Dominion Strategy Forum
Miscellaneous => General Discussion => Topic started by: GendoIkari on January 09, 2016, 04:56:44 pm
-
Just read this in an article about the lotto:
Scott A. Norris, an assistant professor of mathematics at Southern Methodist University, said there's no trick to playing the lottery, but your tiny odds of winning are a bit better if you let the computer pick rather than choosing yourself. That's because when people use birthdates or other favorite figures, they generally choose numbers 31 or below. That ignores the fact that there are 69 numbered balls.
Um, this is completely wrong, isn't it? The odds of the numbers coming up "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" are exactly the same as the odds of the numbers coming up "4, 24, 43, 50, 55". Or whatever.
-
Just read this in an article about the lotto:
Scott A. Norris, an assistant professor of mathematics at Southern Methodist University, said there's no trick to playing the lottery, but your tiny odds of winning are a bit better if you let the computer pick rather than choosing yourself. That's because when people use birthdates or other favorite figures, they generally choose numbers 31 or below. That ignores the fact that there are 69 numbered balls.
Um, this is completely wrong, isn't it? The odds of the numbers coming up "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" are exactly the same as the odds of the numbers coming up "4, 24, 43, 50, 55". Or whatever.
It could be a miscommunication between the dude and the article-writer. Your odds of winning are the same however you pick your numbers, if the specific system isn't biased in some way that would have to be explained. But you can in fact increase your expected earnings by picking numbers other people aren't picking, because the prize gets split. Which does not favor picking randomly, it favors specifically trying to pick those unpicked numbers. I will just tell you now, for 6/49 lotteries you want some mix of 10, 20, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49.
It's not hard to get positive expectation; the tricky part is how long it takes to pay off. The lottery itself won't be around long enough; the country hosting it won't be around long enough.
-
Just read this in an article about the lotto:
Scott A. Norris, an assistant professor of mathematics at Southern Methodist University, said there's no trick to playing the lottery, but your tiny odds of winning are a bit better if you let the computer pick rather than choosing yourself. That's because when people use birthdates or other favorite figures, they generally choose numbers 31 or below. That ignores the fact that there are 69 numbered balls.
Um, this is completely wrong, isn't it? The odds of the numbers coming up "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" are exactly the same as the odds of the numbers coming up "4, 24, 43, 50, 55". Or whatever.
It could be a miscommunication between the dude and the article-writer. Your odds of winning are the same however you pick your numbers, if the specific system isn't biased in some way that would have to be explained. But you can in fact increase your expected earnings by picking numbers other people aren't picking, because the prize gets split. Which does not favor picking randomly, it favors specifically trying to pick those unpicked numbers. I will just tell you now, for 6/49 lotteries you want some mix of 10, 20, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49.
It's not hard to get positive expectation; the tricky part is how long it takes to pay off. The lottery itself won't be around long enough; the country hosting it won't be around long enough.
Ah right! I had previously known about the "avoid numbers others are picking", but had forgotten. And the article didn't explain that part.
-
Just pick 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 & 42.
Be wary of inbound meteorites.
-
Just pick 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 & 42.
Be wary of inbound meteorites.
You lost me with that joke.
-
It's not hard to get positive expectation; the tricky part is how long it takes to pay off. The lottery itself won't be around long enough; the country hosting it won't be around long enough.
More importantly, you also need infinite captial to be able to stick to your strategy, which makes winning a finite amount a bit of an edge case...
-
It's not hard to get positive expectation; the tricky part is how long it takes to pay off. The lottery itself won't be around long enough; the country hosting it won't be around long enough.
More importantly, you also need infinite captial to be able to stick to your strategy, which makes winning a finite amount a bit of an edge case...
Well, presumably you have a steady income throughout the infinite time you'll need. I can't see this being an issue.
-
It's not hard to get positive expectation; the tricky part is how long it takes to pay off. The lottery itself won't be around long enough; the country hosting it won't be around long enough.
More importantly, you also need infinite captial to be able to stick to your strategy, which makes winning a finite amount a bit of an edge case...
Well, presumably you have a steady income throughout the infinite time you'll need. I can't see this being an issue.
True. So let's do it!
-
If we finally figure out how to live forever, the lottery will be deprecated because we'll have infinite time.
Of course, infinite longevity for all requires a post-scarcity society, which also deprecated lotteries.
-
New math trolling around Facebook.
Lottery $1.3 Billion
Population 300 Million
= $4.33 Million per person!
...
I'm thinking they messed up some mundane detail.
-
New math trolling around Facebook.
Lottery $1.3 Billion
Population 300 Million
= $4.33 Million per person!
...
I'm thinking they messed up some mundane detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales probably.
-
Yeah, but does anyone use that definition anymore? I've only seen it used to explain the origin of the word.
-
Yeah, but does anyone use that definition anymore? I've only seen it used to explain the origin of the word.
There are countries that do, so might be translation error
-
Yeah, but does anyone use that definition anymore? I've only seen it used to explain the origin of the word.
There are countries that do, so might be translation error
Perhaps, but I can't imagine any intelligent person in Britain/Australia believing that a lottery would actually give away a trillion (10^12) dollars.
-
Yeah, but does anyone use that definition anymore? I've only seen it used to explain the origin of the word.
There are countries that do, so might be translation error
Perhaps, but I can't imagine any intelligent person in Britain/Australia believing that a lottery would actually give away a trillion (10^12) dollars.
Now i want a Doctor Who episode with an intergalactic lottery.
-
Despite the whole arithmetic thing, I have to wonder where they think that influx of cash into the lottery comes from such that it could be the case that <total winnings>/<population size> is on the order of millions. Do they think there is, like, a few billionaires investing millions in it?
-
I hadn't considered the difference in scale, but the Lotto is an American thing, right? While I suppose someone could mean 1.3 * 10^12 dollars, I have my doubts that an American would be using that definition. Unless he set the whole thing up as a joke.
I'm going to go instead with the notion that the average person can't work math in unfamiliar units/notation.
I present this oldie as Exhibit A:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9LZ3ojnxY
-
Yeah, but does anyone use that definition anymore? I've only seen it used to explain the origin of the word.
There are countries that do, so might be translation error
As a mathematician, I do.
Confused people a lot when you tell them the world population is 7,000 million for example.
-
But there is no definition of million where this isn't true?
-
As far as I know, there is not.
There are several definitions of a million billions, though.
-
As far as I know, there is not.
There are several definitions of a million billions, though.
There isn't, but no-one realises that 7,000 million is the same as what most people call 7 billion.
-
New math trolling around Facebook.
Lottery $1.3 Billion
Population 300 Million
= $4.33 Million per person!
...
I'm thinking they messed up some mundane detail.
Could this be that detail?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales
-
New math trolling around Facebook.
Lottery $1.3 Billion
Population 300 Million
= $4.33 Million per person!
...
I'm thinking they messed up some mundane detail.
Could this be that detail?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales
Specific reference goes to:
https://youtu.be/qLk81XnkGUM
-
Office Spaces has so many memorable quotes and scratches so many itches.
PC Load Letter? What the f* does that mean?
-
Yeah, but does anyone use that definition anymore? I've only seen it used to explain the origin of the word.
There are countries that do, so might be translation error
As a mathematician, I do.
Confused people a lot when you tell them the world population is 7,000 million for example.
I believe you mean the world population is 7 milliard.
-
Or as my kid likes to count: 1 million trillion infinity which is obviously > 1 infinity.
In the Netherlands, we only have long scale as we use the ending -ard for in between terms.
1 miljoen
1 miljard
1 biljoen
1 biljard
etc...
But the world population is obviously 7 gigapersons, 7 Gp for short.
-
Or as my kid likes to count: 1 million trillion infinity which is obviously > 1 infinity.
You might want to take them to a trip to the Hilbert Hotel.