5 ms·
Without going into detail about why your math is flawed, which it is -- a basic viability check would be to consider: if there was a 64% probability of some eve
by listenallyall 6y ago
Without going into detail about why your math is flawed, which it is -- a basic viability check would be to consider: if there was a 64% probability of some event happening each year, don't you think in your lifetime you'd have seen quite a few instances of that thing happening?
- endtime 6y agoIf you read a daily digest of global lottery results, yes! This might not be in the news because it's so rare. It might just be a slow news day.
- listenallyall 6y ago...or "crazygringo's" 1000 per day guess could be way, way off, and anybody, like "mrb," accepting it blindly as a basis for their own calculations is guilty (of failing to think critically) by association
- konjin 6y agoWhy is the maths wrong?
- listenallyall 6y agoIt starts with the literal first sentence of the comment -- "They draw 6 balls out of 50." No, they don't.
- krit_dms 6y agothats... not math.
- listenallyall 6y agocalculating C(50, 6) is, as is everything that follows.
- arolihas 6y agoMaybe he is referring to the fact that not all of the lotteries have the same structure? Idk it still seems like a good estimate to me
- listenallyall 6y ago64% likelihood seems like a good estimate to you? Just take a second and consider whether you'd take the following bet: Your $1000 against my $5000 that anywhere in the world in 2021, a state-run lottery (with at least 5 balls out of at least 50, and a sixth out of at least 20) will have a perfectly sequential result. You're being offered 5 to 1 odds on a probability that you just estimated to be significantly better than a coin flip. Are you in? Or does your gut tell you that 6 perfectly sequential numbers is crazy unlikely?
- konjin 6y agoSure, how do you want to do that bet?
- listenallyall 6y agoI'm 100% serious about making this wager, I've sought out the wisdom of HN for help with a "smart contract" to guarantee trust. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25306489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25306489 At the same time, I'm not a thief -- to be entirely certain that you want to make this bet, have you read the entire thread, where alternate probabilities (far less than 64%) are proposed? You're aware that the original assumption of 1000 lottery draws per day was a guess from thin air with no research nor basis in fact? You're aware that mrb's calculations overstated the number of possible conforming sequences and undercounted the total number of potential outcomes? If you acknowledge that you're aware of all of this and still want to proceed, let's do it, no joke, I'm 100% in.
- arolihas 6y agoIt’s crazy unlikely for any particular lottery but there are a ton of draws and a ton of lotteries, and it only needs to happen once in a year. I probably would take that bet if it were feasible but then again I like to gamble.
- dna_polymerase 6y agoThere is no 64%. It's hypothetical if there were 1000 draws per day. If you want to proof their math wrong please do more than calling it flawed.
- listenallyall 6y agoHe states a conclusion -- "So this South African draw is kinda expected" -- referring to THIS DRAW, not a hypothetical example.
- Spare_account 6y agoIf you have the time,would you mind expanding on this with the detail that you mentioned?
- drewmol 6y ago>probability of some event happening each year, don't you think in your lifetime you'd have seen.. No. This is not particularly newsworthy. But for most HN users and this event the answer is: no, but I did see it on HN and it will probably get re posted cyclicaly ;)