I see many people in this group looking for a "system" to win the
lottery. Are they serious? This is not a flame, but a serious question.
Since the drawing is a random drawing what system could exist? Belief that
some system exists seems illogical to me. So I guess my question is:

   What reasons are there to believe any system exists?

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew P. Bajorinas                          Bajor...@Perkin-Elmer.com |
| -----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| The above opinions are my own.          |      I will never let my cat |
| My employer thinks I am working. 8^)    |     use my net access again! |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew P. Bajorinas (Bajor...@Perkin-Elmer.com) wrote:
:    I see many people in this group looking for a "system" to win the
: lottery. Are they serious? This is not a flame, but a serious question.
: Since the drawing is a random drawing what system could exist? Belief that
: some system exists seems illogical to me. So I guess my question is:
:    What reasons are there to believe any system exists?

   Pretty sound logic to me Andrew :-)  If a system did exist, rather than
   advertise or sell it, you would hear about the person going around to win
   all the various state and power ball lotteries. As near as I can tell, all
   the lotteries are PURELY random.

   You bets your bucks, you takes your chances. Take care, and good luck :-)

                                       CU
                                       twthero
                  _____________________________________________
                 | Terry W. Thero: e-mail:                    |
                 |                 te...@col.hp.com           |
                 |____________________________________________|
                 |    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday         |
                 |____________________________________________|

In article <3r9tej$h00_...@bajoriap.perkin-elmer.com>
Bajor...@Perkin-Elmer.com (Andrew P. Bajorinas) writes:

I believe I have one.  First, I only buy tickets when the expected
value of a ticket gives a return above 5%.  (To calculate
expected value, take the after-tax cash flow from winning,
discount the cash flow by an appropriate interest rate -- 5%
in this case -- and multiply by the probability that you
will win that cash flow from a single ticket.  If the expected
value is positive, the return is above 5 %.  Make sure you
add in the expected value of the lesser prizes, as they
make a definite difference in the value of a ticket.)
Second, I use a computer program to pick number sets.  The
program I use filters out commonly chosen number sets, so
that I probably won't split the pot.

I end up not playing the lottery very often -- usually the
pots are too low.  Generally, the pot has to be above about
17 million for a positive expected value (for the Michigan
lotto).

--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu

This is not true at all. People beat the lottery every day. It may not
come down to working out a method to beat a random ticket, but rather it
comes down to a matter of using intuition and probabilities to choose
numbers.

Don't tell me about odds, as it's like the national budget. You can jimmy
the odds this way and that. What are the odds of 1 coin being trown face
up? What are the odds of throwing face up 1200 times in a row. Each throw
has the same odds, but the cumulative odds are not the same. I do not
want to hear about odds.

Tell me what the odds are of a person choosing their same numbers for 1
1/2 years and then failing to buy that ticket. Low and behold the day he
forgets to play his tickets, he gets a match. IT'S NOT THE ODDS THAT
DETERMINE THE NEXT WINNER, IT'S SOMETHING FAR BIGGER THAN THAT.

The thing is that if you trust the odds, you will likely not win for the
next 13,983,816 draws. Don't try to convince me with odds, as they do not
apply beyond the class room..

Ken..

In article <3rga7g$...@news.sas.ab.ca>,

I see you're still in search of your very first clue.  I will answer your
question about the 1200 coin flips.  If heads has come up 1199 times in a
row using a fair coin, the probability of 1200 in a row is 1/2.  You have
heard that before, right?  I won't bother with your 'odds' nonsense; it's
far too complex for you, as was proven in earlier discussions.

In article <3reb0m$...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>,
   doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) wrote:
]

]
]I believe I have one.  First, I only buy tickets when the expected
]value of a ticket gives a return above 5%.  (To calculate
]expected value, take the after-tax cash flow from winning,
]discount the cash flow by an appropriate interest rate -- 5%
]in this case -- and multiply by the probability that you
]will win that cash flow from a single ticket.  If the expected
]value is positive, the return is above 5 %.  Make sure you
]add in the expected value of the lesser prizes, as they
]make a definite difference in the value of a ticket.)
]Second, I use a computer program to pick number sets.  The
]program I use filters out commonly chosen number sets, so
]that I probably won't split the pot.
]
]I end up not playing the lottery very often -- usually the
]pots are too low.  Generally, the pot has to be above about
]17 million for a positive expected value (for the Michigan
]lotto).
]

Wow, what an impressive (to me) post. Clearly you have a good
strategy for maximizing the benefit. It is clear you have done
your homework.

I guess, however, what I really was asking was more concerned
with people who have "systems" to get the winning numbers. People
who keep track of previous winners and other such things.

Thanks for the reply.
   Andy Bajorinas

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew P. Bajorinas                          Bajor...@Perkin-Elmer.com |
| -----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| The above opinions are my own.          |      I will never let my cat |
| My employer thinks I am working. 8^)    |     use my net access again! |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[A winning system]

Well, I guess that means that your system can't be used in
Canada!  I believe the record high for the Canadian Lotto 6/49
is 14 or 15 million.

I really wonder why people are so paranoid about splitting the
jackpot with someone else.  I mean, wouldn't you prefer splitting
a $3 million dollar jackpot 3 ways rather than not winning at
all?  You wouldn't have to twist my arm!  I'd take the split
any day!  :-)

In <3r9tej$h00_...@bajoriap.perkin-elmer.com> Bajor...@Perkin-Elmer.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bajor...@Perkin-Elmer.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew

  Using a system refers to taking a logical approach to playing the
lottery/lotto games. Winning the lottery has metaphorically been
compared to getting struck by lightening. Although getting struck by
lightening is improbable there are numerous actions that you can take
to increase your probability of participating in such an event. The
same is true of the lottery. In the next few days I will begin posting
some logical methods of lottery/lotto play. Try out the methods and
confirm for yourself that playing systematically increases your
probability of matching numbers drawn.

MORE TO FOLLOW
JAM...@AOL.COM

In article <3rga7g$...@news.sas.ab.ca>, para...@sas.ab.ca (Ken

|This is not true at all. People beat the lottery every day. It may not
|come down to working out a method to beat a random ticket, but rather it
|comes down to a matter of using intuition and probabilities to choose
|numbers.
|
|Don't tell me about odds, as it's like the national budget. You can jimmy
|the odds this way and that. What are the odds of 1 coin being trown face
|up? What are the odds of throwing face up 1200 times in a row. Each throw
|has the same odds, but the cumulative odds are not the same. I do not
|want to hear about odds.
|
|Tell me what the odds are of a person choosing their same numbers for 1
|1/2 years and then failing to buy that ticket. Low and behold the day he
|forgets to play his tickets, he gets a match. IT'S NOT THE ODDS THAT
|DETERMINE THE NEXT WINNER, IT'S SOMETHING FAR BIGGER THAN THAT.
|
|The thing is that if you trust the odds, you will likely not win for the
|next 13,983,816 draws. Don't try to convince me with odds, as they do not
|apply beyond the class room..
|
|Ken..

Ken,

This moronic post just goes to show that you either do not know enough, or
refuse to learn enough (the latter is the most probable) to even discuss
probability intelligently, nevermind trying to disprove Terry's statements
or even create a winning system.

I really suggest that you and James go out and learn something before you
spout off like an authority.  Although I doubt you will, because if you
did learn some basic probability/statistics, you would be forced to drop
your lotto fantasies.

The truly ironic fact is that you need probability/statistics to prove
that your systems work.  Without them, there is no way that you can prove
that your system(s) do any better than random choices.

ray

----------
Ray DeGennaro
degen...@bmsrs.usc.edu
----------

Did you know that 'gullible' is not in Webster's Dictionary?

: In <3r9tej$h00_...@bajoriap.perkin-elmer.com> Bajor...@Perkin-Elmer.com
: (Andrew P. Bajorinas) writes:
: >
: >
: >
: >   I see many people in this group looking for a "system" to win the
: >lottery. Are they serious? This is not a flame, but a serious
: question.
: >Since the drawing is a random drawing what system could exist? Belief
: that
: >some system exists seems illogical to me. So I guess my question is:
: >
: >   What reasons are there to believe any system exists?

: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Andrew

:   Using a system refers to taking a logical approach to playing the
: lottery/lotto games. Winning the lottery has metaphorically been
: compared to getting struck by lightening. Although getting struck by
: lightening is improbable there are numerous actions that you can take
: to increase your probability of participating in such an event. The
: same is true of the lottery. In the next few days I will begin posting
: some logical methods of lottery/lotto play. Try out the methods and
: confirm for yourself that playing systematically increases your
: probability of matching numbers drawn.

: MORE TO FOLLOW
: JAM...@AOL.COM

Andrew

  You will "laugh yer ass off" when Sarnelli starts posting his nonsense.
Don't take him seriously - he has been very, very ill.  His last sentence
above shows that he hasn't recovered yet.

In article <3rij6l$...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, jam...@ix.netcom.com (JAMES SARNELLI) says:

  Only by buying more tickets.  

  Not true, as has been pointed out to you many, many times.  If you
  buy n different tickets using *any* system, and I buy n different
  tickets using no system whatever, your chance of winning is
  identically equal to my own, a trivial result in elementary
  probability.

  Why don't you turn over a new leaf, James, with the start of this
  new newsgroup?  I recommend beginning with an earnest study of algebra,
  followed by elementary probability and statistics.  You really have a
  golden opportunity here not to embarrass yourself before a whole
  new audience.

Regards,

Ron Meisenheimer (r...@ns.net)

In article <3rij6l$...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, jam...@ix.netcom.com (JAMES

|  Using a system refers to taking a logical approach to playing the
|lottery/lotto games. Winning the lottery has metaphorically been
|compared to getting struck by lightening. Although getting struck by
|lightening is improbable there are numerous actions that you can take
|to increase your probability of participating in such an event. The
|same is true of the lottery. In the next few days I will begin posting
|some logical methods of lottery/lotto play. Try out the methods and
|confirm for yourself that playing systematically increases your
|probability of matching numbers drawn.
|
|MORE TO FOLLOW
|JAM...@AOL.COM

Yes James, please do post something this time.  In rec.gambling, you never
got beyond step two.  Actually, you never got to step two, you were proven
wrong over, and over, and over again and resorted to name calling and
whining.  Please try to stick to the issues this time.  And if, other
people start throwing mud first (which I doubt), be a little more mature
than them and still stick to the topic.  I promise you I will stick to the
topic until you start throwing stones, after that, I can't promise
anything.

ray

----------
Ray DeGennaro
degen...@bmsrs.usc.edu
----------

Did you know that 'gullible' is not in Webster's Dictionary?

Surefire way of increasing your probability of getting "struck" by the lottery:

do while not winner
   Buy a ticket.  
   Wait for the draw.

In the next few days I will begin posting

I can hardly wait.

In article <3rij6l$...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, jam...@ix.netcom.com (JAMES

Being struck by lightning and winning the lottery are not metaphorically
comparable.  First, the chance of being struck by lightning is much better
than the chance of winning most lotteries.  Second, being struck by
lightning involves well proven physical interactions (thunderstorm, being
the highest object in an area, etc.).

There is absolutely nothing you can do to increase your chances of winning
a random lottery.  No modern US lottery has ever been proven to be
usefully non-random except by illicit tampering.

In order to be able to even address the issue of increasing your chances
of winning the lottery, you have to proven that the lottery is usefully
non-random.  Fortunately, there are some very basic statistical tests to
prove that a lottery is not behaving like random independent variables.

Unfortunately, no modern US lottery has ever been proven to be usefully
non-random except by illicit tampering (oops, I said that already).

--
Dan Efron

In article <nveilleu.1346.01982...@emr1.emr.ca>,

Except that Canadian lotteries paid the whole thing in cash,
tax-free. An extreme case of a US lottery payout is like:
   $1 million per year for 29 years
   $29 million in the 30th year

Depending on the interest rate, this has "Net Present Value"
of anywhere from 10.5 Million (at 10% interest) to 20 Million
(at 5% interest).

Figure in the tax of roughly 50%, the US$50 million is worth
net, after-tax about 5 to 10 million. Add in current exchange
rate, this becomes C$7 to 14 million.

In other words, the Canadian 6/49 has better expected value.
(And is simply due to better payout ratio).

I don't think its paranoia. People sensibly prefer to avoid
splitting, especially when it does not cost anything.

--
Stanley Chow;  sc...@bnr.ca, stanley.chow-...@nt.com; (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.

I think it depends on what you mean by "winning".  In some lotteries,
you win money if you match only some of the numbers.  If you include
that in your definition of winning, then it seems that you can
benefit from being systematic.

Let's say there's a lottery where you pick 3 numbers out of the
numbers {1,2,3,4,5}.  And if 2 or 3 out of 3 numbers are picked,
you win a prize.  Now let's say i pick the following 2 tickets:

1 2 3
1 4 5

and you pick the following 2 tickets:

1 2 3
1 2 4

It's easy to check that no matter what combination comes up,
I will win a prize, but you will not win if the combination
3 4 5 comes up.

Now, I doubt that in a real lottery, you could actually guarantee
that you would win money this way, but it seems that you could
come up with a system that would be guaranteed to recoup more
of your money than another system via the smaller prizes, and
therefore be a better system.  (by the way, I have just started
following this group.  Is this what people mean when they refer
to "wheeling")

--
Kevin Leuthold

In article <3rhr89$gmo_...@bajoriap.perkin-elmer.com> Bajor...@Perkin-Elmer.com (Andrew P. Bajorinas) writes:
[system for generating a positive return when playing the
lottery omitted, for brevity.]

A key part of the system is to filter out numbers that others
choose.  So tracking which combinations 'won' is important --
those are combinations that people choose, and therefore should
be avoided if you want to split the pot.  Also, when the pots
are large and a lot of people are playing, combinations that
no one hits are ones that you want to generate -- again, so
that you don't split the pot if you win.

Somehow, I don't think this is what you had in mind, tho....

--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu

: I see you're still in search of your very first clue.  I will answer your
: question about the 1200 coin flips.  If heads has come up 1199 times in a
: row using a fair coin, the probability of 1200 in a row is 1/2.  You have
: heard that before, right?  I won't bother with your 'odds' nonsense; it's
: far too complex for you, as was proven in earlier discussions.

For all of your math statistics, you are telling me that to flip a coin
heads up , twice in a row, out of 2 flips, is 1/2...IDIOT.

You are trying to apply the same odds on one event as over many
consecutive events.

I realy am sorry, for coming down hard on this guy, but the facts are
that even though the odds can be calculated, for a random draw, the facts
are that the random odds _MAY_ not apply to the winning ticket. Read
'Syncronicity' (If I got the spelling right). One of the best "SYSTEMS" I
ever put into a Lottery program was the SUBLIMINAL messages. The message
could be changed in the program. The messages ranged from "I WILL WIN" to
"MY HAIR WON'T FALL OUT". The fact is that I don't think most knew people it
was even there..:-) In the Canadian 6-49, 3 or more grand prize winners
have said that they "HAD A DREAM THE NIGHT BEFORE IN WHICH THEY SAW THE
WINNING NUMBERS". 'LUCK MAG. MAY, 1995, published by Canada Lotteries Corp'

The reason the math guys will not win any grand prize is because they are
looking at the odds, and the odds say they can not win. I uderstand odds
and statistics, but do you understand the way life works. Untill you do,
you will be stuck to the odds.

OUT OF 1 MILLION MATH GUYS, LIGHTNING WILL STRIKE DOWN 1.  :-)

Ken...welcome to the next level..

In <3rkc9h$...@news.sas.ab.ca> para...@sas.ab.ca (Ken Tetterington) writes:

No, that isn't what he said.  I'll paraphrase it in a way that should
clarify it:

"Even if heads has come up 1199 times in a row using a fair coin, the
probability of heads coming up on the 1200th flip is 1/2."

The probability of a coin landing heads up in two consecutive flips is
1/4, as that is one of the 4 possible outcomes.

No, he is stating that the odds for an event are calculated
independently of the outcome of the unrelated events preceding it.

In article <3rk9q1$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Kevin Martin Leuthold <leuth...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu> wrote:

But you have to include *everything*.

What if the lucky combination is 1 2 3? Then both sets win
the jackpot, but only second set wins 2 out of 3. So that
evens everything out. (not yet)

You have to go through each of the possible winning combos
(120 of them if I am not mistaken), determine the winnings
for each of the sets, then sum. The only sensible comparision
is between the total sums. I am pretty sure that you will
find exactly the same number of prizes of each type.

Yes. And it is a useful concept since it reduces variance.

--
Stanley Chow;  sc...@bnr.ca, stanley.chow-...@nt.com; (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.

If you read it carefully, he's applying a conditional probability:
"If heads come up 1199 times in a row" means *given* than heads have
already come up 1199 times in a row, the probability that the next toss
is heads (giving 1200 in a row) is 1/2.  The probability that the
second of two tosses is heads, *given* that the first toss is heads,
is 1/2.  Basic probability, about the probabilities of independent
events.

My comment on this is: 'a mystic and his money are soon parted'.

--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu

- In article <3rga7g$...@news.sas.ab.ca>,
- Ken Tetterington <para...@sas.ab.ca> wrote:
-
- I see you're still in search of your very first clue.  I will answer your
- question about the 1200 coin flips.  If heads has come up 1199 times in a
- row using a fair coin, the probability of 1200 in a row is 1/2. You have
- heard that before, right?  I won't bother with your 'odds' nonsense

Well I don't like talking about "odds" either, but in your case, what is the
probability that you have a fair coin ? And with what confidence would you
say that the coin is "fair" or "unfair" (double headed, say) ?

                                       Thomas
--
*** This is the operative statement, all previous statements are inoperative.
*   email: cmaa...@ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) (uk.ac.ic on Janet)
*   voice: +44 171 594 6904 (day)        fax: +44 171 594 6958
*   snail: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

- In article <3r9tej$h00_...@bajoriap.perkin-elmer.com>
- Bajor...@Perkin-Elmer.com (Andrew P. Bajorinas) writes:
-
-
- >   I see many people in this group looking for a "system" to win the
- >lottery. Are they serious? This is not a flame, but a serious question.
- >Since the drawing is a random drawing what system could exist? Belief that
- >some system exists seems illogical to me. So I guess my question is:
- >
- >   What reasons are there to believe any system exists?

There are systems, but not to win, but to avoid wasting money.

Say you take (in 6 of 49) the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and all combinations
of the remaining ones. Thus you make 22*45 or 990 bets. Filling in
990 ickets is a bore, and you may well make a mistake, such as leaving
out (... 23, 25) and playing (... 22, 24) twice. If (1, 2, 3, 4, 22, 24)
comes up, you split the maximum with yourself, which is a silly thing
to do if there is no cap on a single row win, and loathsome if there
are no other winners.

If the other combination came up, you would really start kicking yourself.
Thus some lotteries have "system playing tickets", where you state the
rules and pay the cash, and the computer generates all the bets for you.

                                    Thomas
--
*** This is the operative statement, all previous statements are inoperative.
*   email: cmaa...@ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) (uk.ac.ic on Janet)
*   voice: +44 171 594 6904 (day)        fax: +44 171 594 6958
*   snail: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

In article <3rk9q1$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, leuth...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Kevin Martin Leuthold) says:

  Nope, sorry.  Not true.  Look at it this way Kevin:  Two thousand
  years ago Pythagoras proved his famous theorem about right-triangles:
  The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
  the other two sides.  It was *proven*.  Do you understand?  
  Pythagoras proved it irrefutably.  There is no need for us to
  entertain *any* claim that there exists a right-triangle that
  violates the Pythagorean Theorem.  We can dismiss any such claim
  out-of-hand.  We don't have to give it a moment's thought.  No
  such triangle exists and it is a monumental waste of time and
  effort to try to find one.  Those who insist otherwise are merely
  delusional.

  Kevin, I in no way mean this to be an attack upon you.  Failing
  to have studied probability is no sin.  The sin is in obstinately
  insisting that you have knowledge where you have none, as Sarnelli,
  Ken T., et. al., have done.  You seem to be a very reasonable
  person who has come here to learn something, and I cannot attack
  you for that.  There are many, many things I do not know.

  However, those of us who are familiar with probability *know*,
  because it has been *proven* irrefutably, as surely as the
  Pythagorean Theorem has, that no "system" can improve your
  probability of winning the jackpot or any portion of it, or,
  for that matter, any lesser prize (unless you purchase more
  tickets, or are involved in a rigged lottery).  We do not have
  to consider *any* proposed exception.  And so, out of no
  disrespect to you, I will not even consider your example.  
  It cannot be right and no right-triangle violates Pythogoras's
  ancient law!

Regards,

Ron Meisenheimer (r...@ns.net)

OK, I admit I was wrong, as Stanley Chow pointed out, in claiming
that my "system" would be "better" than another "system".  The expected
value of each "system" would be the same, and I overlooked this.

However, I stick to my original claim that of the two "systems"
I outlined in my first post, the first has a probability of 1
of winning a prize, and the second has a probability of less than
1 of winning a prize.

So if you claim that

I don't believe you, but if you change that statement to:

no "system" can improve your
*expected winnings* (unless you purchase more
tickets, or are involved in a rigged lottery)

then I find that believable.

Since you have obviously studied more probability than I have,
however, you must be right and I must be delusional.  So could
you please consider my example and tell me what's wrong with it.
And please keep the explanation very simple, with lots of
references to the Pythagorean theorem, so you don't lose me.

--
Kevin Leuthold