Game of chance question

[leon]

Hi to All,

I like to have a ticket in Tattslotto on Saturday nights, and although I only play a small number of games I keep the same numbers.

Some of my numbers are random and some are consecutive, like one to six, or thirteen to eighteen and so on.

The question is this : due to tattslotto being a game of chance, is the probability of getting six consecutive numbers equal to getting six random numbers. :shrug:

Or would the odds of getting six random numbers be more probable than getting six consecutive numbers. :shrug:

I have always pondered over this, and if I follow what I was taught in maths, about the laws of probability, there should be equal chance either way I play the game, or should there be. :question:

What are your thoughts on this please :)

Leon :thumbsup:

[pfitzgerald]

What you were taught in maths is correct Leon - the probabilities are the same - they just don't look it!

Paul

PS Remember to gamble responsibly! :thumbsup:

[gary]

Hi Leon,

Indeed, the chance of getting six consecutive numbers is equal to getting
six non-consecutive random numbers.

Imagine rather than having to pick numbers you had to pick tokens such
as animals. For example, "lion", "cow", "horse", "rabbit", "snake", "frog" and
so on.

Since there is no order to animals, for example, a "cow" is not logically
consecutive to any other animal, then the illusion of six consecutive
animals being picked does not exist and is the same as six random
animals.

[xelasnave]

The probablity is you wont win. :D
Alex

[rally]

Gary,

This is Lotto not Scratchies ;)

[deanm]

The odds of winning are so remote, your chances of scoring big time are (statistically) only slightly increased by the purchase of a ticket...!

Dean

[AussieTrooper]

The probability is the same, but due to there likely being a higher number of people with those numbers, the expected return is even worse than usual.

[leon]

Thanks Guys, You are probably right, I probably wont win, :lol: but someone dose each week. :shrug:

Leon :thumbsup:

[bugeater]

I remember many years ago the lotto numbers were the same as numbering down a column on the lotto form. Lots of people won, but not very much each. It's also a reason why choosing numbers from 1 to 31 is a less than optimal approach, as lots of people use birthdays in the numbers. While the probability of your numbers winning isn't any different, the likely payout is lower.

[AussieTrooper]

Mate, the best approach is to stay out of it, and let those who do play, voluntarily pay more than their fair share of taxes. By doing this you are a guaranteed winner because you benefit from what they lost.

[MarkMas]

The most important thing by far when gambling is whether there's a high probability that your going to have fun :)

[leon]

Thanks Guys, I wouldn't call my small lotto ticket as gambling, so to speak, but i do know i probably spend more than i ever win, :rolleyes: and probably will never see a major win, :shrug:but it is a bit of fun on Saturday nights.

Leon :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Dont give up Leon my late father (ex) father in law won the state lottery twice and when telling a group about him a chap I met only weeks earlier told me he had won twice also.
The message is when you finally get the big one dont forget to keep buying tickets.
Alex

[Kunama]

And the winner is......... The guy who owns the lottery and sells the tickets.....

I have never won money in any lottery but I have never lost any either.....

[xelasnave]

When I was a kid I had holiday work at SMH and one of my jobs was to call thru the lottery numbers by phone to a subsidiary newspaper well half the five and ten quid wins. Oh how I hated that job.
I think it took about 45 minutes....the other half went via teleprinter if anyone knows what that was.
Another job was clearing the teleprinters so I got world news before anyone even the editor.
Alex

[julianh72]

My brother had a late-night job at The Courier Mail in the 1970s - before computerised type-setting. His task was to fill the gaps in the paper where the actual copy submitted by a journalist fell short of the space allocated. (The Editor would send a Journalist out to file a report, and allocate say 6 column-inches, but the submitted story might only run to 5 column-inches, which would leave 1 column-inch to be filled.)

They had a big filing cabinet of interesting / humorous stories, filed by their general category, and length in column-inches. He would pull out the first story with the required length, and it would be type-set accordingly. After use, it went into the back of the same rack.

Remember how papers used to run the same unattributed apocryphal stories over and over (eg the circus elephant that mistook a red Mini for its posing stand and trampled it)? Now you know why!

[janoskiss]

Yes.


No.



That is correct.

It may seem counter-intuitive (as a lot of things in statistics are), but if you think about it, if you randomly* pick a number between 0 and 1000000, 123456 is just as likely as 851232.

*randomly should be qualified by the adjective 'uniformly': each outcome is equally likely.

If you find the maths a bit too abstract, you can do your own experiment, e.g., with two dice throws: is 1 followed by 2 more likely than 5 followed by 2 (or any other two numbers you care to choose). You do need a lot of repetition to get good stats though: 1000 at least (even that will have a fairly broad standard error). Or you could simplify it further and just use a coin: with three tosses, is [heads, heads, heads] more likely than say [heads, tails, tails]?