MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
A few years ago a statistician I used to work with told me that while the numbers drawn in the lottery were entirely random, there was one discernible pattern that had been observed in all the draws and that was the prevalence of adjacent pairs; it could be any two numbers in any draw, but in each instance, there was a significantly higher chance of an adjacent pair being drawn than not.
Since then I've always had an ear out for the numbers and it seems, anecdotally, that this is actually true. Today's £90m Euro winners also had an adjacent pair.
Is this a 'phenomena' and if so can it be explained.
Is it like that thing about how many people you have to ask to have two people with the same birthday?
http://people.howstuffworks.com/question261.htm
after 6 drawn numbers (is it 7 you pick?) I guess there are 12 numbers left out of 43 that would make a pair, so 12 in 43 = roughly 1 in 3.6 chance of a pair.
So a statistically lower chance of a pair, but I have not taken into account the possibility of the other 6 forming a pair, so I guess it would be better than that.
Pretty sure it will not help anyone win though, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being as likely as any other combination (not in order obviously).
Oh, I am not a statistician and hated stats at school and don't really gamble... can you tell?
🙂
=(2/48) +(4/47) + (6/46) +(8/45) + (10 / 44)
0.662258337
something like that?
Tracker me neither! In order for it to be a 'phenomenon' the actual frequency of adjacent pairs as seen in draws, would have to be higher than the mathematical frequency. Although that would then be a weird contradiction.
Certainly I'm not looking for anything spooky but the subject is actually more interesting (really) than it might first appear. I heard a Radio 4 programme a few years ago that discussed the issue of 'randomness' and random number generating for things like the premium bond draws. When computers were first used to generate random numbers for the premium bonds there was a lot of work done to ensure that the numbers were genuinely random and apparently it was not as easy as you might think; there were challenges both with generating random numbers and verifying their randomness. The programme suggested that while nature was very good at creating randomness, humans find it difficult simply because the mechanisms we use, in this case it was computer code, contain routine and structure and that this inherent routine can get expressed in what might appear to be a random string.
See I told you it was interesting.
It's frequency of occurence is great enough for me to notice it without analysing it, to the point where I usually have a line or two with adjacent pairs intentionally on the normal lotto.
Unfortunately I had a lucky dip on the Euro last night - however my number selections are usually more random on the Euro anyway. Still, I've not checked em yet.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
If you played 1,2,3,4,5,6 in the regular lottery you would be just as likely to win as with any other combination, but if you did win you'd be disappointed to have to split the jackpot roughly 2000 ways with all the other people who play those same numbers each week.
Most important thing with the lottery is to pick numbers that no one else will so that if you win you don't have to share your prize. Most people use numbers they can remember, such as birthdays which only go up to 31 therefore your numbers need to be over 31 to have the best chance of a big win!
Yep computers are generally rubbish at generating random numbers. It's just a machine following a small set of simple instructions to switch bits on or off. It's entire existence is based on being predictable and always ending up in the same state when it follows the same instructions.
It can be a problem in cryptography and simulations as random numbers are useful in both these fields, so they tend to use "seeds" to try to simulate randomness (i.e. position of the mouse pointer; number of milliseconds past the hour etc)
Used to be that you could do quite well at pub quiz machines by simply switching them off the on again, as it increased the chance you'd get questions you had before 😀
I am convinced the lottery is 'engineered' (not fixed), but that's just my personal opinion.
There was a spell a number of years ago, when almost without fail, it would conveniently end up being a rollover on a public holiday.
Coincidences happen at the statistically correct rate. We just notice them a lot.
It's a phenomenon. Singular. Phenomena is the plural.
Machines are better at picking random sequences than humans. In a truely random pattern, there is a chance of clusters (in this case, an adjacent pair). When a human tries to pick a random pattern, they typically end up spacing things evenly in an attempt to be random and are therefore less likely to select an adjacent pair. I suppose this suggests that people reduce their chance of winning by subconscieniously avoiding adjacent pairs. However, including an adjacent pair doesn't really chance you chance of winning significantly but it does improve your chance of having the prize to yourself if you do win.
Geez number junkies!!!!
Have you checked out Vodermans replacement?????? Phowarr 😉
I am convinced the lottery is 'engineered' (not fixed), but that's just my personal opinion.
How could this be?
Surely with the amount of money at stake, if it was at all possible to influence the result then someone would be very rich. Plus I'm sure the hoards of people that try to analyse the lottery results would cry foul.
Does it make any difference if the first ball is a girl?