11–20 of 26 posts
A mechanical system such as balls in a hopper is likely to be biased either by design or by active human intervention when the results appear biased. One of the insights at Bletchley park was that Enigma operators had "letter bias" in their selections.
A mechanical system such as balls in a hopper is likely to be biased either by design or by active human intervention when the results appear biased. One of the insights at Bletchley park was that Enigma operators had "letter bias" in their selections.
it would be an interesting math problem to try to create a model that could detect the bias
The problem with powerball is obtaining a large enough sample size...the space is much bigger than that of roulette.
Not something l'd recommend though, as I hate games of luck.
A mechanical system such as balls in a hopper is likely to be biased either by design or by active human intervention when the results appear biased. One of the insights at Bletchley park was that Enigma operators had "letter bias" in their selections.
The only way to win at powerball is to never play. I'm up whatever the average player is down (100's of dollars? 1000's?).
The only useful strategy for choosing numbers is to choose numbers that other people are not using, so that you maximize your chance of not having to split the pot in the unlikely event that you win. I think I read that numbers below 30 are vastly overrepresented in lottery ticket number choices.
The only way to win at powerball is to never play. I'm up whatever the average player is down (100's of dollars? 1000's?).
My assumption was that each number should have an equal distribution over time, so anything that did not had a higher likely hood of being chosen. I feel like saying Gambler's Fallacy to someone who knows what R is is borderline aggressive but, out of a maximum of good intentions, the thing you've labeled as an assumption is called the Gambler's Fallacy and it is so named because statistics does not work that way. ht…
EDIT: also, the hypothesis included the average amount of time the balls were being tumbled before drawn.
It was, to my middle school statistical ability, correct at that time (ca. 1980s). The "hot" numbers "won" me over $3,000 over the course of two months. Random numbers? About $20.
Things have very likely changed since then, though.
My father used lists of previous winning numbers and a "system" he adapted from Keno (which he mostly lost at). Once I was with him when he was buying lottery tickets and I bought one with the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6. My dad came unglued, asking me if I understood how unlikely my numbers were to hit. Exactly as likely as his, I tried to explain, but he didn't get it.
1,2,3,4,5,6 is a (relatively) common choice of numbers people buy in lotteries, so if those numbers win you're more likely to have to split the pot.
I think it's reasonable that some numbers are more likely. Either by their initial placement or by subtle effects of aerodynamics and weight of the painted numbers.
That said I think it's a little absurd to choose numbers. Like it actually matters. Just get computer picks. It's the best chance to not split the pot, assuming a fair computer.
Unrelated: I don't think it makes much sense to buy more than one ticket. The EV is still slightly less than the cost of the ticket and after the initial ticket you cannot boost you odds again like that. Even with positive EV it's still insanely high variance, so I don't see how multiplying your odds makes any difference, compared to raising your odds from zero which your initial ticket does.