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

You need 27 tickets to guarantee a win on the UK National Lottery

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: You need 27 tickets to guarantee a win on the UK National Lottery

#21

Post by ecshafer »

angry_moose wrote: post #19
acomjean wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young I had a friend who bought one Massachusetts (US) lottery ticket a week. I remember he "won" (basically got his money back). When he went to cash out the cashier asked him, "do you want the money.. or another ticket". He took the another ticket and promptly lost. lesson learned. You can't win if you don't play, but 2 tickets doesn't increase your odds significantly. Where I worked there was a convenie…

There's a few Powerball Simulators (largest US lottery) out there - simulate buying 1 ticket a week indefinitely. It usually works out to about a -90% ROI, though I did just somewhat undermine my point by hitting $2,000,000 (5 white balls + powerplay) after 246 years and becoming profitable. First time I've ever hit on one of these, I let one go for several millenia one time. http://adamlamers.com/lottery_simulator

There is a point where the expected return is positive. Its around $1B or some large number like that. Sure the expected return is like 1% positive, but its positive.

Re: You need 27 tickets to guarantee a win on the UK National Lottery

#23

Post by dagw »

swarnie wrote: post #12
osullip wrote: post #6

Not worth promoting mathmatical oddities that encourage people to gamble, in my opinion.

The UK lottery does a lot of good with its funds and should be mentally separated from other betting/gambling firms in my opinion. If you want to "gamble" its the best option, if you don't you can always wait for the government to inflate your cash away or spend it on Hilton rooms for sailors.

If you want to "gamble" its the best option

The national lottery has an expected return of roughly 50% of your bet. They give about 30% of your bet to charity. So if you gamble £100, you'll end up with £50 in your pocket and £30 donated to charity.

Blackjack on the other hand returns roughly 90% of your bets over time if you play well. So if you donate £40 to charity and take the remaining £60 to a blackjack table you'll end up with more money going to charity and with more money in your pocket.

Re: You need 27 tickets to guarantee a win on the UK National Lottery

#24

Post by mlyle »

angry_moose wrote: post #19
acomjean wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young I had a friend who bought one Massachusetts (US) lottery ticket a week. I remember he "won" (basically got his money back). When he went to cash out the cashier asked him, "do you want the money.. or another ticket". He took the another ticket and promptly lost. lesson learned. You can't win if you don't play, but 2 tickets doesn't increase your odds significantly. Where I worked there was a convenie…

There's a few Powerball Simulators (largest US lottery) out there - simulate buying 1 ticket a week indefinitely. It usually works out to about a -90% ROI, though I did just somewhat undermine my point by hitting $2,000,000 (5 white balls + powerplay) after 246 years and becoming profitable. First time I've ever hit on one of these, I let one go for several millenia one time. http://adamlamers.com/lottery_simulator

Of course, spending a few bucks per week isn't necessarily irrational. The hope and entertainment has some value.

And, of course, the marginal value of a couple bucks more in your pocket may be nil, but the life-changing experience of a win may have considerably more value; that is, marginal utility may not just flow smoothly downwards.

Re: You need 27 tickets to guarantee a win on the UK National Lottery

#25

Post by SllX »

cschmidt wrote: post #18
gadders wrote: post #8

If you were going to run a syndicate with 27 entrants, would you be better off buying these 27 tickets or a random bunch of 27 tickets in terms of getting a jackpot? Or is there no difference in terms of likelihood of getting a significant win?

This paper is focused on the little prizes. The odds of winning the jackpot will be the same for any play. In fact the only thing you can do in the lottery is to avoid "popular" sequences like birthdays etc, so that if you do win you don't have to split it with a bunch of people. A lottery in the Philippines famously had 433 winners, who all played 9, 18, 27, 36, 45 and 54. ( https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/06/asia/phili…

The most disappointing thing here is that the number of winners wasn’t 432 or 423.

Re: You need 27 tickets to guarantee a win on the UK National Lottery

#26

Post by swarnie »

SeanLuke wrote: post #20
swarnie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK lottery does a lot of good with its funds and should be mentally separated from other betting/gambling firms in my opinion. If you want to "gamble" its the best option, if you don't you can always wait for the government to inflate your cash away or spend it on Hilton rooms for sailors.

In no universe is the UK lottery good. All lotteries, the UK lottery included, are effectively sucking money out of the poor. It is profoundly, grotesquely regressive. If the UK wanted to have an ethical, legitimate mechanism for distributing funds, it should levy a progressive tax that raises the same amount of money as the lottery.

Rishi already taxes the tits off anything he can recall after consuming half a tin of Dulux, please no more taxation.

My point isn't that the lottery is good, just that its the clear moral winner in an industry which includes Bet365, William hill, Coral and a million other pretenders.

If you want a small gamble and are adult enough to have financial independence its your best bet. If you don't or.. don't its totally optional.

Re: You need 27 tickets to guarantee a win on the UK National Lottery

#28

Post by vikingerik »

ecshafer wrote: post #21
angry_moose wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a few Powerball Simulators (largest US lottery) out there - simulate buying 1 ticket a week indefinitely. It usually works out to about a -90% ROI, though I did just somewhat undermine my point by hitting $2,000,000 (5 white balls + powerplay) after 246 years and becoming profitable. First time I've ever hit on one of these, I let one go for several millenia one time. http://adamlamers.com/lottery_simulator

There is a point where the expected return is positive. Its around $1B or some large number like that. Sure the expected return is like 1% positive, but its positive.

If the jackpot splits in the case of multiple winners, it's not positive - enough tickets will be bought until the expected number of winners is more than one and the expected value is no longer positive.

Re: You need 27 tickets to guarantee a win on the UK National Lottery

#29

Post by addandsubtract »

gadders wrote: post #8

If you were going to run a syndicate with 27 entrants, would you be better off buying these 27 tickets or a random bunch of 27 tickets in terms of getting a jackpot? Or is there no difference in terms of likelihood of getting a significant win?

You have the best odds if you don't have overlapping numbers, so buying 27 deliberately is better than just getting random ones. That said, your xWin with just 27 tickets is still astronomically low.

Re: You need 27 tickets to guarantee a win on the UK National Lottery

#30

Post by mlyle »

dagw wrote: post #23
swarnie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK lottery does a lot of good with its funds and should be mentally separated from other betting/gambling firms in my opinion. If you want to "gamble" its the best option, if you don't you can always wait for the government to inflate your cash away or spend it on Hilton rooms for sailors.

If you want to "gamble" its the best option The national lottery has an expected return of roughly 50% of your bet. They give about 30% of your bet to charity. So if you gamble £100, you'll end up with £50 in your pocket and £30 donated to charity. Blackjack on the other hand returns roughly 90% of your bets over time if you play well. So if you donate £40 to charity and take the remaining £60 to a blackjack table yo…

> take the remaining £60 to a blackjack table

Of course, "take the remaining 60 pounds" is ill-posed; what does that mean, make 60 bets of 1 pound and stop? Play a single 60 pound bet hand? Because that's the conditions under which you could expect to bring 60 and typically leave with ~54.

If you show up with 60 pounds but bet well over 60 cumulatively you're going to end up with much less.

Post reply on HN