Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT - Lottery Millionaire Raffle
91 views
Skip to first unread message
Jake
Nov 11, 2012, 2:53:28 PM11/11/12
to
Anyone know how does this work? I'm curious because Wikipedia seems to say
that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on Friday
and 1 in 3,500,000
Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
17,576,000,000 combinations.
Just wondering how close I was to winning, because I had the alphabetic part
match on Friday, but the numbers did not.
According to Wiki odds, would there be about 9 tickets on Fridays with the
same first three letters, or is it something else?
that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on Friday
and 1 in 3,500,000
Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
17,576,000,000 combinations.
Just wondering how close I was to winning, because I had the alphabetic part
match on Friday, but the numbers did not.
According to Wiki odds, would there be about 9 tickets on Fridays with the
same first three letters, or is it something else?
Alex Heney
Nov 11, 2012, 4:09:58 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:53:28 -0000, "Jake" <Ja...@jakesplaice.com>
wrote:
There would be thousands, probably tens of thousands with the same
first three characters.
As far as I can tell, at each draw there are only a very small set of
combinations of first three characters used.
But the odds for that draw are absolutely dependent on the number of
UK tickets sold, because only the "numbers" which have been sold are
included in the draw.
Each number drawn is matched to one, and only one, ticket sold.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Read the dictionary backwards and look for secret messages.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
wrote:
first three characters.
As far as I can tell, at each draw there are only a very small set of
combinations of first three characters used.
But the odds for that draw are absolutely dependent on the number of
UK tickets sold, because only the "numbers" which have been sold are
included in the draw.
Each number drawn is matched to one, and only one, ticket sold.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Read the dictionary backwards and look for secret messages.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
allantracy
Nov 11, 2012, 4:33:40 PM11/11/12
to
>
> But the odds for that draw are absolutely dependent on the number of
> UK tickets sold, because only the "numbers" which have been sold are
> included in the draw.
>
> Each number drawn is matched to one, and only one, ticket sold.
>
Basically, your odds of winning the million pound prize are best when
> But the odds for that draw are absolutely dependent on the number of
> UK tickets sold, because only the "numbers" which have been sold are
> included in the draw.
>
> Each number drawn is matched to one, and only one, ticket sold.
>
ticket sales are low i.e. no rollover.
Your best odds of winning big on the actual lottery are when the
jackpot has reached its maximum and there can be no more rollovers.
When the pot is full of several week's worth of stake money that can
in theory be won with five numbers and just one star number or even
less.
Even just a share in such a large pay out can run to many millions.
Well worth doing then but otherwise, if like most of us you're just
chasing the odd million or two, you would be far better putting your
money on the Lotto which is not so designed to rollover the way
Euromillions is.
Better still, put it on the pools or even at the bookies where payouts
are a much higher proportion of the overall stake.
The lottery is a bit of a rip-off in that respect on the grounds that
it pays for good deeds.
Jake
Nov 11, 2012, 5:56:03 PM11/11/12
to
"allantracy" <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:31c8a302-d033-463f...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Cynic
Nov 13, 2012, 9:48:10 AM11/13/12
to
>Anyone know how does this work? I'm curious because Wikipedia seems to say
>that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on Friday
>and 1 in 3,500,000
>
>Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
>17,576,000,000 combinations.
You are confused about the difference between a raffle and a lottery.
>that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on Friday
>and 1 in 3,500,000
>
>Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
>17,576,000,000 combinations.
With a lottery, the winning combination is a completely random
combination of all the possible combinations of letters/numbers. Thus
the odds against you winning is indeed all the possible combinations,
and that does not change regardless of how many people enter the
lottery. It is perfectly possible that nobody has a winning ticket.
With a raffle, a single ticket is selected from the total number of
tickets actually purchased. The total number of possible combinations
of ticket number is irrelevant (though there must be sufficient unique
combinations to cover the total number of tickets sold). It is not
possible that nobody wins because the only tickets available for
selection are those that have been sold.
Consider that I print a million tickets each carrying a unique 6 digit
number from 000000 to 999999. I only manage to sell 5 tickets. If it
is a lottery, each of those 5 people have a 1 in a million chance of
winning. If it is a raffle, each person has a 1 in 5 chance of
winning.
--
Cynic
GB
Nov 13, 2012, 10:21:15 AM11/13/12
to
On 13/11/2012 14:48, Cynic wrote:
> Consider that I print a million tickets each carrying a unique 6 digit
> number from 000000 to 999999. I only manage to sell 5 tickets. If it
> is a lottery, each of those 5 people have a 1 in a million chance of
> winning. If it is a raffle, each person has a 1 in 5 chance of
> winning.
>
Does anyone know how they do the raffle draw for this? Do they have one
> Consider that I print a million tickets each carrying a unique 6 digit
> number from 000000 to 999999. I only manage to sell 5 tickets. If it
> is a lottery, each of those 5 people have a 1 in a million chance of
> winning. If it is a raffle, each person has a 1 in 5 chance of
> winning.
>
of those lottery machines that draws individual numbers? I assume not,
because there would be no way of ensuring that they ended up with a
number that corresponded to a ticket. So, how do they do it with all
the razzmatazz that an important event like this evidently requires?
By the way, why would anyone care? Who in their right mind would pay �1
in order to get a one in 3.5 million chance of winning �1,000,000?
pensive hamster
Nov 13, 2012, 10:45:03 AM11/13/12
to
£1.50, but then they upped it to £2, and added in the millionaire
raffle.
I think Euromillions is denominated in Euro. I think a Euromillions
ticket bought in mainland Europe costs 2 Euro, and £1.50 used to be a
rough equivalent of 2 Euro, but the exchange rate is a bit variable
now, 'cos of the Euro crisis etc, so I suspect they may have
introduced the 50p millionaire raffle element in order to give a bit
of elbow room to allow for the variable exchange rate.
®i©ardo
Nov 13, 2012, 11:33:32 AM11/13/12
to
On 11/11/2012 21:33, allantracy wrote:
>>
>> But the odds for that draw are absolutely dependent on the number of
>> UK tickets sold, because only the "numbers" which have been sold are
>> included in the draw.
>>
>> Each number drawn is matched to one, and only one, ticket sold.
>>
>
> Basically, your odds of winning the million pound prize are best when
> ticket sales are low i.e. no rollover.
>
> Your best odds of winning big on the actual lottery are when the
> jackpot has reached its maximum and there can be no more rollovers.
>
> When the pot is full of several week's worth of stake money that can
> in theory be won with five numbers and just one star number or even
> less.
>
> Even just a share in such a large pay out can run to many millions.
>
> Well worth doing then but otherwise, if like most of us you're just
> chasing the odd million or two, you would be far better putting your
> money on the Lotto which is not so designed to rollover the way
> Euromillions is.
>
> Better still, put it on the pools
Is the pools pay-out that large these days?
>>
>> But the odds for that draw are absolutely dependent on the number of
>> UK tickets sold, because only the "numbers" which have been sold are
>> included in the draw.
>>
>> Each number drawn is matched to one, and only one, ticket sold.
>>
>
> Basically, your odds of winning the million pound prize are best when
> ticket sales are low i.e. no rollover.
>
> Your best odds of winning big on the actual lottery are when the
> jackpot has reached its maximum and there can be no more rollovers.
>
> When the pot is full of several week's worth of stake money that can
> in theory be won with five numbers and just one star number or even
> less.
>
> Even just a share in such a large pay out can run to many millions.
>
> Well worth doing then but otherwise, if like most of us you're just
> chasing the odd million or two, you would be far better putting your
> money on the Lotto which is not so designed to rollover the way
> Euromillions is.
>
> Better still, put it on the pools
It certainly doesn't seem to get any publicity, unlike in the "good old
days" where £75,000 was a fortune and there was no lottery competition.
or even at the bookies where payouts
> are a much higher proportion of the overall stake.
>
> The lottery is a bit of a rip-off in that respect on the grounds that
> it pays for good deeds.
>
Moving things in still pictures
Cynic
Nov 13, 2012, 1:19:09 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:21:15 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>By the way, why would anyone care? Who in their right mind would pay �1
>in order to get a one in 3.5 million chance of winning �1,000,000?
Winning the jackpot prize (especially in the Euromillions) would be a
completely life-changing event for almost everyone. Many people
(myself included) are willing to spend a small sum of money to have
even the merest *possibility* of achieving such an improvement to
their lifestyle for no effort whatsoever.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>By the way, why would anyone care? Who in their right mind would pay �1
>in order to get a one in 3.5 million chance of winning �1,000,000?
completely life-changing event for almost everyone. Many people
(myself included) are willing to spend a small sum of money to have
even the merest *possibility* of achieving such an improvement to
their lifestyle for no effort whatsoever.
--
Cynic
GB
Nov 13, 2012, 6:13:33 PM11/13/12
to
research, please:
1. Roughly how much do you spend on lottery tickets on average per week
or year?
2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of winning
a billion pounds?
Martin
Nov 13, 2012, 8:10:40 PM11/13/12
to
On 13/11/2012 23:13, GB wrote:
> On 13/11/2012 18:19, Cynic wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:21:15 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, why would anyone care? Who in their right mind would pay £1
>>> in order to get a one in 3.5 million chance of winning £1,000,000?
>>
>> Winning the jackpot prize (especially in the Euromillions) would be a
>> completely life-changing event for almost everyone. Many people
>> (myself included) are willing to spend a small sum of money to have
>> even the merest *possibility* of achieving such an improvement to
>> their lifestyle for no effort whatsoever.
>>
>
> I'm intrigued by that. Can I ask two questions, purely for my personal
> research, please:
Whenever it goes over £100M I get two tickets. It's a bit of fun.
> 1. Roughly how much do you spend on lottery tickets on average per week
> or year?
>
> 2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of winning
> a billion pounds?
usual odds of 35:1 (is that right? Something like that) and you could
only bet on a single number (no red/black/odds/evens etc). So the Casino
is taking 5.5%.
What happens if they say "You can place a bet and we'll pay out at 70:1"
Would you place a bet?
That's the lottery after a few roll-overs. It becomes silly NOT to place
a bet because the usual fair ticket price of £1 has increased to (say)
£4 and it only costs you £2, so the payout is much higher than the
probability of losing
Jake
Nov 13, 2012, 9:05:32 PM11/13/12
to
"Martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50a2ef94$0$7308$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
> On 13/11/2012 23:13, GB wrote:
>> On 13/11/2012 18:19, Cynic wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:21:15 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, why would anyone care? Who in their right mind would pay
>>>> £1
>>>> in order to get a one in 3.5 million chance of winning £1,000,000?
>>>
>>> Winning the jackpot prize (especially in the Euromillions) would be a
>>> completely life-changing event for almost everyone. Many people
>>> (myself included) are willing to spend a small sum of money to have
>>> even the merest *possibility* of achieving such an improvement to
>>> their lifestyle for no effort whatsoever.
>>>
>>
>> I'm intrigued by that. Can I ask two questions, purely for my personal
>> research, please:
>
> I can answer too?
>
> Whenever it goes over £100M I get two tickets. It's a bit of fun.
>
>> 1. Roughly how much do you spend on lottery tickets on average per week
>> or year?
>>
>> 2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of winning
>> a billion pounds?
>
> Suppose you were in a casino and the roulette wheel was paying it's usual
> odds of 35:1 (is that right? Something like that) and you could only bet
> on a single number (no red/black/odds/evens etc). So the Casino is taking
> 5.5%.
The casino pays out at 35:1 but in the end the casino are winners as there
>
> On 13/11/2012 23:13, GB wrote:
>> On 13/11/2012 18:19, Cynic wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:21:15 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, why would anyone care? Who in their right mind would pay
>>>> £1
>>>> in order to get a one in 3.5 million chance of winning £1,000,000?
>>>
>>> Winning the jackpot prize (especially in the Euromillions) would be a
>>> completely life-changing event for almost everyone. Many people
>>> (myself included) are willing to spend a small sum of money to have
>>> even the merest *possibility* of achieving such an improvement to
>>> their lifestyle for no effort whatsoever.
>>>
>>
>> I'm intrigued by that. Can I ask two questions, purely for my personal
>> research, please:
>
> I can answer too?
>
> Whenever it goes over £100M I get two tickets. It's a bit of fun.
>
>> 1. Roughly how much do you spend on lottery tickets on average per week
>> or year?
>>
>> 2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of winning
>> a billion pounds?
>
> Suppose you were in a casino and the roulette wheel was paying it's usual
> odds of 35:1 (is that right? Something like that) and you could only bet
> on a single number (no red/black/odds/evens etc). So the Casino is taking
> 5.5%.
are 37 numbers on the wheel.
Martin
Nov 14, 2012, 3:17:50 AM11/14/12
to
70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>
>
GB
Nov 14, 2012, 5:37:19 AM11/14/12
to
On 14/11/2012 08:17, Martin wrote:
> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they offered
> 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those odds,
> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they offered
> 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the chance of
losing is very high.
Martin
Nov 14, 2012, 6:39:44 AM11/14/12
to
his motivations.
That's mine. When the prize massively exceeds the probability of losing
you're slightly foolish not to put down a couple of quid as a gamble.
GB
Nov 14, 2012, 7:10:03 AM11/14/12
to
Cynic
Nov 14, 2012, 7:47:32 AM11/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:13:33 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>> Winning the jackpot prize (especially in the Euromillions) would be a
>> completely life-changing event for almost everyone. Many people
>> (myself included) are willing to spend a small sum of money to have
>> even the merest *possibility* of achieving such an improvement to
>> their lifestyle for no effort whatsoever.
>I'm intrigued by that. Can I ask two questions, purely for my personal
>research, please:
>1. Roughly how much do you spend on lottery tickets on average per week
>or year?
�4 per week.
>2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of winning
>a billion pounds?
Probably about 0.1% or so of my monthly disposable income.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>> Winning the jackpot prize (especially in the Euromillions) would be a
>> completely life-changing event for almost everyone. Many people
>> (myself included) are willing to spend a small sum of money to have
>> even the merest *possibility* of achieving such an improvement to
>> their lifestyle for no effort whatsoever.
>I'm intrigued by that. Can I ask two questions, purely for my personal
>research, please:
>1. Roughly how much do you spend on lottery tickets on average per week
>or year?
>2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of winning
>a billion pounds?
--
Cynic
Cynic
Nov 14, 2012, 8:02:52 AM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:05:32 -0000, "Jake" <ja...@jakesplaice.com>
wrote:
>> Suppose you were in a casino and the roulette wheel was paying it's usual
>> odds of 35:1 (is that right? Something like that) and you could only bet
>> on a single number (no red/black/odds/evens etc). So the Casino is taking
>> 5.5%.
>The casino pays out at 35:1 but in the end the casino are winners as there
>are 37 numbers on the wheel.
Yes, that's what the PP stated.
Which still gives each punter a quite reasonable chance of leaving the
casino with more money that they entered. I visit a casino on average
about once every 5 years. I estimate that I have won slightly more
than I have lost overall. The last time was pretty good. I
accompanied a young man who was celebrating his 18th birthday (and so
it was his first ever experience of a casino). I had given him a
bithday present of £20 of chips, which is all he used to play. He
played just one roulette table for about 2 hours and left with just
under £250. Sensibly he vowed that his next visit to a casino would
be on his 21st birthday because he reckoned that he had used up at
least 3 years' worth of gambling luck that evening! I left £20 or so
up as well (which made up for his present), so all in all it was a
successful and enjoyable evening.
OTOH a man I knew went almost every night and usually lost between
£1000 to £2000 pounds a month (though he tended to win on the horses).
--
Cynic
wrote:
>> Suppose you were in a casino and the roulette wheel was paying it's usual
>> odds of 35:1 (is that right? Something like that) and you could only bet
>> on a single number (no red/black/odds/evens etc). So the Casino is taking
>> 5.5%.
>The casino pays out at 35:1 but in the end the casino are winners as there
>are 37 numbers on the wheel.
Which still gives each punter a quite reasonable chance of leaving the
casino with more money that they entered. I visit a casino on average
about once every 5 years. I estimate that I have won slightly more
than I have lost overall. The last time was pretty good. I
accompanied a young man who was celebrating his 18th birthday (and so
it was his first ever experience of a casino). I had given him a
bithday present of £20 of chips, which is all he used to play. He
played just one roulette table for about 2 hours and left with just
under £250. Sensibly he vowed that his next visit to a casino would
be on his 21st birthday because he reckoned that he had used up at
least 3 years' worth of gambling luck that evening! I left £20 or so
up as well (which made up for his present), so all in all it was a
successful and enjoyable evening.
OTOH a man I knew went almost every night and usually lost between
£1000 to £2000 pounds a month (though he tended to win on the horses).
--
Cynic
Cynic
Nov 14, 2012, 8:09:08 AM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else. I
am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
evening. If I lose the lot I feel that I have nevertheless had my
money's worth for the evening's entertainment, and if I win it is a
happy bonus.
--
Cynic
am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
evening. If I lose the lot I feel that I have nevertheless had my
money's worth for the evening's entertainment, and if I win it is a
happy bonus.
--
Cynic
Richard McKenzie
Nov 14, 2012, 8:15:15 AM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 1:02 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:05:32 -0000, "Jake" <j...@jakesplaice.com>
I have only ever been to a casino once and was astonished how
people would waste circa £100 a time on a turn of a roulette wheel. My
impression was a lot of them were shop keepers with their night
winnings.
I bid safely on red/black and increased my bet whenever i lost so that
i would
recoup my losses it was the same method a friend of mine employed and
is fine
if you want to play the long game etc. He once encountered 10 blacks
in a row but
did not have the funds to keep the method up.
Another friend of mine knew a woman who worked at Las Vagas (though i
did not enquire
in what capacity) and she said that it was common especially amongst
asian men to
have a urinal bottle brought to them when they were on the table.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:05:32 -0000, "Jake" <j...@jakesplaice.com>
people would waste circa £100 a time on a turn of a roulette wheel. My
impression was a lot of them were shop keepers with their night
winnings.
I bid safely on red/black and increased my bet whenever i lost so that
i would
recoup my losses it was the same method a friend of mine employed and
is fine
if you want to play the long game etc. He once encountered 10 blacks
in a row but
did not have the funds to keep the method up.
Another friend of mine knew a woman who worked at Las Vagas (though i
did not enquire
in what capacity) and she said that it was common especially amongst
asian men to
have a urinal bottle brought to them when they were on the table.
GB
Nov 14, 2012, 8:20:29 AM11/14/12
to
sadly), I pop into a betting shop and use theirs. Then I feel that I
ought to be a customer, so I pop a pound into a roulette machine for a
single spin on red/black. I reckon that I am thereby paying the shop 3p
for the use of their facilities. So far, as things have turned out, I am
two pounds ahead at the moment, but that's the nature of a random walk.
GB
Nov 14, 2012, 8:29:51 AM11/14/12
to
>> I'm intrigued by that. Can I ask two questions, purely for my personal
>> research, please:
>
>> 1. Roughly how much do you spend on lottery tickets on average per week
>> or year?
>
> £4 per week.
budget.
>
>> 2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of winning
>> a billion pounds?
>
> Probably about 0.1% or so of my monthly disposable income.
one-billionth of your stake?
That seems absurd to me, particularly as the chance of winning is so
low. If you imagine that everyone in the UK bought one ticket every week
- say 70m people every week. There would on average be a winner every
274,725,275 years.
Are you sure that you read the question?
GB
Nov 14, 2012, 8:33:28 AM11/14/12
to
On 14/11/2012 13:15, Richard McKenzie wrote:
> I have only ever been to a casino once and was astonished how
> people would waste circa �100 a time on a turn of a roulette wheel. My
> impression was a lot of them were shop keepers with their night
> winnings.
>
> I bid safely on red/black and increased my bet whenever i lost so that
> i would
> recoup my losses it was the same method a friend of mine employed and
> is fine
> if you want to play the long game etc. He once encountered 10 blacks
> in a row but
> did not have the funds to keep the method up.
Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the table, so
> I have only ever been to a casino once and was astonished how
> people would waste circa �100 a time on a turn of a roulette wheel. My
> impression was a lot of them were shop keepers with their night
> winnings.
>
> I bid safely on red/black and increased my bet whenever i lost so that
> i would
> recoup my losses it was the same method a friend of mine employed and
> is fine
> if you want to play the long game etc. He once encountered 10 blacks
> in a row but
> did not have the funds to keep the method up.
even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>
>
> Another friend of mine knew a woman who worked at Las Vagas (though i
> did not enquire
> in what capacity) and she said that it was common especially amongst
> asian men to
> have a urinal bottle brought to them when they were on the table.
>
Cynic
Nov 14, 2012, 9:35:55 AM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:29:51 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>>> 2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of winning
>>> a billion pounds?
>> Probably about 0.1% or so of my monthly disposable income.
>That despite your having a mathematical expectation of a return of only
>one-billionth of your stake?
>That seems absurd to me, particularly as the chance of winning is so
>low. If you imagine that everyone in the UK bought one ticket every week
>- say 70m people every week. There would on average be a winner every
>274,725,275 years.
>Are you sure that you read the question?
You cannot look at such things so logically. If there was a lottery
that had a jackpot prize of a billion pounds, then forget the odds
completely, the situation is that either I will have *some* chance of
having a billion pounds next week, or I will have *no chance at all*
of having a billion pounds next week.
Now if I have *some* chance, no matter how small, it allows me to
indulge in a few extremely fanciful but pleasant daydreams, which are
of themselves worth a couple of quid to me.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>> 2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of winning
>>> a billion pounds?
>> Probably about 0.1% or so of my monthly disposable income.
>That despite your having a mathematical expectation of a return of only
>one-billionth of your stake?
>That seems absurd to me, particularly as the chance of winning is so
>low. If you imagine that everyone in the UK bought one ticket every week
>- say 70m people every week. There would on average be a winner every
>274,725,275 years.
>Are you sure that you read the question?
that had a jackpot prize of a billion pounds, then forget the odds
completely, the situation is that either I will have *some* chance of
having a billion pounds next week, or I will have *no chance at all*
of having a billion pounds next week.
Now if I have *some* chance, no matter how small, it allows me to
indulge in a few extremely fanciful but pleasant daydreams, which are
of themselves worth a couple of quid to me.
--
Cynic
Norman Wells
Nov 14, 2012, 10:48:46 AM11/14/12
to
Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they offered
>>> 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>
>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>> chance of losing is very high.
>
> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else. I
> am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
> on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
> small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
> evening.
How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they offered
>>> 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>
>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>> chance of losing is very high.
>
> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else. I
> am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
> on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
> small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
> evening.
enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to lose
on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
> If I lose the lot I feel that I have nevertheless had my
> money's worth for the evening's entertainment, and if I win it is a
> happy bonus.
significant moment of excitement rather than tedious drudgery, and the
rest of the evening free to enjoy yourself somewhere worthwhile.
Norman Wells
Nov 14, 2012, 10:50:58 AM11/14/12
to
gamble?
Richard McKenzie
Nov 14, 2012, 11:52:26 AM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 1:33 pm, GB <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On 14/11/2012 13:15, Richard McKenzie wrote:
>
> > I have only ever been to a casino once and was astonished how
> > people would waste circa £100 a time on a turn of a roulette wheel. My
> > impression was a lot of them were shop keepers with their night
> > winnings.
>
> > I bid safely on red/black and increased my bet whenever i lost so that
> > i would
> > recoup my losses it was the same method a friend of mine employed and
> > is fine
> > if you want to play the long game etc. He once encountered 10 blacks
> > in a row but
> > did not have the funds to keep the method up.
>
> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the table, so
> even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour. No
> On 14/11/2012 13:15, Richard McKenzie wrote:
>
> > I have only ever been to a casino once and was astonished how
> > people would waste circa £100 a time on a turn of a roulette wheel. My
> > impression was a lot of them were shop keepers with their night
> > winnings.
>
> > I bid safely on red/black and increased my bet whenever i lost so that
> > i would
> > recoup my losses it was the same method a friend of mine employed and
> > is fine
> > if you want to play the long game etc. He once encountered 10 blacks
> > in a row but
> > did not have the funds to keep the method up.
>
> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the table, so
> even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
doubt
had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
out complementary sandwiches etc.
In Vegas etc card counting is illegal which i dont think is fair. How
they
are able to determine whether someone is employing such a method is
questionable too.
Cynic
Nov 14, 2012, 3:01:44 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:46 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>
>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else. I
>> am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
>> on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
>> small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
>> evening.
>
>How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to lose
>on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
Only if your sole purpose is to gamble a certain amount of money.
But it would hardly amount to an evening's entertainment. It would be
like reading most of the plot sysopsis of a play, then popping into
the theatre to watch the last 5 minutes to see how it ends.
A casino would indeed be a rather boring place to spend *every*
evening, but if you visit only once in a Blue Moon as I do, the
experience is novel enough to make it entertaining for several hours.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>
>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else. I
>> am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
>> on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
>> small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
>> evening.
>
>How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to lose
>on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
But it would hardly amount to an evening's entertainment. It would be
like reading most of the plot sysopsis of a play, then popping into
the theatre to watch the last 5 minutes to see how it ends.
A casino would indeed be a rather boring place to spend *every*
evening, but if you visit only once in a Blue Moon as I do, the
experience is novel enough to make it entertaining for several hours.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Nov 14, 2012, 3:06:52 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
<richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the table, so
>> even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour. No
>doubt
>had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
>out complementary sandwiches etc.
IIRC the last casino I went to had a limit of �50 on any of the
<richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the table, so
>> even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour. No
>doubt
>had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
>out complementary sandwiches etc.
"evens" bets (red/black odd/even high/low)
You can do a similar thing by betting on 2/3rds of the table per bet,
where the table limit is less likely to be reached due to an adverse
run.
--
Cynic
Norman Wells
Nov 14, 2012, 4:35:53 PM11/14/12
to
Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:46 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>>
>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>> whole evening.
>>
>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>
> Only if your sole purpose is to gamble a certain amount of money.
Well, that's effectively what you said.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:46 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>>
>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>> whole evening.
>>
>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>
> Only if your sole purpose is to gamble a certain amount of money.
> But it would hardly amount to an evening's entertainment. It would be
> like reading most of the plot sysopsis of a play, then popping into
> the theatre to watch the last 5 minutes to see how it ends.
> A casino would indeed be a rather boring place to spend *every*
> evening, but if you visit only once in a Blue Moon as I do, the
> experience is novel enough to make it entertaining for several hours.
'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's entirely
random? And what exactly do you find interesting when you're only
staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
Alex Heney
Nov 14, 2012, 4:52:56 PM11/14/12
to
>Cynic wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they offered
>>>> 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>>
>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>
>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else. I
>> am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
>> on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
>> small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
>> evening.
>
>How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to lose
>on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>
Different people find different things enjoyable.
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they offered
>>>> 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>>
>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>
>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else. I
>> am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
>> on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
>> small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
>> evening.
>
>How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to lose
>on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>
*You* don't find the actual activities in a casino enjoyable (and many
others also wouldn't).
But some people do. You can't decide what is enjoyable for Cynic.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The road to success is always under construction.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
Owain
Nov 14, 2012, 5:42:29 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 3:51 pm, "Norman Wells" wrote:
> Are you sure you appreciate the difference between an investment and a
> gamble?
I do, but if you explain it I'll pass it on to my former bank for the
> Are you sure you appreciate the difference between an investment and a
> gamble?
attention of the unit trust fund managers.
Owain
Norman Wells
Nov 14, 2012, 6:13:26 PM11/14/12
to
to cover the sector that is purely and simply gambling. If you want a
guide to what that is, it's anything Mr Mainwaring wouldn't have
sanctioned.
Norman Wells
Nov 14, 2012, 6:18:07 PM11/14/12
to
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:46 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they
>>>>> offered 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>>>
>>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>>
>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>> whole evening.
>>
>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>>
>
> Different people find different things enjoyable.
>
> *You* don't find the actual activities in a casino enjoyable (and many
> others also wouldn't).
>
> But some people do. You can't decide what is enjoyable for Cynic.
No, but I can perhaps judge his intellect if what he enjoys doing is
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:46 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they
>>>>> offered 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>>>
>>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>>
>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>> whole evening.
>>
>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>>
>
> Different people find different things enjoyable.
>
> *You* don't find the actual activities in a casino enjoyable (and many
> others also wouldn't).
>
> But some people do. You can't decide what is enjoyable for Cynic.
tossing a coin and endlessly predicting heads or tails, which is really
all that happens in any casino.
Alex Heney
Nov 14, 2012, 7:55:45 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:18:07 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
No, you can't judge somebody's intellect from the fact they enjoy one
particular leisure pursuit that doesn't require much intelligence.
particular leisure pursuit that doesn't require much intelligence.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If it walks out of your refrigerator, LET IT GO !!
Alex Heney, Global Villager
GB
Nov 15, 2012, 3:38:41 AM11/15/12
to
On 15/11/2012 00:55, Alex Heney wrote:
>>No, but I can perhaps judge his intellect if what he enjoys doing is
>> tossing a coin and endlessly predicting heads or tails, which is really
>> all that happens in any casino.
>
> No, you can't judge somebody's intellect from the fact they enjoy one
> particular leisure pursuit that doesn't require much intelligence.
>
Well, he can, and I don't see how you can stop him. OTOH, you can judge
>>No, but I can perhaps judge his intellect if what he enjoys doing is
>> tossing a coin and endlessly predicting heads or tails, which is really
>> all that happens in any casino.
>
> No, you can't judge somebody's intellect from the fact they enjoy one
> particular leisure pursuit that doesn't require much intelligence.
>
Norman's intellect from the fact he wants to......
GB
Nov 15, 2012, 3:42:44 AM11/15/12
to
the casino, but it does not improve the odds in your favour overall.
What happens with Martingale is that, when you win, you win small
amounts. OTOH, when you lose, you lose very large amounts. You don't
have to lose very often to come out a loser overall.
Stick to gambling as an entertaining use of pocket money and you can't
go far wrong.
Norman Wells
Nov 15, 2012, 3:54:03 AM11/15/12
to
interminably dull?
Sure, it's entertaining if you're pitting your wits against other
players, or using some skill to outwit a bookmaker, but not where the
subject of the gamble is a totally random event surely.
The Todal
Nov 15, 2012, 4:32:17 AM11/15/12
to
On 11/11/12 19:53, Jake wrote:
> Anyone know how does this work? I'm curious because Wikipedia seems to say
> that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on Friday
> and 1 in 3,500,000
>
> Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
> 17,576,000,000 combinations.
>
> Just wondering how close I was to winning, because I had the alphabetic part
> match on Friday, but the numbers did not.
>
> According to Wiki odds, would there be about 9 tickets on Fridays with the
> same first three letters, or is it something else?
>
I'm one of those puritan people who never buys lottery tickets and who
arrogantly claims that the national lottery is an "idiot's tax".
Sorry, nothing personal. I am re-reading Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four,
written in 1948 when it would have been considered ludicrous to have
such a thing as a national lottery.
"The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one
public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable
that there were millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the
principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their
delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where
the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write
seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory".
> Anyone know how does this work? I'm curious because Wikipedia seems to say
> that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on Friday
> and 1 in 3,500,000
>
> Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
> 17,576,000,000 combinations.
>
> Just wondering how close I was to winning, because I had the alphabetic part
> match on Friday, but the numbers did not.
>
> According to Wiki odds, would there be about 9 tickets on Fridays with the
> same first three letters, or is it something else?
>
I'm one of those puritan people who never buys lottery tickets and who
arrogantly claims that the national lottery is an "idiot's tax".
Sorry, nothing personal. I am re-reading Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four,
written in 1948 when it would have been considered ludicrous to have
such a thing as a national lottery.
"The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one
public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable
that there were millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the
principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their
delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where
the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write
seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory".
AlanG
Nov 15, 2012, 4:48:38 AM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:54:03 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>GB wrote:
>> On 14/11/2012 20:06, Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
>>> <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the
>>>>> table, so even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>>>
>>>> I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour.
>>>> No doubt
>>>> had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
>>>> out complementary sandwiches etc.
>>>
>>> IIRC the last casino I went to had a limit of �50 on any of the
>>> "evens" bets (red/black odd/even high/low)
>>>
>>> You can do a similar thing by betting on 2/3rds of the table per bet,
>>> where the table limit is less likely to be reached due to an adverse
>>> run.
>>>
>>
>> Martingale increases your chances of winning on a particular visit to
>> the casino, but it does not improve the odds in your favour overall.
>> What happens with Martingale is that, when you win, you win small
>> amounts. OTOH, when you lose, you lose very large amounts. You don't
>> have to lose very often to come out a loser overall.
>>
>> Stick to gambling as an entertaining use of pocket money and you can't
>> go far wrong.
>
>Do you find betting on heads or tails 'entertaining' or, as I do,
>interminably dull?
Some people find watching football or people running round a running
track entertaining. I find it boring
>
>Sure, it's entertaining if you're pitting your wits against other
>players, or using some skill to outwit a bookmaker, but not where the
>subject of the gamble is a totally random event surely.
The excitement is in the win or lose situation
wrote:
>GB wrote:
>> On 14/11/2012 20:06, Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
>>> <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the
>>>>> table, so even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>>>
>>>> I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour.
>>>> No doubt
>>>> had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
>>>> out complementary sandwiches etc.
>>>
>>> IIRC the last casino I went to had a limit of �50 on any of the
>>> "evens" bets (red/black odd/even high/low)
>>>
>>> You can do a similar thing by betting on 2/3rds of the table per bet,
>>> where the table limit is less likely to be reached due to an adverse
>>> run.
>>>
>>
>> Martingale increases your chances of winning on a particular visit to
>> the casino, but it does not improve the odds in your favour overall.
>> What happens with Martingale is that, when you win, you win small
>> amounts. OTOH, when you lose, you lose very large amounts. You don't
>> have to lose very often to come out a loser overall.
>>
>> Stick to gambling as an entertaining use of pocket money and you can't
>> go far wrong.
>
>Do you find betting on heads or tails 'entertaining' or, as I do,
>interminably dull?
track entertaining. I find it boring
>
>Sure, it's entertaining if you're pitting your wits against other
>players, or using some skill to outwit a bookmaker, but not where the
>subject of the gamble is a totally random event surely.
AlanG
Nov 15, 2012, 4:51:16 AM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:32:17 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
I know someone who has difficulty reading the instructions on opening
a cornflake packet yet can calculate the winnings on a complicated bet
with all the skill of a master mathematician.
wrote:
a cornflake packet yet can calculate the winnings on a complicated bet
with all the skill of a master mathematician.
Martin Brown
Nov 15, 2012, 5:02:15 AM11/15/12
to
On 15/11/2012 09:32, The Todal wrote:
> On 11/11/12 19:53, Jake wrote:
>> Anyone know how does this work? I'm curious because Wikipedia seems to
>> say
>> that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on
>> Friday
>> and 1 in 3,500,000
>>
>> Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
>> 17,576,000,000 combinations.
>>
>> Just wondering how close I was to winning, because I had the
>> alphabetic part
>> match on Friday, but the numbers did not.
>>
>> According to Wiki odds, would there be about 9 tickets on Fridays with
>> the
>> same first three letters, or is it something else?
>
> I'm one of those puritan people who never buys lottery tickets and who
> arrogantly claims that the national lottery is an "idiot's tax".
No. It is a voluntary tax on the innumerate.
> On 11/11/12 19:53, Jake wrote:
>> Anyone know how does this work? I'm curious because Wikipedia seems to
>> say
>> that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on
>> Friday
>> and 1 in 3,500,000
>>
>> Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
>> 17,576,000,000 combinations.
>>
>> Just wondering how close I was to winning, because I had the
>> alphabetic part
>> match on Friday, but the numbers did not.
>>
>> According to Wiki odds, would there be about 9 tickets on Fridays with
>> the
>> same first three letters, or is it something else?
>
> I'm one of those puritan people who never buys lottery tickets and who
> arrogantly claims that the national lottery is an "idiot's tax".
My wife belongs to a team syndicate at work as insurance since if their
team ever won a major jackpot she would be left with no skilled workers.
They do get a £10 win every now and then.
> Sorry, nothing personal. I am re-reading Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four,
> written in 1948 when it would have been considered ludicrous to have
> such a thing as a national lottery.
>
> "The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one
> public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable
> that there were millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the
> principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their
> delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where
> the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write
> seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory".
That and mindless reality TV game shows.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 5:51:00 AM11/15/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk
(Martin Brown) came up to me and whispered:
> My wife belongs to a team syndicate at work as insurance since
> if their team ever won a major jackpot she would be left with
> no skilled workers. They do get a £10 win every now and then.
I was part of one of them - we also had a "bonus Ball" pool.
I won it three weeks in a row and was asked to "step down".
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
(Martin Brown) came up to me and whispered:
> My wife belongs to a team syndicate at work as insurance since
> if their team ever won a major jackpot she would be left with
> no skilled workers. They do get a £10 win every now and then.
I won it three weeks in a row and was asked to "step down".
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
GB
Nov 15, 2012, 6:06:37 AM11/15/12
to
GB
Nov 15, 2012, 6:07:30 AM11/15/12
to
On 15/11/2012 08:54, Norman Wells wrote:
> Do you find betting on heads or tails 'entertaining' or, as I do,
> interminably dull?
I don't find it interesting, but wandering around a casino looking at
> interminably dull?
other players IS interesting.
GB
Nov 15, 2012, 6:10:35 AM11/15/12
to
On 15/11/2012 10:51, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk
> (Martin Brown) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> My wife belongs to a team syndicate at work as insurance since
>> if their team ever won a major jackpot she would be left with
>> no skilled workers. They do get a �10 win every now and then.
>
> I was part of one of them - we also had a "bonus Ball" pool.
>
> I won it three weeks in a row and was asked to "step down".
>
Did they think you were cheating, or that you had inside information?
> We were about to embark at Dover, when |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk
> (Martin Brown) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> My wife belongs to a team syndicate at work as insurance since
>> if their team ever won a major jackpot she would be left with
>> no skilled workers. They do get a �10 win every now and then.
>
> I was part of one of them - we also had a "bonus Ball" pool.
>
> I won it three weeks in a row and was asked to "step down".
>
Cynic
Nov 15, 2012, 8:08:04 AM11/15/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:35:53 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>>> whole evening.
>>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>> Only if your sole purpose is to gamble a certain amount of money.
>Well, that's effectively what you said.
You have a poor grasp of English if you believe that what I said
(quoted in the first para) meant *anything* like that.
>> But it would hardly amount to an evening's entertainment. It would be
>> like reading most of the plot sysopsis of a play, then popping into
>> the theatre to watch the last 5 minutes to see how it ends.
>A very efficient use of time indeed.
Recreation is not about making the most efficient use of time. in
fact it is usually quite the opposite.
>> A casino would indeed be a rather boring place to spend *every*
>> evening, but if you visit only once in a Blue Moon as I do, the
>> experience is novel enough to make it entertaining for several hours.
>What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red' or
>'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's entirely
>random? And what exactly do you find interesting when you're only
>staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
There is the atmosphere of the place and the social aspect as well.
One could ask the same about watching men kicking a ball about or
playing a game of cards or dancing.
The short answer is that if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>>> whole evening.
>>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>> Only if your sole purpose is to gamble a certain amount of money.
>Well, that's effectively what you said.
(quoted in the first para) meant *anything* like that.
>> But it would hardly amount to an evening's entertainment. It would be
>> like reading most of the plot sysopsis of a play, then popping into
>> the theatre to watch the last 5 minutes to see how it ends.
>A very efficient use of time indeed.
fact it is usually quite the opposite.
>> A casino would indeed be a rather boring place to spend *every*
>> evening, but if you visit only once in a Blue Moon as I do, the
>> experience is novel enough to make it entertaining for several hours.
>What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red' or
>'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's entirely
>random? And what exactly do you find interesting when you're only
>staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
One could ask the same about watching men kicking a ball about or
playing a game of cards or dancing.
The short answer is that if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.
--
Cynic
Norman Wells
Nov 15, 2012, 9:11:29 AM11/15/12
to
Bond?
> One could ask the same about watching men kicking a ball about or
> playing a game of cards or dancing.
others do something skillful particularly well is inherently interesting
and entertaining. But there's precious little of that in a casino,
particularly in games of random chance like roulette.
> The short answer is that if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.
give an answer to the question I asked, which was what exactly _you_
find interesting when you're only staking small amounts you can easily
afford to lose. Why do you stake anything at all if you're only there
for the atmosphere and the social aspect?
pensive hamster
Nov 15, 2012, 9:32:22 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 2:11 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
[...l]
randomness'?
Some scientists and philosophers hold that nothing happens by chance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/16/gambling.mainsection
For sale for £1,000: gadget that means you'll never lose at roulette
again
· Using hidden device 'does not count as cheating'
· System can give 100% advantage over casino
Saturday 16 September 2006
---------------
The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and
clarifications column, Monday October 2 2006,
The above headline was a misinterpretation of the text. The relevant
part of the text said "a gambler with the equipment can gain an edge
of between 20% and 100% over the casino, overturning the casino's
normal 2.7% edge over customers". It did not intend to suggest that it
would always confer an advantage.
---------------
Professional gamblers are rushing to buy £1,000 devices that they
believe will enable them to win millions of pounds in casinos when the
gambling industry is deregulated next year.
Hundreds of the roulette-cheating machines - which consist of a small
digital time recorder, a concealed computer and a hidden earpiece -
were tested at a government laboratory in 2004 after a gang suspected
of using them won £1.3m at the Ritz casino in London.
After the research, which was never made public but has been seen by
the Guardian, the government's gambling watchdog admitted to industry
insiders that the technology can offer punters an edge when playing
roulette in a casino, and the advantage can be "considerable".
[...]
How it works
Clicker Used to record the speed of the rotor and ball, the data
acquisition clicker can be concealed in a pen, a watchstrap, a shoe or
even clipped to a molar tooth. The device is clicked as the two
entities pass reference points to gauge the deceleration speeds. The
data is sent to a remote computer
Computer Uses the timings to calculate which number the ball will
strike based on an algorithm from data gathered and transmits the
information to the earpiece. It is small enough to be hidden in a
mobile phone, MP3 player, handbag or cigarette lighter.
Earpiece Placed inside the ear canal, where it cannot be detected, the
earpiece relays instructions to the player about where to place bets.
It can be worn by many players to place simultaneous bets or one can
be swapped between them to confuse casino management
[...l]
> Doing something skillful or watching
> others do something skillful particularly well is inherently interesting
> and entertaining. But there's precious little of that in a casino,
> particularly in games of random chance like roulette.
>
'random chance', isn't that redundancy, a bit like saying ''random
> others do something skillful particularly well is inherently interesting
> and entertaining. But there's precious little of that in a casino,
> particularly in games of random chance like roulette.
>
randomness'?
Some scientists and philosophers hold that nothing happens by chance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/16/gambling.mainsection
For sale for £1,000: gadget that means you'll never lose at roulette
again
· Using hidden device 'does not count as cheating'
· System can give 100% advantage over casino
Saturday 16 September 2006
---------------
The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and
clarifications column, Monday October 2 2006,
The above headline was a misinterpretation of the text. The relevant
part of the text said "a gambler with the equipment can gain an edge
of between 20% and 100% over the casino, overturning the casino's
normal 2.7% edge over customers". It did not intend to suggest that it
would always confer an advantage.
---------------
Professional gamblers are rushing to buy £1,000 devices that they
believe will enable them to win millions of pounds in casinos when the
gambling industry is deregulated next year.
Hundreds of the roulette-cheating machines - which consist of a small
digital time recorder, a concealed computer and a hidden earpiece -
were tested at a government laboratory in 2004 after a gang suspected
of using them won £1.3m at the Ritz casino in London.
After the research, which was never made public but has been seen by
the Guardian, the government's gambling watchdog admitted to industry
insiders that the technology can offer punters an edge when playing
roulette in a casino, and the advantage can be "considerable".
[...]
How it works
Clicker Used to record the speed of the rotor and ball, the data
acquisition clicker can be concealed in a pen, a watchstrap, a shoe or
even clipped to a molar tooth. The device is clicked as the two
entities pass reference points to gauge the deceleration speeds. The
data is sent to a remote computer
Computer Uses the timings to calculate which number the ball will
strike based on an algorithm from data gathered and transmits the
information to the earpiece. It is small enough to be hidden in a
mobile phone, MP3 player, handbag or cigarette lighter.
Earpiece Placed inside the ear canal, where it cannot be detected, the
earpiece relays instructions to the player about where to place bets.
It can be worn by many players to place simultaneous bets or one can
be swapped between them to confuse casino management
Cynic
Nov 15, 2012, 9:38:12 AM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:11:29 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
atmosphere, just as it is in a good restaurant or dance hall or
theatre, and certainly the clothing is part of the entertainment in a
fancy-dress party. I cannot recall ever thinking of James Bond.
Perhaps that is your fantasy whenever you "dress posh"?
>> One could ask the same about watching men kicking a ball about or
>> playing a game of cards or dancing.
>Well, no you couldn't actually. Doing something skillful or watching
>others do something skillful particularly well is inherently interesting
>and entertaining.
For *you* perhaps. I personally find nothing that is remotely
entertaining in watching a game of football. Which makes me neither
better nor worse - just different. Do you also find it entertaining
to watch a skilled plumber fixing some pipes, or a skilled programmer
writing code?
Card games don't necessarily involve significant skill. Winning is
predominately due to the random order of the cards. You might also
think of popular board games such as "Monopoly" where the outcome is
due almost entirely to the chance fall of the die.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>> What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red' or
>>> 'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's entirely
>>> random? And what exactly do you find interesting when you're only
>>> staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
>> There is the atmosphere of the place and the social aspect as well.
>Do you dress up in dinner jacket and bow tie, and pretend to be James
>Bond?
The decor of the room and the dress of the clients is part of the
>>> What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red' or
>>> 'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's entirely
>>> random? And what exactly do you find interesting when you're only
>>> staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
>> There is the atmosphere of the place and the social aspect as well.
>Do you dress up in dinner jacket and bow tie, and pretend to be James
>Bond?
atmosphere, just as it is in a good restaurant or dance hall or
theatre, and certainly the clothing is part of the entertainment in a
fancy-dress party. I cannot recall ever thinking of James Bond.
Perhaps that is your fantasy whenever you "dress posh"?
>> One could ask the same about watching men kicking a ball about or
>> playing a game of cards or dancing.
>Well, no you couldn't actually. Doing something skillful or watching
>others do something skillful particularly well is inherently interesting
>and entertaining.
entertaining in watching a game of football. Which makes me neither
better nor worse - just different. Do you also find it entertaining
to watch a skilled plumber fixing some pipes, or a skilled programmer
writing code?
Card games don't necessarily involve significant skill. Winning is
predominately due to the random order of the cards. You might also
think of popular board games such as "Monopoly" where the outcome is
due almost entirely to the chance fall of the die.
--
Cynic
Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 9:59:00 AM11/15/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when NOTso...@microsoft.com (GB) came
frustration though.
up to me and whispered:
> Did they think you were cheating, or that you had inside
> information?
I don't know. Since the pool was £130 a time, I can understand their
> information?
frustration though.
Norman Wells
Nov 15, 2012, 10:22:08 AM11/15/12
to
pensive hamster wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2:11 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> [...l]
>> Doing something skillful or watching
>> others do something skillful particularly well is inherently
>> interesting and entertaining. But there's precious little of that in
>> a casino, particularly in games of random chance like roulette.
>>
>
> 'random chance', isn't that redundancy, a bit like saying ''random
> randomness'?
No. Games of chance determined primarily by the throw of a die or the
> On Nov 15, 2:11 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> [...l]
>> Doing something skillful or watching
>> others do something skillful particularly well is inherently
>> interesting and entertaining. But there's precious little of that in
>> a casino, particularly in games of random chance like roulette.
>>
>
> 'random chance', isn't that redundancy, a bit like saying ''random
> randomness'?
turn of a card can have some small skill element, eg baccarat or
blackjack. Games of random chance, like roulette, have no skill element
whatsoever.
> Some scientists and philosophers hold that nothing happens by chance.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/16/gambling.mainsection
>
> For sale for �1,000: gadget that means you'll never lose at roulette
> again
>
> � Using hidden device 'does not count as cheating'
And, since you're on their premises, you have to abide by their rules
and decisions.
Some methods may actually be illegal too, depending on where you are.
Besides, I saw a documentary once about this method, and it was only
significantly predictive to about a quarter of the wheel, making it
somewhat difficult to act upon.
Richard McKenzie
Nov 15, 2012, 10:22:54 AM11/15/12
to
being the banker i have never bet my brother and even when i have
cheated!
Norman Wells
Nov 15, 2012, 10:39:37 AM11/15/12
to
Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:11:29 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>>> What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red'
>>>> or 'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's
>>>> entirely random? And what exactly do you find interesting when
>>>> you're only staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
>
>>> There is the atmosphere of the place and the social aspect as well.
>
>> Do you dress up in dinner jacket and bow tie, and pretend to be James
>> Bond?
>
> The decor of the room and the dress of the clients is part of the
> atmosphere, just as it is in a good restaurant or dance hall or
> theatre, and certainly the clothing is part of the entertainment in a
> fancy-dress party. I cannot recall ever thinking of James Bond.
> Perhaps that is your fantasy whenever you "dress posh"?
It's not _my_ fantasy, and frankly I avoid it as much as possible. If
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:11:29 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>>> What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red'
>>>> or 'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's
>>>> entirely random? And what exactly do you find interesting when
>>>> you're only staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
>
>>> There is the atmosphere of the place and the social aspect as well.
>
>> Do you dress up in dinner jacket and bow tie, and pretend to be James
>> Bond?
>
> The decor of the room and the dress of the clients is part of the
> atmosphere, just as it is in a good restaurant or dance hall or
> theatre, and certainly the clothing is part of the entertainment in a
> fancy-dress party. I cannot recall ever thinking of James Bond.
> Perhaps that is your fantasy whenever you "dress posh"?
others enjoy such ridiculous pretensions, however, that's up to them.
What I asked, though, and what you still haven't answered, is why you
bet at all when you're there when you're only staking tiny amounts.
>>> One could ask the same about watching men kicking a ball about or
>>> playing a game of cards or dancing.
>
>> Well, no you couldn't actually. Doing something skillful or watching
>> others do something skillful particularly well is inherently
>> interesting and entertaining.
>
> For *you* perhaps. I personally find nothing that is remotely
> entertaining in watching a game of football. Which makes me neither
> better nor worse - just different. Do you also find it entertaining
> to watch a skilled plumber fixing some pipes, or a skilled programmer
> writing code?
skillful? Don't you ever enjoy watching someone else do something
skillful particularly well?
> Card games don't necessarily involve significant skill. Winning is
> predominately due to the random order of the cards.
considerable skill, which is why those who play them play them. It's
just the most banal that end up as casino games, and the most vacuous
who end up playing them.
> You might also
> think of popular board games such as "Monopoly" where the outcome is
> due almost entirely to the chance fall of the die.
them.
Alex Heney
Nov 15, 2012, 5:11:22 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:38:12 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> You might also
>think of popular board games such as "Monopoly" where the outcome is
>due almost entirely to the chance fall of the die.
You obviously haven't played much monopoly.
> You might also
>think of popular board games such as "Monopoly" where the outcome is
>due almost entirely to the chance fall of the die.
A skilled player will almost always beat a less skilled player.
The chance element means that even when skill levels are widely
separated, the better player won't quite *always* win. But they more
often than not will.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't worry, I'm fluent in weirdo.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
David D S
Nov 18, 2012, 8:13:04 AM11/18/12
to
Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:21:15 +0000, GB
> <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > By the way, why would anyone care? Who in their right
> > mind would pay �1 in order to get a one in 3.5
> > million chance of winning �1,000,000?
>
> Winning the jackpot prize (especially in the
> Euromillions) would be a completely life-changing event
> for almost everyone. Many people (myself included) are
> willing to spend a small sum of money to have even the
> merest possibility of achieving such an improvement to
> their lifestyle for no effort whatsoever.
I think peole who buy lottery tickets also are buying into a
dream they have (not just the having a very small chance of
winning), imagining what they might do if they won.
That dream is, of course, driven by the fact that they have
a
chance (albeit a very small one) of winning. If they don't
have even a chance, by not buying a ticket, the dream
becomes an impossible one.
That reminds me of a joke:
A man was desperate for money and decided he just had to
win the lottery. Every day he prayed to God, "Please God, I
really need to win the lottery, so make it happen for me!"
and
each time, he was disappointed. He got even more desperate,
and his prayers became even more desperate and begging.
"I really really must win this lottery. I think my family
will die
unless I win it! Please God, don't let me down!" At which
there
was a loud boom, a ray of light, and an overwhelming
God-like
voice came out of the heavens: "Ok, But meet me halfway! Buy
a ticket!"
--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2012/11/18 21:06:26
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:21:15 +0000, GB
> <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > By the way, why would anyone care? Who in their right
> > mind would pay �1 in order to get a one in 3.5
> > million chance of winning �1,000,000?
>
> Winning the jackpot prize (especially in the
> Euromillions) would be a completely life-changing event
> for almost everyone. Many people (myself included) are
> willing to spend a small sum of money to have even the
> merest possibility of achieving such an improvement to
> their lifestyle for no effort whatsoever.
I think peole who buy lottery tickets also are buying into a
dream they have (not just the having a very small chance of
winning), imagining what they might do if they won.
That dream is, of course, driven by the fact that they have
a
chance (albeit a very small one) of winning. If they don't
have even a chance, by not buying a ticket, the dream
becomes an impossible one.
That reminds me of a joke:
A man was desperate for money and decided he just had to
win the lottery. Every day he prayed to God, "Please God, I
really need to win the lottery, so make it happen for me!"
and
each time, he was disappointed. He got even more desperate,
and his prayers became even more desperate and begging.
"I really really must win this lottery. I think my family
will die
unless I win it! Please God, don't let me down!" At which
there
was a loud boom, a ray of light, and an overwhelming
God-like
voice came out of the heavens: "Ok, But meet me halfway! Buy
a ticket!"
--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2012/11/18 21:06:26
The Todal
Nov 18, 2012, 8:16:14 AM11/18/12
to
0 new messages