Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#41

Post by harryh »

BoppreH wrote: post #15
lkozma wrote: post #11

I find it strange that they don't use some true random source in generating the tickets. I'm also surprised the article finds this obvious. "Of course, it would be really nice if the computer could just spit out random digits. But that’s not possible, since the lottery corporation needs to control the number of winning tickets" Surely the lottery could quantify uncertainties and set up a system where the probability…

I think that "arbitrarily small" is not enough, especially if you are running a business for decades. Try convincing your boss that the chance of all tickets be winners (which would bring the business down) is "small enough".

> I think that "arbitrarily small" is not enough, especially > if you are running a business for decades.

Sure it is. How do you think casinos work?

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#42

Post by pmjordan »

BoppreH wrote: post #15
lkozma wrote: post #11

I find it strange that they don't use some true random source in generating the tickets. I'm also surprised the article finds this obvious. "Of course, it would be really nice if the computer could just spit out random digits. But that’s not possible, since the lottery corporation needs to control the number of winning tickets" Surely the lottery could quantify uncertainties and set up a system where the probability…

I think that "arbitrarily small" is not enough, especially if you are running a business for decades. Try convincing your boss that the chance of all tickets be winners (which would bring the business down) is "small enough".

They could eliminate uncertainty by choosing a fixed number of winners from a given block of tickets, using true random numbers.

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#43

Post by Confusion »

I wouldn't have been surprised if they had known about the 'flaw', but didn't mind it, because, as Srivastava said "it wasn't worth the time to abuse the flaw". In similar vein, I once randomly generated 2 million out of 40 million possible codes. Consumers would buy products, obtain a code and it would allow them to 'buy one, get one free' for some other product. The code being short and without the usual mixup candidates (I, 1, O, 0, etc.) was much more important than people 'cracking' the system. Even at half the price, the other product still sold at a profit and nobody saw room for mass purchase/reselling.

Of course, later in the article it appeared that people were abusing cracks in the system and reaping the benefits, so it doesn't apply to this case. I just wanted to note that sometimes business concerns trump all actually interesting parts of a problem :/

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#44

Post by nowarninglabel »

Great article, though, I take issue with this tangent:

"James “Whitey” Bulger, a notorious South Boston mob boss currently on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted Fugitives list—he’s thought to be the inspiration for the Frank Costello character in The Departed"

The inspiration for that character is the original movie, Infernal Affairs, which The Departed is a remake of. They may have bleneded some features of Bulger into that character, but that doesn't make him the inspiration.

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#45

Post by maeon3 »

The lottery system can now confidently continue to extracting money out of idiots who don't know better. Somehow this whole story leaves me feeling that nothing good has happened.

The whole story just feels like a good Samaritan helping a schoolyard bully steal change out of the back pockets of unwitting classmates.

A happy ending would be the lottery system managers getting thrown out after suffering unexpected sustained losses.

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#46

Post by BrandonM »

dhyasama wrote: post #38
eftpotrm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the UK lottery; all the tickets get dispensed from clear containers and have to be the next one on the roll (which comes out at the back so you can't see what the next one will be). They've tried educating their customers* about not buying tickets that aren't on the roll. This to me seemed to be the core of the problem; not that the cards were crackable, but that it was possible for a user to select what card…

Exactly. Force players to buy the next ticket on the roll (without seeing it) and don't allow unused tickets to be returned. Problem solved. I grew up in Maine and tickets are dispensed this way. Not sure about returning tickets, but knowing Mainers, I'd be surprised if they would take them back. It doesn't pass the straight-face test.

Problem not solved. A savvy attendant just checks the tickets on the end of each roll. If it's a winner, go ahead and buy it. Otherwise, wait until a customer buys the loser first.

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#47

Post by sdkmvx »

autarch wrote: post #35

I wish the article had talked about the legality of doing this. Assuming I'm not doing this to launder money and that I report all my earnings, is this legal?

Not a lawyer, but I would be very surprised if the law that creates and regulates the lottery doesn't include a clause to make buying tickets by an algorithm illegal or something like it.

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#48

Post by ynniv »

apalmblad wrote: post #18
lkozma wrote: post #11

I find it strange that they don't use some true random source in generating the tickets. I'm also surprised the article finds this obvious. "Of course, it would be really nice if the computer could just spit out random digits. But that’s not possible, since the lottery corporation needs to control the number of winning tickets" Surely the lottery could quantify uncertainties and set up a system where the probability…

It sounds like ticket design is the problem; an algorithm is needed that: - produces a set of bingo cards or tic-tac-toe boards such that only one board per card is a winner - produces cards that contain a number of almost winners Simply randomly assigning numbers wouldn't work, and it seems the method they've developed for building "fun to play" cards contains weaknesses against statistical analysis. Hmm... now I'll…

The solution is straightforward: generate truly random boards, evaluate them, and then use the set that fits your payout profile. The problem is that these boards will lack the enticing hooks that keep folks coming back. The complete solution is to also discard boards that are not enticing enough. The result will have fewer artificial patterns like the ones used in the article to determine winners.

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#49

Post by Luyt »

BrandonM wrote: post #46
dhyasama wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Force players to buy the next ticket on the roll (without seeing it) and don't allow unused tickets to be returned. Problem solved. I grew up in Maine and tickets are dispensed this way. Not sure about returning tickets, but knowing Mainers, I'd be surprised if they would take them back. It doesn't pass the straight-face test.

Problem not solved. A savvy attendant just checks the tickets on the end of each roll. If it's a winner, go ahead and buy it. Otherwise, wait until a customer buys the loser first.

Disallow attendants to buy tickets while they're on the job. [However, they could signal accomplices to buy it for them. It would take a team, then.]

Re: Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

#50

Post by Prisen »

lkozma wrote: post #11

I find it strange that they don't use some true random source in generating the tickets. I'm also surprised the article finds this obvious. "Of course, it would be really nice if the computer could just spit out random digits. But that’s not possible, since the lottery corporation needs to control the number of winning tickets" Surely the lottery could quantify uncertainties and set up a system where the probability…

They probably have to specify exactly what percentage of income is given out in winnings. Not to protect the lottery company, but to protect lottery buyers.
Post reply on HN