43 ms·

This isn't the first time someone has been able to turn lottery odds in their favor. A woman named Joan Ginther, who has a PhD in Statistics from Stanford, won

This isn't the first time someone has been able to turn lottery odds in their favor. A woman named Joan Ginther, who has a PhD in Statistics from Stanford, won more than $15 million from a Texas lottery scratch card based game [1]. Though she has never spoken and exactly how she did it remains a mystery, her odds of winning the number of times she did as a random buyer of scratch cards were 1 in 18 septillion and should occur approximately once every quadrillion years. Here's another case, where a geologist named Mohan Srivastava cracked several different lottery scratch ticket games [2]. He warned lottery officials, who did....nothing. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kiriblakeley/2011/07/21/meet-the-luckiest-woman-in-the-world/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kiriblakeley/2011/07/21/meet-the... [2] http://www.wired.com/2011/01/ff_lottery/ http://www.wired.com/2011/01/ff_lottery/

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mcv 11y ago
Voltaire is also famous for making quite a lot of money gaming the lottery: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/05/how-voiltaire-made-a-fortune-rigging-the-lottery/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/05/how-voiltair... Though the actual scheme was hatched by Charles Marie de la Condamine, rather than Voltaire. But Voltaire is the one who got the most fame (and possibly money) out of it.
- billpg 11y ago
  Next you'll be telling me he didn't really say that thing about defending my right to say things.
  - niuzeta 11y ago
    I'm absolutely sure you are aware of it, and is making a sarcastic account of the misattribution. But just to spread the 'correct' knowledge - the quote, while attributed to Voltaire, as it fits his style so succinctly well, is not actually said by him. It was a quote from 'The Friends of Voltaire', and misrepresented him.
    - simlevesque 11y ago
      Also, the quote is not "until death" but "until the end of the dinner".
  - towelguy 11y ago
    I disapprove of your lottery algorithms, but I will defend to the death your right to sell them to me.
rthomas6 11y ago
After reading the wired article, what's to stop people who work at the ticket printing companies from using their inside knowledge to exploit flaws?
- hedwall 11y ago
  Most likely are they prohibited from buying lottery tickets from the company that they work for. Just like we where prohibited from gambling on the online gambling site i worked for a couple of years ago.
  - nsajko 11y ago
    If that were the only restriction the ticket companies could just sell the info.
  - braythwayt 11y ago
    I don't know what the story is today, but some years ago I worked in the same office tower as the Ontario Gaming Corporation, and I had a nodding acquaintance with some of their systems people. They told me that employees were allowed to purchase tickets. The theory was, if employees can't be trusted to buy tickets, there must be a flaw in the system. And if there's a flaw in the system, then it will be exploited whether you prohibit employees form directly purchasing tickets or not. That obviously does not map directly to the employees of companies that print scratch-and-win tickets, of course.
- thefreeman 11y ago
  Probably a combination of severe oversight, compartmentalization, and a few "examples" being set early on.
- avn2109 11y ago
  Good point. If you read the Harper's article [0] about the Joan Ginther, the "luckiest woman on earth" mentioned in this thread's top comment, she seems to have gamed the system basically by having an inside man or two (while also being good at math). [0] http://harpers.org/archive/2011/08/the-luckiest-woman-on-earth/ http://harpers.org/archive/2011/08/the-luckiest-woman-on-ear...
j2kun 11y ago
As long as people continue to buy tickets, why should lottery officials care? The ticket sales go into a pool after the organizers Tae a cut, and then goes back to the winners.
- bweitzman 11y ago
  Well I think the point is that it's not a sustainable system. If everybody were exploiting this loophole, it wouldn't be effective as a loophole anymore, meaning that people would stop buying tickets. Of course, not everybody can exploit the loophole, only people with at least $100k to invest in the endeavor. So this means that the government is giving an unfair advantage, in a game that is supposed to be random chance, to the wealthy. As soon as those who can't take advantage of the lottery figure this out, they stop playing. This means the loophole stops being effective and the rich drop out too.
  - x0054 11y ago
    From what I understand about the system, the article is incorrect. You don't NEED to invest $100k to get a return. Investing $1,000, for instance, will also have the same probability of providing you proportionately equivalent return.
    - bweitzman 11y ago
      Well there must be some minimum, otherwise we would have seen everybody who played on the right day win, right?
    - notahacker 11y ago
      Spending lesser amounts means a higher volatility of returns. The expected return on a $1000 bet might be the same, but your chances of actually equalling (or bettering) that ROI are much lower than if you bet $100k, especially if the the prize money is concentrated at the top end. The Boston Globe article implies that the MIT syndicates bought so many tickets they actually affected the distribution of the prizes in their favour http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/07/31/inspector_general_says_lottery_allowed_gambling_syndicates_to_take_over_winfall_game/?page=2 http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012... Not to mention that having even just $1000 of free cash to "invest" in a positive sum gamble already puts you in a higher income/wealth bracket than most lotteries' most loyal players.
__z 11y ago
Marjorie and Gerald Selbee also figured out this flaw in the Cash Winfall game, presumably independently of the MIT team. Somehow they managed to buy $600,000 worth of lottery tickets over a three-day period by themselves. That's a lot of time at the ticket kiosk... http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/01/elderly-couple-cheats-lottery-win-millions/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/01/elderly-couple-che... That article also gave more information on the lottery's stance on the matter: But Paul Sternburg, the lottery’s executive director, believes they have no reason to apologize or even change the lottery's procedures -- pointing to $11.8 million in profits in 2011. "It’s a niche game for a different audience," he told the Boston Globe. "You want to bring in as many players as possible. Some people chase a huge jackpot. Others are looking at odds."
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
I read an article about one of these characters, not sure if its either of your examples, but the gist of it was that there was some semi-obvious hacks at work here. One lottery would ship the winning tickets roll to one zipcode. Apparntly, they printed out the winning tickets and just queued it up via whatever delivery service they use, which turned out to be deterministic. No one ever coded in randomness in regards to store delivery. Someone figured this out by noticing the same few stores produced all the winners. He then went and bought a whole bunch of tickets from those stores when a new scratch-off game appeared and won against significant odds. Or at least that's the story he presents, which is questionable as scratch winners aren't usually publicly reported. Some think he had inside information from a friend or relative in the Lottery commission who told him about that lack of randomness in delivery.
jessaustin 11y ago
Though she has never spoken and exactly how she did it remains a mystery... The Philadelphia Inquirer figured it out: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Lotterys_luckiest_woman_Joan_Ginther_bet_flabbergasting_sums_on_scratch-offs.html http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Lotterys_luck... TL;DR scratch tickets aren't random, rather they are intentionally spaced out. The Texas lottery releases spacing info to the public. Once you have a regular lottery annuity (the first one was luck) you can spend vast sums on lottery tickets and write off your losses, so the public subsidizes your lottery purchases.
- downandout 11y ago
  I saw that article and didn't link to it because it was rife with ridiculous statements and mathematically dubious speculation. They certainly didn't "figure it out". One particular gem: they said that a game returning 66.9% of the money spent on it has a "remarkable" return - that's a loss of 33.1 cents on every dollar and would quickly render anyone playing it without a mathematical advantage bankrupt. They also suggested that such a return reduced variance in the game, apparently not understanding that this return includes the top, multi-million dollar prizes. They confused hit frequency with the return of the game. The tax incentive thing is also ridiculous. While it is true that one may deduct their losses up to the amount of their taxable winnings, if she were playing without an advantage, she would still lose and this offered no help on beating odds of 1 in 18 septillion. Finally, they could have handed her tickets for free all day and she should have only hit what she did every quadrillion years. There are literally not enough raw materials available on our planet to produce the 18 septillion tickets that should have been necessary to hit what she did - even if mankind devoted all of its resources to the project. The best speculative theory is that she was able to deduce an approximation of the algorithm used to distribute the tickets, but again that is only speculation. She clearly figured something out; to say that this article nailed it, however, is a serious misstatement.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    There are literally not enough raw materials available on our planet to produce the 18 septillion tickets that should have been necessary to hit what she did - even if mankind devoted all of its resources to the project. This is a dubious statement, but if you believe it, don't you think it calls into question some of the "odds" that have been bandied about with no support?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mcv 11y ago

Voltaire is also famous for making quite a lot of money gaming the lottery: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/05/how-voiltaire-made-a-fortune-rigging-the-lottery/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/05/how-voiltair... Though the actual scheme was hatched by Charles Marie de la Condamine, rather than Voltaire. But Voltaire is the one who got the most fame (and possibly money) out of it.

billpg 11y ago
Next you'll be telling me he didn't really say that thing about defending my right to say things.
- niuzeta 11y ago
  I'm absolutely sure you are aware of it, and is making a sarcastic account of the misattribution. But just to spread the 'correct' knowledge - the quote, while attributed to Voltaire, as it fits his style so succinctly well, is not actually said by him. It was a quote from 'The Friends of Voltaire', and misrepresented him.
  - simlevesque 11y ago
    Also, the quote is not "until death" but "until the end of the dinner".
- towelguy 11y ago
  I disapprove of your lottery algorithms, but I will defend to the death your right to sell them to me.

rthomas6 11y ago

After reading the wired article, what's to stop people who work at the ticket printing companies from using their inside knowledge to exploit flaws?

hedwall 11y ago
Most likely are they prohibited from buying lottery tickets from the company that they work for. Just like we where prohibited from gambling on the online gambling site i worked for a couple of years ago.
- nsajko 11y ago
  If that were the only restriction the ticket companies could just sell the info.
- braythwayt 11y ago
  I don't know what the story is today, but some years ago I worked in the same office tower as the Ontario Gaming Corporation, and I had a nodding acquaintance with some of their systems people. They told me that employees were allowed to purchase tickets. The theory was, if employees can't be trusted to buy tickets, there must be a flaw in the system. And if there's a flaw in the system, then it will be exploited whether you prohibit employees form directly purchasing tickets or not. That obviously does not map directly to the employees of companies that print scratch-and-win tickets, of course.
thefreeman 11y ago
Probably a combination of severe oversight, compartmentalization, and a few "examples" being set early on.
avn2109 11y ago
Good point. If you read the Harper's article [0] about the Joan Ginther, the "luckiest woman on earth" mentioned in this thread's top comment, she seems to have gamed the system basically by having an inside man or two (while also being good at math). [0] http://harpers.org/archive/2011/08/the-luckiest-woman-on-earth/ http://harpers.org/archive/2011/08/the-luckiest-woman-on-ear...

j2kun 11y ago

As long as people continue to buy tickets, why should lottery officials care? The ticket sales go into a pool after the organizers Tae a cut, and then goes back to the winners.

bweitzman 11y ago
Well I think the point is that it's not a sustainable system. If everybody were exploiting this loophole, it wouldn't be effective as a loophole anymore, meaning that people would stop buying tickets. Of course, not everybody can exploit the loophole, only people with at least $100k to invest in the endeavor. So this means that the government is giving an unfair advantage, in a game that is supposed to be random chance, to the wealthy. As soon as those who can't take advantage of the lottery figure this out, they stop playing. This means the loophole stops being effective and the rich drop out too.
- x0054 11y ago
  From what I understand about the system, the article is incorrect. You don't NEED to invest $100k to get a return. Investing $1,000, for instance, will also have the same probability of providing you proportionately equivalent return.
  - bweitzman 11y ago
    Well there must be some minimum, otherwise we would have seen everybody who played on the right day win, right?
  - notahacker 11y ago
    Spending lesser amounts means a higher volatility of returns. The expected return on a $1000 bet might be the same, but your chances of actually equalling (or bettering) that ROI are much lower than if you bet $100k, especially if the the prize money is concentrated at the top end. The Boston Globe article implies that the MIT syndicates bought so many tickets they actually affected the distribution of the prizes in their favour http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/07/31/inspector_general_says_lottery_allowed_gambling_syndicates_to_take_over_winfall_game/?page=2 http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012... Not to mention that having even just $1000 of free cash to "invest" in a positive sum gamble already puts you in a higher income/wealth bracket than most lotteries' most loyal players.

__z 11y ago

Marjorie and Gerald Selbee also figured out this flaw in the Cash Winfall game, presumably independently of the MIT team. Somehow they managed to buy $600,000 worth of lottery tickets over a three-day period by themselves. That's a lot of time at the ticket kiosk... http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/01/elderly-couple-cheats-lottery-win-millions/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/01/elderly-couple-che... That article also gave more information on the lottery's stance on the matter: But Paul Sternburg, the lottery’s executive director, believes they have no reason to apologize or even change the lottery's procedures -- pointing to $11.8 million in profits in 2011. "It’s a niche game for a different audience," he told the Boston Globe. "You want to bring in as many players as possible. Some people chase a huge jackpot. Others are looking at odds."

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

I read an article about one of these characters, not sure if its either of your examples, but the gist of it was that there was some semi-obvious hacks at work here. One lottery would ship the winning tickets roll to one zipcode. Apparntly, they printed out the winning tickets and just queued it up via whatever delivery service they use, which turned out to be deterministic. No one ever coded in randomness in regards to store delivery. Someone figured this out by noticing the same few stores produced all the winners. He then went and bought a whole bunch of tickets from those stores when a new scratch-off game appeared and won against significant odds. Or at least that's the story he presents, which is questionable as scratch winners aren't usually publicly reported. Some think he had inside information from a friend or relative in the Lottery commission who told him about that lack of randomness in delivery.

jessaustin 11y ago

Though she has never spoken and exactly how she did it remains a mystery... The Philadelphia Inquirer figured it out: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Lotterys_luckiest_woman_Joan_Ginther_bet_flabbergasting_sums_on_scratch-offs.html http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Lotterys_luck... TL;DR scratch tickets aren't random, rather they are intentionally spaced out. The Texas lottery releases spacing info to the public. Once you have a regular lottery annuity (the first one was luck) you can spend vast sums on lottery tickets and write off your losses, so the public subsidizes your lottery purchases.

downandout 11y ago
I saw that article and didn't link to it because it was rife with ridiculous statements and mathematically dubious speculation. They certainly didn't "figure it out". One particular gem: they said that a game returning 66.9% of the money spent on it has a "remarkable" return - that's a loss of 33.1 cents on every dollar and would quickly render anyone playing it without a mathematical advantage bankrupt. They also suggested that such a return reduced variance in the game, apparently not understanding that this return includes the top, multi-million dollar prizes. They confused hit frequency with the return of the game. The tax incentive thing is also ridiculous. While it is true that one may deduct their losses up to the amount of their taxable winnings, if she were playing without an advantage, she would still lose and this offered no help on beating odds of 1 in 18 septillion. Finally, they could have handed her tickets for free all day and she should have only hit what she did every quadrillion years. There are literally not enough raw materials available on our planet to produce the 18 septillion tickets that should have been necessary to hit what she did - even if mankind devoted all of its resources to the project. The best speculative theory is that she was able to deduce an approximation of the algorithm used to distribute the tickets, but again that is only speculation. She clearly figured something out; to say that this article nailed it, however, is a serious misstatement.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  There are literally not enough raw materials available on our planet to produce the 18 septillion tickets that should have been necessary to hit what she did - even if mankind devoted all of its resources to the project. This is a dubious statement, but if you believe it, don't you think it calls into question some of the "odds" that have been bandied about with no support?