4 ms·

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 edg

by 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 Fuzzwah 13y ago

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.