re: powerball odds - help me win my argument - posted pg 8

quote:

---

Not really. Probably lower equity value because of a higher split-pot chance in the equal chance you hit the jackpot.

---

This is a good point, but this would only decrease the expected value, not the odds.

quote:

---

So you're saying that if I play the same numbers 300 million times, I'm bound to win once?

---

Statistically yes.

2 drawing a week x 52 weeks a year = 104

300000000 times /104 drawings = ~2.9 million years

So yes if you play the same numbers (or any set of numbers) twice a week, you statistically would hit the Jackpot within the next 2.9 million years.

Run this program and let me know how long it really takes.

PowerBall Simulator

quote:

---

There have never been 6 consecutive numbers drawn in any national or international lottery, at least according to my quick Googling.

---

There are millions of number combinations about which you could say the same thing. The fact that the numbers are consecutive does not mean they are any less likely to win than any other combination is.

The thing that confuses me about the deal or no deal thing is just pretend this


You pick your case and get to the final 3 amd there is 1 mil. 1$ 2$.


So cant you tecnically say rite here that there are 3 cases, the case of 3 that you are chosing is case number 1 out of 1 2 3

Case 1 in this example jusy so happens t be a case thay was selected when there were 30 cases left.

You chose case 2 to open, 2$ is inside. Is this not the exact same as having an empty case shown to you?

So now switch to case 3.

I dont understand how this differs from monty hall. Is it not basically the same thing?

quote:

---

there must be 300,000,000 combinations of numbers.

now, since this lottery has gone so high, wouldn't it be a good deal to buy one of each number combination?.

---

Even brushing aside the concern that you might have to split the pot, in which case you might lose money on your $600,000,000 outlay, you physically could not buy all the combinations. Lottery tickets must be bought in person. With three days between drawings and buying tickets continuously 24 hours per day each day, you would have to buy over 1,100 tickets PER SECOND to buy them all.

Even with all the millions of people going to all the thousands of different retailers around the country clamoring to get a chance at last week's $900M+ jackpot, they only managed to sell about 450 million tickets. One person, or even an army of people hired by one person (or company), would simply not have time to buy them all. And that's not even considering the time involved in actually filling out the slips, which you would have to do since you could not rely on quick picks to cover every combination.

I read yesterday that a group of investors tried to do that for a smaller lottery in Virginia a few years ago, but were only able to buy about a third of the 7+ million possible combinations. With over 300 million combinations, there's almost no way anyone could do it.

quote:

---

You chose case 2 to open, 2$ is inside. Is this not the exact same as having an empty case shown to you?

So now switch to case 3.

I dont understand how this differs from monty hall. Is it not basically the same thing?

---

No, unfortunately it is not.

You're looking at your example from one side, but imagine the other proposition. You chose 1 case out of 30 hoping for the $1M. It is very unlikely that you chose incorrectly and the $1M is in the remaining 29 cases - we can all agree on that. However, to get to a situation where there are 2 cases remaining - $1 and $1M, you would have to be one incredibly lucky son of a bitch in Deal or No Deal. Without knowledge of where the $1M is, you'd have to "correctly" pick 28 consecutive cases that did not have the $1M - which is so incredibly unlikely considering the original game odds that you are no better off switching at that point.

I'll put it another way that may make more sense. Howie Mandel knows where the case is, so for him to pick 28 "incorrect" cases is a 100% guaranteed sure thing - thereby eliminating those cases from the pool. If you pick your case, he will then eliminate 28 bad cases and you should ALWAYS switch in that scenario. He is effectively giving you a chance to see all 29 cases with NO risk of being wrong on the first 28, or you can stick with the original pick you made.

That is the beauty of "knowing" - you eliminate the randomness of the choices.

quote:

---

Statistically yes.

2 drawing a week x 52 weeks a year = 104

300000000 times /104 drawings = ~2.9 million years

So yes if you play the same numbers (or any set of numbers) twice a week, you statistically would hit the Jackpot within the next 2.9 million years.

Run this program and let me know how long it really takes.

---

To get a 99% probabilty of winning, one would have to play the same numbers 1,345,636,901 times or for 12,938,816 years.

quote:

---

I'll put it another way that may make more sense. Howie Mandel knows where the case is, so for him to pick 28 "incorrect" cases is a 100% guaranteed sure thing - thereby eliminating those cases from the pool. If you pick your case, he will then eliminate 28 bad cases and you should ALWAYS switch in that scenario. He is effectively giving you a chance to see all 29 cases with NO risk of being wrong on the first 28, or you can stick with the original pick you made

---

I understand that the odds are extremely low that you make it that far. But whats realy the difference between just taking the cases away and making guesses in terms of the picture of the last 2 cases?

Since the OP asked for opinions, mine is that the probability of your Powerball numbers matching the powerball numbers drawn is not an opinion. It's mathematical. Those odds are not going to change unless they change the rules / parameters.

Buy a ticket. If you win, wonderful. If you don't, you're only 2 bucks lighter than you were the day before. All the discussion in the world won't change that fact.

quote:

---

I understand what you are saying. But i dont understand why.

Im sure that statistically there is a reason. It would be helpful to see the math i think.

---

It's because regardless of what case it's behind, Howie will choose the 28 it's not behind. Now there is a 3.333% chance all 29 do not have it, but in the 96.667% that it is behind one of the 29, he is still going to choose 28 that it's not.

So by switching, you are in essence, switching to 29 cases. It would be the same logic as switching immediately to all 29, then having Howie open all cases at once.