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

31–40 of 62 posts

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

#31

Post by angry_moose »

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.

Only if you don't factor in taxes and multiple winners.

This article added in sales numbers to estimate the actual expected value and it peaks around a $500 million jackpot with an expected value of $.85 from a $2.00 ticket. (very close to the bottom)

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/math-of-powerball/

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

#33

Post by toast0 »

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?

I would probably avoid using these specific tickets; someone else may have had the same idea, and that means more likelyhood of prize sharing.

If you permute the numbers with a substitution cipher (randomly chosen), maybe? Personally, I'd prefer a ticket selection like this that covers all the numbers over 27 random selections that may leave some numbers open, etc; but I wouldn't be surprised if you run the numbers, assuming no prize sharing, and get the same results on any distinct 27 tickets.

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

#35

Post by itsoktocry »

acomjean wrote: post #14
forinti wrote: post #4

Not a "win" in the financial aspect of the game: "... they matched just two balls on three of the tickets, the reward being three lucky dip tries on a subsequent lottery, each of which came to nothing. Since a ticket costs £2, the experiment represented a loss to the authors of £54. This unfortunate incident therefore serves both as a verification of our result and of the principle that one should expect to lose mone…

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…

>She turned, shook her head and said "I know what they've spent... its not a lot." and proceeded into a mini tirade against gambling, which she promptly stopped when a customer entered the store. Its profitiable.

Curious, but was this surprising to you? These games are literally all designed to take in money and pay out a portion of it. They have to be profitable.

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

#36

Post by dylan604 »

mlyle wrote: post #24
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

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.

Isn't there another study of people that won big have also lost it/squandered it all within a fairly short amount of time?

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

#37

Post by panarky »

angry_moose wrote: post #31
ecshafer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if you don't factor in taxes and multiple winners. This article added in sales numbers to estimate the actual expected value and it peaks around a $500 million jackpot with an expected value of $.85 from a $2.00 ticket. (very close to the bottom) https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/math-of-powerball/

You can use the Kelly Criterion [0] to compute the optimum bet amount given the odds, the payoff, the cost of a ticket, and the size of your bankroll.

Usually the optimum bet is zero because the expected value is negative.

But when the jackpot gets big enough, occasionally the Kelly Criterion will advise buying a ticket or two if your bankroll is really big, like $10 million.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

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

#38

Post by chmod775 »

dylan604 wrote: post #36
mlyle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't there another study of people that won big have also lost it/squandered it all within a fairly short amount of time?

Gamblers hardly intersects people who spend their money responsibly.

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

#39

Post by rjmunro »

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.

No. It does "good" with about 25% of it's income. A lot of that "good" is stuff that the government or local councils would just fund directly if the Lottery wasn't paying for them. Much better to just give money to your favourite charity directly.

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

#40

Post by Night_Thastus »

dylan604 wrote: post #36
mlyle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't there another study of people that won big have also lost it/squandered it all within a fairly short amount of time?

Even those who would be deemed "responsible" (already somewhat wealthy, otherwise stable) often end up far worse off.

It often ends in losing friendships, ties with family, death/kidnapping/blackmail threats both close and far away, endless frivolous lawsuits, financial ruin, etc.

The ratio of "happily ever after" stories to horror stories for winning the lottery seems a bit low for my tastes.

Post reply on HN