What are the odds of winning the lotto twice?

Bruthal

kc66 wrote: »

A guy that lives just outside Dundalk won the lotto, he won again as part of a syndicate, and a few weeks ago he won the Monday millions.

The-Rigger wrote: »

Exactly.

Did you give him a hand?

Pace2008

Fremen wrote: »

I think it's a basic misunderstanding of the content of the law of large numbers, actually.

"From 100 coinflips, there should be about fifty heads and fifty tails. I've just seen fourty heads, so the law of large numbers says I can expect about ten more".

Anyone who uses that reasoning has just made a simple but easy-to-make mistake about conditional probability.

It's a completely understandable mistake as probability can be counterintuitive initially.

What I find less understandable is how people can reject fundamental mathematics when it's explained to them in basic terms and instead barrel on for about 100 posts inventing their own unquantifiable alternatives to probability along the way.

Iwannahurl

robbie7730 wrote: »

The actual subject has been answered, 8 million squared for 2 wins from 2 single plays. And the odds reduce as you play more times.

Except that is the answer to a question the OP didn't actually ask, IMO. In fact, since this is AH, I believe the real-world question raised has more popular appeal than any discussion of the precise chances of winning the Lotto on one or more occasions. That is part of what makes the Lotto attractive and hence a money-spinner for the State.

dougal-maguire

keane,you dont seem to want to clarify your method,but you did mention you double your bet each time you lose,and keep doing this until you win.you also said that you start betting on a number after it goes a certain number of draws without coming out (as you have a better chance of winning this way),so after how many draws do you start betting on a number?im interested because i made about 200 euro over a month or 2,but quit because it takes quite a bit of time updating spredsheets.

Iwannahurl

Fremen wrote: »

So what are your chances of making them address the actual subject twice in a row?

P=SFA?

Somehow the drip-drip of not very useful information in this long thread brings to mind this joke.

A mathematician organises a raffle in which the prize is an infinite amount of money paid over an infinite amount of time. People are so impressed by this amazing prize that the mathematician has no trouble selling a large number of tickets. He holds the draw in due course, the winning ticket is drawn, and the excited winner shows up to claim the prize. Then the mathematician explains the payout method: "One Euro now, half a Euro next week, one third the week after that..."

Bruthal

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Except that is the answer to a question the OP didn't actually ask, IMO. In fact, since this is AH, I believe the real-world question raised has more popular appeal than any discussion of the precise chances of winning the Lotto on one or more occasions. That is part of what makes the Lotto attractive and hence a money-spinner for the State.

Well the op said he heard some lucky person won it twice, and whats the odds of that. So some answer that with what the odds are, by mistake:D

Jesus Wept

robbie7730 wrote: »

Did you give him a hand?

What do you mean?

Bruthal

The-Rigger wrote: »

What do you mean?

Was just jokin about the user name.

Jesus Wept

I gettit.

Jesus Wept

Iwannahurl wrote: »

P=SFA?

Somehow the drip-drip of not very useful information in this long thread brings to mind this joke.

A mathematician organises a raffle in which the prize is an infinite amount of money paid over an infinite amount of time. People are so impressed by this amazing prize that the mathematician has no trouble selling a large number of tickets. He holds the draw in due course, the winning ticket is drawn, and the excited winner shows up to claim the prize. Then the mathematician explains the payout method: "One Euro now, half a Euro next week, one third the week after that..."

That's a joke?

Pherekydes

The-Rigger wrote: »

That's a joke?

Yes. You have to know that the series mentioned sums to infinity, otherwise it's meaningless.

Mellor

robbie7730 wrote: »

A moderator calling another poster an idiot, then changing his post to the above? Not fit for the task i would believe. Also, read the rest of the thread before you make your almighty judgements.

FYI i meant to say being an idiot, as in attacking your post, not you personally. i left out "being a" so when I edited it, I cleared it up a bit. problem?

Also, i'm not a moderator here. So "Not fit for the task" is a dumb statement. Carefull now, post idiotic statements too often, you know what happens.

Also I have read the whole thread from the start. I also posted very all on. so i haven't a clue what you refer to there.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well i believe myself it would be unlikely to see much of a trend, but i think he should go to bed earlier if he has to resort to calling posters idiots, then changing it when he realised he was really the idiot for posting it. When you call someone an idiot for a post, then you should not be moderating others. As obviously they are all below you as idiots if they post something incorrect, or something you think is incorrect.

LOL. I don't know where to start.
It is physically impossible for there to be any trend.

Go to be earlier. I'm 10,000km away, it was early evening. Your the one up late posting silly statements.

I changed it to clear up that I was commenting on your post, not you personally, generally the idea on all boards. I think now i may have been hasty in my edit.

I'm not moderating others. On this thread or forum.

The concept of martingale comes up a lot, there is nothing wrong to see the sense in it to begin with.
But the people that can't see how its wrong after its explained to them, are, in my opinion, idiots.

Ditto for trends. It is idiotic for anyone to think there might be trends in the numbers. Evryone makes mistakes, nobody's perfect etc. But if they (you keane or who ever) continue to insist their are or could be, well then they become an idiot.



Here's some UK lotto stats.
http://www.lottery.co.uk/statistics/

Notice the most frequent numbers are also the most overdue, the least frequent are also most recent. One would expect the opposite if it wasn't random. Which it is.

Also, Number 23 just went 12 weeks without being drawn, thats 23 draws.
38 has gone 20 draws with hitting

keane2097

Mellor wrote: »

.
Here's some UK lotto stats.
http://www.lottery.co.uk/statistics/

Notice the most frequent numbers are also the most overdue, the least frequent are also most recent. One would expect the opposite if it wasn't random. Which it is.

Also, Number 23 just went 12 weeks without being drawn, thats 23 draws.
38 has gone 20 draws with hitting

Exactly. Finally someone with a bit of sense who has the brains to look at what actually happens in reality and not get carried away with maths that are clearly flawed.

I haven't been betting on the UK lotto yet, but since you've done a lot of the donkey work for me there I'll be keeping an eye on the 23 and 38 balls. Thanks Mellor.

Slaanesh

Seriously!?

Pace2008

keane2097 wrote: »

Tell me, if statistics and probabilty are solved areas of mathematics, why do have people still employed in research in those areas?

Going back a bit, I know, but do you realise this is like one poster claiming "we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius" and you retorting "Oh yeah? Then why are CERN still employing physicists?"

Fart

Pace2008 wrote: »

Going back a bit, I know, but do you realise this is like one poster claiming "we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius" and you retorting "Oh yeah? Then why are CERN still employing physicists?"

The water ain't gonna boil itself.

Scanlas The 2nd

I am astonished by people's stupidity.

Trends in the lotto!!! Jesus Christ.

Do these people think the world is flat too.

Anyone who thinks there are trends in the lotto should read up on basic stats and probability or just try get some not so common common sense.

Fart

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I am astonished by people's stupidity.

Trends in the lotto!!! Jesus Christ.

Do these people think the world is flat too.

Anyone who thinks there are trends in the lotto should read up on basic stats and probability or just try get some not so common common sense.

They do "I can't believe it's not common sense" in a tub in Tesco now I think.

keane2097

Pace2008 wrote: »

Going back a bit, I know, but do you realise this is like one poster claiming "we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius" and you retorting "Oh yeah? Then why are CERN still employing physicists?"

No it isn't.

Something like the boiling point of water is easily demonstrable, i.e. the theory is clearly borne out in reality.

Reality persistently disagrees with accepted wisdom on matters to do with trends and probabilities, hence it continues to be viewed with a healthy skepticism and research in the area continues to be funded.

28064212

keane2097 wrote: »

Exactly. Finally someone with a bit of sense who has the brains to look at what actually happens in reality and not get carried away with maths that are clearly flawed.

And yet every person in the world that has ever studied basic probability disagrees with you. Every. Last. One. And no-one who has used the martingale system has ever been successful in the long run.

keane2097 wrote: »

I haven't been betting on the UK lotto yet, but since you've done a lot of the donkey work for me there I'll be keeping an eye on the 23 and 38 balls. Thanks Mellor.

If you had started betting £1 on 23 coming out after 10 draws with your Martingale system, you would be betting £8,192 on the next draw. And you would still have exactly the same mathematical odds that 23 would come out in the next draw. Although I'm sure your mythical "chance" would save you and make sure it came out in the next draw

And you realise it was the actual organisers of the UK lotto who did the donkey work? The organisers who published this data which will apparently "help you win". You don't think that there might be something a little flawed in that thinking?

Jesus Wept

28064212 wrote: »

If you had started betting £1 on 23 coming out after 10 draws with your Martingale system, you would be betting £8,192 on the next draw. And you would still have exactly the same mathematical odds that 23 would come out in the next draw. Although I'm sure your mythical "chance" would save you and make sure it came out in the next draw

£1024, no?

jdooley28

25% chance actually.. u either win it or you don't the first time so thats 50% then multiply that by 50% for the second time. i really should start pl;aying more

tommy21

After reading this thread I can confirm ... I am more confused than ever

Maybe time to close it now though, there is a lotto arguing going on.

28064212

The-Rigger wrote: »

£1024, no?

No, it's gone 23 draws without coming out, so if you started betting £1 after draw 10 (on draw 11) and kept doubling, the bet on draw 24 would be £8,192

Jesus Wept

Ah I get it. I thought you meant the first 11 draws.
It would probably come out before that anyhow.

28064212

The-Rigger wrote: »

It would probably come out before that anyhow.

At least, I hope that's worthy of a , and not a :rolleyes:

Jesus Wept

There are 7 chances for it to come out in every single draw, The odds of it not showing for 13+ are pretty long. Play the odds.

keane2097

28064212 wrote: »

And yet every person in the world that has ever studied basic probability disagrees with you. Every. Last. One.

What an absurd statement.

Have you asked them all?

No wonder nobody takes you srsly, you just tell lies when you can't prove your point properly, you're a joke.

Fart

You have to call the machines bluff. It'll usually throw down after a re-raise, thus you getting your 2 euro back.

clived2

That is some mighty fine trolling keane2097.

Bruthal

Mellor wrote: »

FYI i meant to say being an idiot, as in attacking your post, not you personally. i left out "being a" so when I edited it, I cleared it up a bit. problem?

No problem, as i said in later post, so relax there.

Also, i'm not a moderator here. So "Not fit for the task" is a dumb statement. Carefull now, post idiotic statements too often, you know what happens.

Different rules for different forums so?

I also posted very all on. so i haven't a clue what you refer to there.

I cant really understand this sentence, too hasty again? Not reading as you go?

LOL. I don't know where to start.
It is physically impossible for there to be any trend.

Well yet again if you read my posts, did it sound like i was agreeing with the poster that said they can work out trends? Yes or no?

Go to be earlier. I'm 10,000km away, it was early evening. Your the one up late posting silly statements.

Careful now you sir

I changed it to clear up that I was commenting on your post, not you personally, generally the idea on all boards. I think now i may have been hasty in my edit.

No you changed it because you thought i was an idiot based in a single post you read, then realised you better not say that, as this forum has rules too.

If you can not read your own post before pressing the post button, then its hard to believe you read the whole thread before posting your "hasty" comment, then correcting it.

Originally posted by Mellor
If you think that would be interesting, that there might be a trend. Then you sir, are an idiot.
The same balls, machines, etc etc make no difference. There are unrelated events, there is no way there can be a trend. There will be patterns of course, such a number coming out every 3rd week for a period.
Don't confuse randomness with trends and predictions.

And your edited repost. Now if you meant to put in "being an idot" like you refer to in first quote above, you did not do a great job, as now i need my head checked according to this.

Originally posted by Mellor
If you think that would be interesting, that there might be a trend. Then you sir, need your head checked.
The same balls, machines, etc etc make no difference. There are unrelated events, there is no way there can be a trend. There will be patterns of course, such a number coming out every 3rd week for a period.
Don't confuse randomness with trends and predictions

Its obvious you did not read the whole thread, as if you did, you would see where i stand on the randomness thing. You simply seen one post, and said i was an idiot.

I'm not moderating others. On this thread or forum.

Well i seen plenty banned for less than calling someone an idiot. But i guess the rules on your forum are different than here. Funny its construction you mod, plenty of tools used in that sector.

The concept of martingale comes up a lot, there is nothing wrong to see the sense in it to begin with.
But the people that can't see how its wrong after its explained to them, are, in my opinion, idiots.

Read my posts, what do i need explained, do i need to quote my own posts, or is it you that can not get past a single post?? Slow down, dont be so hasty.

Ditto for trends. It is idiotic for anyone to think there might be trends in the numbers. Evryone makes mistakes, nobody's perfect etc. But if they (you keane or who ever) continue to insist their are or could be, well then they become an idiot.

What have i insisted on? Im waiting o great sir.


And finaly, im just having a laugh here, as most likely i am an idiot, or need my head checked:D, so to quote again and fyp

you sir, are an idiot have a good day.

Bruthal

I`ve changed my mind, i think keane2097 is dead right:D:D

keane2097

clived2 wrote: »

That is some mighty fine trolling keane2097.

I'm a Martingale enthusiast.

28064212

The-Rigger wrote: »

There are 7 chances for it to come out in every single draw, The odds of it not showing for 13+ are pretty long. Play the odds.

The odds of a ball coming out are 1 in 7 (in the irish lotto). In a 50:50 game, across 150 turns, there is a 70.7% chance that you will lose 6 times in a row (from wiki). That's a coin toss, which is much better odds than a 1 in 7 chance.

And in the UK lotto, the number 23 hasn't come out in 23 draws. I didn't make that situation up as a hypothetical

keane2097 wrote: »

What an absurd statement.

Have you asked them all?

No wonder nobody takes you srsly, you just tell lies when you can't prove your point properly, you're a joke.

Lol, back to this again are we? Please tell me, what part of "a theorem is a statement that has been proven" is a lie? Please tell me how the proof of the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" is any different to the proof for the optional stopping theorem?

And no surprise, but once again, you failed to answer a simple question.

True or false: The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 10 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 10 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 10 single events

And while you're at it, I don't suppose you could give your definition of "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance"? Something else you've been asked for multiple times and failed to respond to

keane2097

28064212 wrote: »

The odds of a ball coming out are 1 in 7 (in the irish lotto). In a 50:50 game, across 150 turns, there is a 70.7% chance that you will lose 6 times in a row (from wiki). That's a coin toss, which is much better odds than a 1 in 7 chance.

And in the UK lotto, the number 23 hasn't come out in 23 draws. I didn't make that situation up as a hypothetical


Lol, back to this again are we? Please tell me, what part of "a theorem is a statement that has been proven" is a lie? Please tell me how the proof of the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" is any different to the proof for the optional stopping theorem?

And no surprise, but once again, you failed to answer a simple question.


And while you're at it, I don't suppose you could give your definition of "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance"? Something else you've been asked for multiple times and failed to respond to

I've just checked and every mathematician in the world agrees with every gambler in the world that I already checked with yesterday - they all think you're not worth the time it takes to reply to.

Jesus Wept

I'm going to start playing

28
06
42
12

And we will see how long it takes them to come out.

like your name. I bet none of them will take 23 draws to come out.

28064212

keane2097 wrote: »

I've just checked and every mathematician in the world agrees with every gambler in the world that I already checked with yesterday - they all think you're not worth the time it takes to reply to.

Lol, you still won't answer the absolute central tenets of your system. Very well, I retract my line about "every person in the world that has ever studied basic probability". Now will you answer the four very simple questions that I posed in my previous post?

1. What part of "a theorem is a statement that has been proven" is a lie?
2. How is the proof of the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" any different to the proof for the optional stopping theorem?
3. The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 10 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 10 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 10 single events. True or false?
4. Can you give your definition of "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance"?

Bruthal

True or false: The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 10 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 10 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 10 single events

Well i will have a go at this one.

Every subsequent draw has the same chance of 4 coming out, regardless of it not coming out in previous draws. What an observer will be thinking is,,"it must come out soon".

But the reality is, for it to come out soon requires more draws. And the more draws, the more likely it will be out in one of them. But each draw has the same chance of it coming out, and what it did on the previous 9, or 50 or 1000 draws has no bearing on the current draw.

So its true in my opinion.

Pace2008

keane2097 wrote: »

No it isn't.

Something like the boiling point of water is easily demonstrable, i.e. the theory is clearly borne out in reality.

Reality persistently disagrees with accepted wisdom on matters to do with trends and probabilities, hence it continues to be viewed with a healthy skepticism and research in the area continues to be funded.

Please point me towards the continuing funded research into calculating the lotto odds on any given week. And while you're at it, could you show me some projects that attempt to improve our understanding of "chance" and "likelihood" as observable phenomena that differ from probability?

Jake Rugby Walrus666

28064212, in the Non Mathematical Realm nobody has to answer your questions. Nobody has to even read your stupid questions. So don't even bother...

keane2097

28064212 wrote: »

Lol, you still won't answer the absolute central tenets of your system. Very well, I retract my line about "every person in the world that has ever studied basic probability".

You really ought to apologise. You have some neck.

1. What part of "a theorem is a statement that has been proven" is a lie?
   
   It's an incomplete definition. A deliberate misrepresentation in fact, since you went as far as Wikipedia to find it, then knowingly omitted the part of the sentence which didn't look good for your point.
   
   Do you deny doing this?
   
   
2. How is the proof of the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" any different to the proof for the optional stopping theorem?
   
   Because the proof to the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" is demonstrably correct. I can give you two apples, then give you another two, and you will have four apples, i.e. reality clearly agrees with the theorem.
   
   This is not the case for the second theorem, where results in reality do not tally with the expected results.
   
   You have done absolutely nothing to convince me of the validity of this theorem. Your argument seems to be "if 2+2=4 then the optional stopping theorem must be correct".
   
   This is a much lampooned notion known as "the Chewbacca Defence".
   
   It's actually pretty embarrassing for a guy attempting to use mathematics to be condescending to end up on such ridiculous ground.
   
   
3. The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 10 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 10 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 10 single events. True or false?
   
   Over a series as small as ten events it's probably correct.
   
   
4. Can you give your definition of "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance"?
   
   I've already done this repeatedly. If you hadn't been frothing at the mouth in some feeble attempt to look intelligent on the internet you probably would have seen it.

Pace2008

keane2097 wrote: »

I've already done this repeatedly. If you hadn't been frothing at the mouth in some feeble attempt to look intelligent on the internet you probably would have seen it.

All I've seen you say its that chance and likelihood are outside the realm of mathematics and therefore unquantifiable.

But if personal observation (which is a horrible way for humans to determine the workings of the natural world given our well-documented cognitive shortcomings in the area) repeatedly shows that chance differs from probabilty, surely we should be able to extrapolate at least some sort of pattern from said observations?

keane2097

Pace2008 wrote: »

All I've seen you say its that chance and likelihood are outside the realm of mathematics and therefore unquantifiable.

But if personal observation (which is a horrible way for humans to determine the workings of the natural world given our well-documented cognitive shortcomings in the area) repeatedly shows that chance differs from probabilty, surely we should be able to extrapolate at least some sort of pattern from said observations?

I guess "unquantifiable" is not the correct word.

Just because you or I haven't managed to quantify something in mathematical theory doesn't mean it's impossible.

I actually haven't postulated any new mathematical theorems personally, I wager a shiny new penny nobody who's posted in this thread has either.

this is arse

is it not twice the odds of winning it once?

28064212

Ah finally, some "answers", such as they are

keane2097 wrote: »

1. What part of "a theorem is a statement that has been proven" is a lie?

It's an incomplete definition. A deliberate misrepresentation in fact, since you went as far as Wikipedia to find it, then knowingly omitted the part of the sentence which didn't look good for your point.

Do you deny doing this?

2 + 2 = 4: Is that an "incomplete definition" because I haven't defined the Peano axioms, 2, 4, the addition sign, and the equals sign? And once again, you realise I actually linked to the wiki page?

keane2097 wrote: »

2. How is the proof of the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" any different to the proof for the optional stopping theorem?[/U]

Because the proof to the theorem "2 + 2 = 4" is demonstrably correct. I can give you two apples, then give you another two, and you will have four apples, i.e. reality clearly agrees with the theorem.

This is not the case for the second theorem, where results in reality do not tally with the expected results.

You have done absolutely nothing to convince me of the validity of this theorem. Your argument seems to be "if 2+2=4 then the optional stopping theorem must be correct".

Wrong. I'm asking you how the principles regarding the mathematical proof that 2 + 2 = 4 are any more valid than the mathematical proof of the optional stopping theorem.

Incidentally, the proof that 2 + 2 = 4 all the way back to the fundamental axioms includes 2,452 subtheorems.

keane2097 wrote: »

This is a much lampooned notion known as "the Chewbacca Defence".

Nope, you just completely failed to understand the point

keane2097 wrote: »

It's actually pretty embarrassing for a guy attempting to use mathematics to be condescending to end up on such ridiculous ground.

You're here defending the martingale system.

keane2097 wrote: »

3. The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 10 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 10 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 10 single events. True or false?

Over a series as small as ten events it's probably correct.

Oh god. Fine, change "10 draws" to "1,000 draws" if it makes you any happier:
The mathematical odds that 4 comes out in the next 1,000 draws are exactly equal to any other number, regardless of how long its been since 4 last came out. The odds do not change at any point along those 1,000 draws regardless of whether you take it as 1 series of events or 1,000 single events. True or false?

keane2097 wrote: »

4. Can you give your definition of "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance"?

I've already done this repeatedly. If you hadn't been frothing at the mouth in some feeble attempt to look intelligent on the internet you probably would have seen it.

Where? Provide a link to your post where you defined "non-mathematical possibility", "likelihood" or "chance". Statements such as "the realm of chance" or "defined as non-mathematical" don't count

keane2097

You seem to be trying to argue that 2+2=4 is not a valid theorem now.

This is an unexpectedly bizarre standpoint for you to adopt.

I'm seriously starting to think you're just trolling now?

28064212

keane2097 wrote: »

You seem to be trying to argue that 2+2=4 is not a valid theorem now.

This is an unexpectedly bizarre standpoint for you to adopt.

I'm seriously starting to think you're just trolling now?

Lolwut? Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?

keane2097

28064212 wrote: »

Lolwut? Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?

You're suggesting that 2+2=4 is invalid because your axioms haven't been proven.

This is a joke.

I'm bored of you.

Pace2008

keane2097 wrote: »

I guess "unquantifiable" is not the correct word.

Just because you or I haven't managed to quantify something in mathematical theory doesn't mean it's impossible.

So you haven't given any definition for chance and likelihood. Just that they're "different" to probability.

Pace2008

keane2097 wrote: »

You're suggesting that 2+2=4 is invalid because your axioms haven't been proven.

This is a joke.

I'm bored of you.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy