"Argi" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Yes ... 1,2,3,4,5,6 is possible but we never going to play these numbers

> together, why? ... i don't know ... we don't believe that are going to win.
Actually, the reason I won't play these numbers (if I played the lotto)

is that so many other people *do* play them. That means the payoff will

be much smaller than for a sequence that few or no other people play.

And the odds are the same.

> So ... we play other ... random numbers ... "most" possible (?) ...we think.
There is a lot of blindness to probability "out there". Since most

combinations look random, it is more likely that a random looking

sequence comes out, and then people invert the implication and assume

that a specific looking random sequence has a higher odds of winning.

The winning combination is picked randomly among all combinations

=> It is very likely to "look random"

But

A combination looks random =/=> it is more likely to win.

> So ... concluding ... I believe that we can make programs to produce "lucky"

> rows of six numbers that do have really "random" patterns...
It seems you make the same mistake, if by "lucky" you mean that it has

a greater chance of being the winning combination than 1,2,3,4,5,6.

> For say, if you look the tables in newspapers with statistics about lotto or

> joker which are won already, you will see for example that 50%, three

> numbers are odds and three even. Or three of them are "small" and three are

> "big" numbers. You will see that only 2 or 3 per cent for example was 1

> number odd and 5 numbers even and never all together odd or even, since now

> of course, after thousand of draws.
If you know statistics, you would not be surprised.

Pick any separation of the possible 36 numbers (or however many your

local lotto uses) into two equally sized groups.

Then pick six (or similarly for eight) numbers at random.

The probabilities of their distribution into those groups are:

group A group B probability

0 6 ~1%

1 5 ~8%

2 4 ~24%

3 3 ~34%

4 2 ~24%

5 1 ~8%

6 0 ~1%

(this is also the size relative sizes of the set of combinations with

that

I.e., if picking is completely random, you will expect 34% of outcomes

to have three low and three high values, or three odd and three even

values.

So it's more likely that the result will have three high and three low

numbers than that it will have only low numbers.

Not because a specific combination of three low and three high numbers

is more likely to be hit, but because the group of all such combinations

is a bigger target.

Picking one combination in that group will not give any higher chance

of winning, because you are again inverting the implication.

An element belonging to a larger group is not more likely to be hit,

just because the larger group is easier to hit.

> So ... when you play ... why dont you play always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?

> huh? ... or maybe is it better to play the most possible combinations ?
If by "most possible" you mean "more probable", then there are none.

All outcomes are equally probable. Some characteristics of outcomes

are more likely, because there are more combintaions that satisfy them

than there are that doesn't, but that doesn't matter. You don't pick a

characterstic to play. You just pick one combination.

> It is my opinion ... I believe this and only anyone who believes the

> same is welcome to try my programs ...
And in the interest of public education on probability: Anyone who

believes that there are specific combinations more likely to win

than other specific combinations, are believing that the lottery

is rigged and unfair (and that they know which combinations are

favored). If the picking of winning numbers is actually random,

no single combination is more likely than any other.

But don't play 1,2,3,4,5,6 - if you play, you are better off picking

a combination that nobody else has, as you won't have to share the

prospective winnings with anybody

(And if you consider 1,2,3,4,5,6 as bad to play, because you can see

how unlikely it is as an outcome ... remember that whatever combination

you play instead is just as unlikely, you just can't see it

/L

--

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>

'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'