research paper proceeded to solve to n pirates), the island of cheating husbands conundrum and the torch bridge crossing problem that seem to be favourites in interview situations now, as they require analytical thinking and being able to approach problems from a variety of positions.

There are similar puzzles in the book "How would you move mount Fuji"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Would-Mo...1678805&sr=8-1

It's quite an interesting read if you like those sorts of puzzles

Thanks all for your advice and some very interesting points. Decided we are going to keep our numbers!

Only reason I see for changing your numbers (to a different set if at all, no need to change them weekly) is to pick uncommon combinations so should you win you share with fewer people should you get enough numbers

[TheAnimus]

Mr Toon - You love a fight init boi.

I won't post anything for you, I know the statistic, it's a fact, if you want to, go and look it up so you can look at yourself and see a prat. I honestly don't care, a forum is not a place for me to prove myself to you.

In other news, I found out Finley was from Newcastle and now is lower on my board than he was before, which was 6 feet under.

Feeling hot in that magma chamber?

Ok lets try this again.

You can't just say something is fact because you know a statistic.

We know the probability of winning the lottery is:

1 in:
6/48*5/47*4/46*3/45*2/44*1/43

Now if there are two draws a week, 52 weeks a year (remember this isn't true), and 50 years we have
2*52*50 This is the number of trails

now, we don't even have to multiply to see that 2*52*52 is considerably less than that, so we don't really have enough trails in 50 years do we.

Now one of the key concepts here about random trails is its not a certainty at all, but hopefully you can see how the numbers pail together, the distance is to great.

As someone who uses simple statistics for their daily bread, I get VERY upset with the press, even the broadsheets, and don't get me started on the government press office, they are just wrong from a point of un-bridled ignorance.

Now in this thread, we've provided links, explanations, some of them such as the Monty Hall I hope people find/found fun, I certainly do, the perfect logic and beauty of the solution is quite pleasing.

If you think any of this is incorrect, then please feel free to link your original source (google didn't turn it up easily for me!) and some of us here will explain as best we can whats gone wrong.

[Blitzen]

You got 5 numbers and only won £1200?

I had 5 numbers last year an only got £952.

[TheAnimus]

if it makes u feel any better the difference between
6/48*5/47*4/46*3/45*2/44*1/43
and
5/48*4/47*3/46*2/45*1/44

Is VERY significant.

But solace in numbers with these things rarely helps.

[Blitzen]

if it makes u feel any better the difference between
6/48*5/47*4/46*3/45*2/44*1/43
and
5/48*4/47*3/46*2/45*1/44

Is VERY significant.

But solace in numbers with these things rarely helps.

I'm lost in the 'Toryness' of it all

[finlay666]

I'm lost in the 'Toryness' of it all

Is that because all the lottery machine does is put a lot of spin on the balls

[Salazaar]

if it makes u feel any better the difference between
6/48*5/47*4/46*3/45*2/44*1/43
and
5/48*4/47*3/46*2/45*1/44

Is VERY significant.

But solace in numbers with these things rarely helps.

By comparison, yes. But in absolute terms they're both insignificant.

5 balls - 0.000057%
6 balls - 0.0000078%

[Lee H]

I had 5 numbers last year an only got £952.

Screw that... I would get yourself to the bookies and put a quid on the irish lottery picking 3 numbers.

If all 3 are in the 6 numbers drawn then you get ~ £610 which is a lot better than the measly £10 you get on the National Lottery.