4 ms·

Of course no one is saying that it's easy to get the winning numbers, the question is whether it is worth it to play. If the prize is big enough, then the expec

by cmsmith 13y ago

Of course no one is saying that it's easy to get the winning numbers, the question is whether it is worth it to play. If the prize is big enough, then the expected value of a lottery ticket is more than $1, and it makes financial sense to play. By reducing the chance of sharing the jackpot you can effectively increase the size of the prize, pushing the odds towards your favor.

jonnathanson 13y ago
"By reducing the chance of sharing the jackpot you can effectively increase the size of the prize, pushing the odds towards your favor." In theory, sure, but in praxis, whatever edge you gain on expected value by doing this is still infinitesimal. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely that you could choose an unlikely-to-be-duplicated number combination any better than random chance could. I'm not convinced a randomly generated string of numbers is any more likely to be duplicated by someone else's pick than an intentionally chosen sequence. Probably less likely, in fact. I would guess there's someone else out there picking 1,2,3,4,5,6 (for example) more often than there's someone else out there whose random number generated matches your random number generated.
- Fuzzwah 13y ago
  But once you accept the small chance of winning, you may as well set it up so that if this unlikely result came out you'd maximize your winnings. Its a tiny edge because it'll happen so infrequently, but if it did it would make a huge difference in the result.
  - jonnathanson 13y ago
    "But once you accept the small chance of winning, you may as well set it up so that if this unlikely result came out you'd maximize your winnings" If there was a way to do so, sure. I'm not convinced there is. Like I said, I get the logic behind it. I just don't think it's any more likely to produce an unduplicated sequence than a randomly generated string would. If anything, an intentionally chosen sequence (e.g., 1,2,3,4,5,6) seems more likely to be chosen by someone else. Assuming that nobody else (or, at least, fewer people) will ever choose a specific sequence is a pretty naive assumption, IMO. I totally understand the thinking behind it, but I don't think you're likely to do better than a random number generator at outmaneuvering the X hundred million other tickets in play.
    - Fuzzwah 13y ago
      Well the one thing which I do believe holds true is that picking numbers which are above 31 would lower the chances of splitting. I'd suspect that even just sticking over 12 would help out.
    - cmsmith 13y ago
      By definition, if there are numbers which are chosen more often than those randomly generated, then there must also be numbers which are chosen less often. I'm not saying that those numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6 - just that they exist. So we are left with an exercise in psychology - should you pick a sequence that seems common, because the people thinking about it will pick something else because it seems common? Or should you not pick the sequence because people will pick the sequence because they think that people thinking about it will pick something else because it seems common? Some actual data would solve this, but I imagine the lottery folks would be reluctant to release it.

by cmsmith 13y ago

jonnathanson 13y ago

"By reducing the chance of sharing the jackpot you can effectively increase the size of the prize, pushing the odds towards your favor." In theory, sure, but in praxis, whatever edge you gain on expected value by doing this is still infinitesimal. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely that you could choose an unlikely-to-be-duplicated number combination any better than random chance could. I'm not convinced a randomly generated string of numbers is any more likely to be duplicated by someone else's pick than an intentionally chosen sequence. Probably less likely, in fact. I would guess there's someone else out there picking 1,2,3,4,5,6 (for example) more often than there's someone else out there whose random number generated matches your random number generated.

Fuzzwah 13y ago
But once you accept the small chance of winning, you may as well set it up so that if this unlikely result came out you'd maximize your winnings. Its a tiny edge because it'll happen so infrequently, but if it did it would make a huge difference in the result.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  "But once you accept the small chance of winning, you may as well set it up so that if this unlikely result came out you'd maximize your winnings" If there was a way to do so, sure. I'm not convinced there is. Like I said, I get the logic behind it. I just don't think it's any more likely to produce an unduplicated sequence than a randomly generated string would. If anything, an intentionally chosen sequence (e.g., 1,2,3,4,5,6) seems more likely to be chosen by someone else. Assuming that nobody else (or, at least, fewer people) will ever choose a specific sequence is a pretty naive assumption, IMO. I totally understand the thinking behind it, but I don't think you're likely to do better than a random number generator at outmaneuvering the X hundred million other tickets in play.
  - Fuzzwah 13y ago
    Well the one thing which I do believe holds true is that picking numbers which are above 31 would lower the chances of splitting. I'd suspect that even just sticking over 12 would help out.
  - cmsmith 13y ago
    By definition, if there are numbers which are chosen more often than those randomly generated, then there must also be numbers which are chosen less often. I'm not saying that those numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6 - just that they exist. So we are left with an exercise in psychology - should you pick a sequence that seems common, because the people thinking about it will pick something else because it seems common? Or should you not pick the sequence because people will pick the sequence because they think that people thinking about it will pick something else because it seems common? Some actual data would solve this, but I imagine the lottery folks would be reluctant to release it.