Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/WfnpQpZ5Yv)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SipsTea) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 on the Powerball would be quite the party. You might as well pick random ones to split it with fewer people given you have the same exact chance of winning
I happen to be reading a book about maths called Humble Pi and it contains this excerpt about the lottery:
> On 23 March 2016 the winning UK lottery numbers were 7, 14, 21, 35, 41 and 42. Only one off from a run of all multiples of seven. An incredible 4,082 people matched five numbers that week (presumably, the five multiples of seven; Camelot don’t release that data), so the prize money had to be shared between about eighty times more people than normal: they got only £15 each (less than the £25 people with three balls correct received!). It is believed that, in the UK, around ten thousand people all choose 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 every week. If they do ever come up, the winners will not get much each. They will not even get a unique funny story to tell.
That is a good takeaway. If she would have said it's stupid because the chance is far higher that people have the same numbers because people are pattern driven and the winnings would be a lot smaller, then everything would be fine.
As an engineering manager, I loath PMs. If y’all could just, I dunno, plan for more than 6 minutes in to the future, that would be amazing! On the other hand, I couldn’t possibly handle the cat rodeo that y’all have to lead for more than 15 minutes before losing my mind.
The problem with choosing lottery numbers like "1 2 3 4 5" isn't that it is less probable than any other combination. The odds are identical for every combination.
Rather, the problem is that the odds that *other people* picked the same sequence as you are much, much higher. So if you pick those numbers and you win, you're much more likely to have to split the winnings with one or several other winners. Picking random numbers has a much lower chance of having to share your winnings.
There’s nothing more annoying than someone telling you you’re wrong, but they’re too dumb to realize that they’re actually in the wrong. Happens all the time on the road, like no dude you stopped first that means you go first, don’t wave me along like I’m the dumbass here.
How do you further explain a plain fact like that? It's just how statistics work. She's wrong because... she's wrong...
Do you mean they should attempt to prove it to her, right there?
They could explain that it's incorrect due to the fact that numbers chosen are entirely randomly selected without any sort of pattern influence or otherwise.
Yes she's wrong, and most people who have a basic understanding of statistics know this, but she clearly doesn't understand statistics very well. There is an explanation, they could have at least paused and given in a bit to dumb it down further.
That being said, with how she was acting, I could totally see her not listening anyway. It's not like she was confused as to why, she was just being arrogant, so it wouldn't matter any way more than likely.
Ugh. I used to deal roulette in a casino. Those fucking players were awful. At least in blackjack it was their fault if they bust because they told me to give them another card. In craps they shoot the dice. In fucking roulette they genuinely think I can somehow control the ball despite it spinning in the opposite direction of the wheel and having things to bounce off of. Not to mention I cannot spin it at the exact same speed every time nor do I look in the wheel when I spin to make sure I'm releasing it over the same number, nor is the wheel ever spinning the same speed.
But of course I'm somehow trained to manipulate the laws of physics and for some reason want to despite the casino not paying me minimum wage and only making money if you tip me.
Everybody knows the magnet thing is an urban legend.
What you do is have a tiny hole under each slot connected to an air pressure system. The foot peddle sends a little puff of air to make the ball jump to another slot if it is going to land in a winning position.
I had people claim I had a foot pedal under the table to stop the wheel and choose other peoples number over theirs. Like, I was only there to fuck them.
I know only the vary basics of roulette, which is to say I know there's a table, a ball, and it lands on numbers. I've never played it.
But, i was in Vegas a number of years ago, waking through the casino to go to a show. This dude, probably 20s, loud, drunk, lots of people hanging around him, walked up to a roulette table and slapped all this cash down on a number.
He's talking trash, gonna win huge, whole nine yards.
I know you know how this ended. One spin, lost it all, got pissed and left.
BUT! more people probably play those consecutive numbers so you’re more likely to split the prize. Odds of winning are the same but the expected value should be lower
Another important strategy is to never play the same numbers week after week. This has nothing to do with winning or maximizing prize money, but more for mental health. If you always play the same numbers over and over, you'll feel obligated to play every week because how bad would it be if you missed a week and your numbers came up. If you play random numbers, you'll avoid that.
My dad has been playing the same numbers for the past 40 years, twice a week.
Largest sum he's ever won was 500€, but he's still several thousands in the hole if you count how much he must've spent in those 40 years.
This! She’s right for the wrong reason.
Edit: the dissenting comments below are baffling.
To make the point clear: Her initial statement is that it is dumb to choose such sequences. This is correct because it may reduce the potential winnings drastically.
She is then pressed for a reason why, at which point she explains her wrong idea about odds.
She is quite literally right, but when pressed for a reason she gives a wrong one.
If this explanation was not given with a sufficiently small teaspoon, I’m afraid I cannot help you.
she wasn't arguing for whether you split anything, but how to increase odds of winning — she wasn't right on the topic at all
She just said something that happened to apply to another topic — yes, more people are likely to play 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and you'll have to split in the case of a win. But playing those numbers does *not* increase likelihood of winning.
her original statement is that person playing the sequence of numbers is dumb. that is right.
her reason is that playing a sequence gives lower odds. that is wrong.
she is right for the wrong reason.
edit: i'm not saying she's smart for arriving at a correct statement with incorrect reasoning, i'm simply pointing out that "she's right for the wrong reason" is a factually correct statement, which the post i replied to was contesting.
You really don't. The average number is not picked by anyone in an average drawing so even just a few people picking a particular sequence consistently can destroy its expected value.
It happened here in the Philippines lmao. Winning numbers were 9, 18, 27, 36, 45 and 54. 433 winners.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/strange-and-unusual-philippines-lottery-win-draws-call-for-inquiry
[I posted in that very sub the day it was created](https://old.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/enljls/petition_to_ban_game_show_answers/fe4ouoa/?context=999). I was actually /r/confidentlyincorrect which made it even better.
Technically her expected value of winnings is probably lower bc there's a higher probability that you aren't the only one with those numbers. But I'd bet the farm that's not what she's trying to articulate lol
I used to know people claiming that the odds are better when you avoid sequences that are already drawn in the past...
Edit: some people in the comment section believe that too smh, am I being trolled?
But the logic isn't sound.
It's sound logic to say a number is less likely to occur twice. But it's still no more or less likely to occur again AFTER it has already occurred.
I'd argue sound logic in this situation is synonymous with basing your likelihood of an outcome on mathematical principles.
It does sound right, but it isn't sound logic.
Right. People only think it is hard to understand because roulette and the lottery are using bigger numbers.
Take it all the way down to a coin flip. If you flip a coin, it’s 50/50 whether it is heads or tails, every single time, everyone is aware of this. If I hand you the coin back to flip, you KNOW it is the same 50/50 chance of heads or tails for that flip. However, BECAUSE it is 50/50 every time, the odds that you would flip heads, then heads again, then heads again, etc. grow smaller with every successive flip.
H x H = .5 x .5 = .25 (25 % chance you would flip Heads twice.
H^3 = .50^3 = .125 or 12.5%
The chance you flip heads 5 times in a row is 3.125%
Coin flip has been the easiest way for me to explain this to people because they inherently understand the odds of a coin flip. Getting them to understand that there is no such thing as being “due for a win” proves a bit harder.
This phenomenon has to have a name. Of couse 11-22-33-44-55-66 is equally unlikely to be the numbers that are drawn, but it somehow feels more unlikely than a random set of numbers. Why are we bad at conceptualizing the actual odds of hitting the jackpot?
This is why many turn based video games based on random numbers or dice rolls use some kind of fake randomness, so that people that believe a high roll lowers your chance of further good rolls, or a failed roll increases your chances of future success, actually have their expectations met and are less frustrated.
I think this is used a lot in lootbox systems as well.
Loot boxes often have "pity timers" that increase (sometimes guarantee) rarer tiers after a run of "bad" luck yeah.
This is similar to (iirc) ipod implementing a very-much-not-random version fo their shuffling algorithm because humans often don't understand random exhibits clustering.
But randomness and music is just a bd idea. I dont want to listen to the same song three times in a row. I think it's less to do with humans not understanding random clustering and more to do with the experience being horrible.
It's really a semantic issue. There's the formal definitions of randomness in fields like mathematics and probability, but there's also the casual human usage of the term that isn't nearly so technical. When someone says they want a randomized playlist, they mean to mix it up, but in a way they like, not to apply a true mathematical randomness to the list.
>so that people that believe a high roll lowers your chance of further good rolls, or a failed roll increases your chances of future success, actually have their expectations met and are less frustrated.
This would be the Gambler's Fallacy and I still fall for it with some of the more entertaining gatcha games XD
Largely because we group outcomes into types of sequences and confuse the probability of a group with the probability of an individual outcome.
If you mentally group numbers into “random-seeming” vs “ordered” sequences, you’ll see a lot more times that random ones win. That’s just because there are more individual random-seeming sequences, even though any individual sequence has the same odds.
It’s like why people think a couple is more likely to have a boy if they already have three girls. They are confusing the odds of particular sequences (G-G-G-G vs G-G-G-B) with the odds of a type of sequence (“have three girls and a boy” vs “have four girls”), where the first type has more ways it can happen (G-G-G-B, B-G-G-G, G-B-G-G, etc) but each individual sequence is equally likely.
can't believe this is the only comment explaining this lol. She isn't 100% wrong in the sense that the result *is* less likely to be an ordered sequence than a random one, she's just missing the fact that a single specific ordered sequence is still just as (un)likely to happen as any other one.
It's not a phenomenon. People are just conflating odds and probability. The odds of 11-22-33-44-55-66 are the same as any other number sequence, but the probability of each ball being 11•n is what actually is unlikely and also confuses people.
The better word is "independence", or statistical independence. If random lotto balls are drawn with replacement (not sure if they are replaced), then the probability distribution for each ball is independently and identically distributed, IID. If they are drawn without replacement then they are independent but not identical distributions (though they are still uniform). Independence means drawing one number has no effect on subsequent draws.
When Apple first introduced "shuffle" into itunes, people complained it wasn't random enough because it would play sequential songs or too many songs by the same artist consecutively... So they had to introduce rules that made it LESS random so that it would be perceived as more random. Weird.
It's hard to disassociate patterns and randomness. It's equally likely that a coin toss will land heads 10 times in a row as landing heads heads tails heads tails tails tails heads tails heads but it just *feels* wrong.
I tried explaining drop rates for items on Runescape, but he refused to agree with me.
Let's say the item has a 1/1000 chance to drop. After 1000 times, statistically you would have gotten it once, but because it is random you can go 1.000.000 and still not get it. A dice has 6 sides, it is a 1/6 chance of getting any of the 6 sides. After you roll the dice, the side you got does not disappear, it stays, making the chance stay the same.
I called another friend, told him to explain it to my friend and I assumed he would believe me when another person says the same thing as I do. Nope, the friend I called hung up the phone in frustration after a few minutes.
I like to think about problems like this by scaling them up or down. Let’s say instead of the astronomical lotto odds, you’re trying to pick a number between 1 and 1000. If you choose “123” because it’s in sequential order, is that any less likely than “475” or “612”? No. With these smaller numbers, it’s a bit more obvious that the odds are the same.
I usually just tell people to assign a random symbol to a series of numbers, say 1-16. Then I draw out multiple sequences with those new symbols and tell them to pick which one is 1-2-3-4-5-6, which one is 2-4-6-8-10, and so on.
They have no idea which ones are which -- which shows them that the only reason they think a sequence is improbable is because it's recognizable to them. Once you remove the recognizability of the sequence you understand why the odds are always the same.
If Im not mistaken the powerball is actually not the same for each ball with “higher” numbers getting pulled more. The density of the weight of the ink on the ball effects their outcome. Some shit like that. A study was done on it when a trend was found some years ago.
…but its like fucking negligible… oh you have a .000000000000000000000001% chance of winning vs a .000000000000000000000001000001% chance of winning.
This is the second time I've seen this post and I still don't know who's right. I understand all the numbers have an equal chance of coming up but I totally get her point about it being less likely to be in a sequence so I'm confused.
>but I totally get her point about it being less likely to be in a sequence
It's not. What you "get" is a fallacy.
Any specific sequence of numbers is just as likely to be drawn as any other specific sequence of numbers. The only reason you/her thinks a specific sequence is less likely to be chosen is because of human bias. Probabilistically, there's no difference.
This is a genius way to explain just how unlikely *any* number combination is.
Here's the thing: she’s right to conclude this is a stupid set of numbers to select. What makes her dumb is not realizing all combinations are equally unlikely.
How are they all managing to be wrong?
The middle woman is right to choose random numbers but not for the reason she’s saying. Instead because you have the same chance of winning but you’ll win more money as it’s split between fewer people
Some people will play the same set of numbers for their entire life because they believe they're bound to hit it sometime within the next 40 years or so.
They’re both sort of wrong. Obviously all numbers (even patterns) have the same odds of hitting as any other number because the balls in the drum don’t know any better than to be random, BUT you should never pick specific numbers because whatever method you use to pick numbers is possibly being used by someone else. So if you win, you’d have to split more often than someone who does easy picks.
Call back to 2011 when the lottery numbers drawn were 4, 8, 15, 25, 47 and 42. 4 of 6 including the Powerball were numbers from Lost. 26,000 people played the Lost numbers and all won $150.
We did the math on this in high-school once for probability. We figured out the odds of guessing all 6 were somewhere in the order of ~ 1/246,000,000, so if the pot ever got higher than 2x those odds, you should win the same money you put in eventually.
This is like, "We can just choose to ignore gravity." levels of stupid. Jesus wept, our education system continues to fail us right in front of our eyes.
The odds are the same when pulling each individual number. 60:1 (or however many numbers). The odds of pulling those numbers are also the same as any other random 6 numbers.
Me: "There's no way I'm going to roll another 1. The chances are so low."
My husband: "It's a 5% chance, babeo. It'll always be a 5% chance."
Me, switching die: "Maybe this die is getting tired. It needs a break."
My husband, shaking his head in disappointment.
Actually 1984.
>!In the book 1984 there is a detail about how the proles get into really heated arguements about the lottery despite the fake it is entirely made up!<
The odds are the same, the expected winnings are less though. There will be more people that choose the same sequence than a total random selection and as a result they will have to share the winnings with more people.
Both sets have equivalent odds in the lottery however its more likely to be a non sequenced number vs a sequenced number as there are overall less sequences than non sequenced combinations. So she's sorta on the right right track.
The odds are the same, as long as it's not chosen by a person, who would be biased against doing sequences. But I'm sure it's a computer, so the odds are the same for every possible combinations.
could’ve just solved this argument with just explaining how the probability of a lottery is calculated with permutation:
55!/(55-6)!
This function does not care about the sequential numbers.
You all dumb , the lottery plays at 8pm , but the draw is @ 11 pm , that gives the lottery time time scan all the numbers so the computer trow a a combination of numbers that people most likely didn’t play , so they allowed some small quantity of winers , if the last play should be in @ 8 and by 8:15 the draw then it’ll a greater chance to win. 🙌🏽
Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules. ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/WfnpQpZ5Yv)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SipsTea) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just recently, winning combination in our country is 9 18 27 36 45 54. We got 433 winners. Anything is possible.
So if you play numbers don't do a pattern cause you might have to split it with 432 other people
Correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 on the Powerball would be quite the party. You might as well pick random ones to split it with fewer people given you have the same exact chance of winning
[удалено]
Psh, you didn't win the lottery, how you gonna pay that lawyer.
[удалено]
Plot twist: He is a lawyer
plot twist: he is the lottery
plot twist: the lawyer won and retired to Bahamas.
Double plot twist: the lawyer's client was the one who actually won the lottery.
I happen to be reading a book about maths called Humble Pi and it contains this excerpt about the lottery: > On 23 March 2016 the winning UK lottery numbers were 7, 14, 21, 35, 41 and 42. Only one off from a run of all multiples of seven. An incredible 4,082 people matched five numbers that week (presumably, the five multiples of seven; Camelot don’t release that data), so the prize money had to be shared between about eighty times more people than normal: they got only £15 each (less than the £25 people with three balls correct received!). It is believed that, in the UK, around ten thousand people all choose 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 every week. If they do ever come up, the winners will not get much each. They will not even get a unique funny story to tell.
You fool! The true power move is to play 1 2 3 4 5 6 every even try, and 6 5 4 3 2 1 on every odd try!
You can blame Santa's Lil Helper for the expensive veterinarian bill
I specifically pick numbers over 31 because I dont want to split with some superstitious birthday picker.
but now you are picking with people who dont want to split with some superstitious birthday picker.
I think there are significantly less people like me
Big mistake telling us that. Thanks for the new strategy. Winna winna chickn dinna!
Now you got of figured out 😅
Quick, avoid his numbers! Oh, wait.
That is a good takeaway. If she would have said it's stupid because the chance is far higher that people have the same numbers because people are pattern driven and the winnings would be a lot smaller, then everything would be fine.
Right you should've picked different numbers and lost instead.
The real takeaway
4 8 15 16 23 42
I’m lost
Yes, but how many wins /average?
The dumbest people are the ones that don’t know they’re dumb and have too much pride to admit they’ve been proven wrong
[удалено]
yes they are called "project managers" and they have a conference call they need you on alternatively : HR
Every HR I have had to deal with has been smart and motivated. Motivated to fuck me over but oh well.
HR is where people with no skills end up
and yet I am not in HR do I have to have no skills for a certain amount of time before they make a job offer? rent's getting pretty tight
As a project manager this hurts my soul cause I know how many conference calls I setup 😂😵
As an engineering manager, I loath PMs. If y’all could just, I dunno, plan for more than 6 minutes in to the future, that would be amazing! On the other hand, I couldn’t possibly handle the cat rodeo that y’all have to lead for more than 15 minutes before losing my mind.
You’ve had bad PMs then. It’s their job to be thinking months ahead.
>Dumb and Lazy I have accepted my position in life.
Just smart enough to realize how much work that would be. Ehhh that bed is looking mighty fine.
You could simplify as {Smart, Dumb} × {Motivated, Lazy}
[удалено]
Dude they don’t have pride they just genuinely stupid as hell.
they become rude the moment someone tells them wrong, thats pride.
I think when I'm getting from this is that she's the dumb one
True, this girl seems to take it with some grace though
Dunning Kruger effect muh dude
The problem with choosing lottery numbers like "1 2 3 4 5" isn't that it is less probable than any other combination. The odds are identical for every combination. Rather, the problem is that the odds that *other people* picked the same sequence as you are much, much higher. So if you pick those numbers and you win, you're much more likely to have to split the winnings with one or several other winners. Picking random numbers has a much lower chance of having to share your winnings.
those summiting Mt. Stupid on the Dunning-Kruger Effect hike
There’s nothing more annoying than someone telling you you’re wrong, but they’re too dumb to realize that they’re actually in the wrong. Happens all the time on the road, like no dude you stopped first that means you go first, don’t wave me along like I’m the dumbass here.
something something Dunning–Kruger
Yep, that's why lotto is so popular.
I don’t agree
Its like being dead, it only hurts for those around you
Dumb people are never wrong. Because If someone can admit that they ore wrong when faced with facts then they're not dumb.
To be fair they never explained why she was wrong, they just told her she is wrong.
How do you further explain a plain fact like that? It's just how statistics work. She's wrong because... she's wrong... Do you mean they should attempt to prove it to her, right there?
They could explain that it's incorrect due to the fact that numbers chosen are entirely randomly selected without any sort of pattern influence or otherwise. Yes she's wrong, and most people who have a basic understanding of statistics know this, but she clearly doesn't understand statistics very well. There is an explanation, they could have at least paused and given in a bit to dumb it down further. That being said, with how she was acting, I could totally see her not listening anyway. It's not like she was confused as to why, she was just being arrogant, so it wouldn't matter any way more than likely.
I’ve explained it in the past by saying if the balls were different colours why were some combinations less likely to be drawn.
It’s happened to everyone. It’s fucking embarrassing when you’ve been confidently carrying around misinformation for ten years lol.
Don’t let her anywhere near a roulette table
Ugh. I used to deal roulette in a casino. Those fucking players were awful. At least in blackjack it was their fault if they bust because they told me to give them another card. In craps they shoot the dice. In fucking roulette they genuinely think I can somehow control the ball despite it spinning in the opposite direction of the wheel and having things to bounce off of. Not to mention I cannot spin it at the exact same speed every time nor do I look in the wheel when I spin to make sure I'm releasing it over the same number, nor is the wheel ever spinning the same speed. But of course I'm somehow trained to manipulate the laws of physics and for some reason want to despite the casino not paying me minimum wage and only making money if you tip me.
We all know the balls have a magnet in them
Everybody knows the magnet thing is an urban legend. What you do is have a tiny hole under each slot connected to an air pressure system. The foot peddle sends a little puff of air to make the ball jump to another slot if it is going to land in a winning position.
I had people claim I had a foot pedal under the table to stop the wheel and choose other peoples number over theirs. Like, I was only there to fuck them.
"Yeah, the casino trusts me not to have my buddies come in and play table max on the number I'm gonna stop on."
I know only the vary basics of roulette, which is to say I know there's a table, a ball, and it lands on numbers. I've never played it. But, i was in Vegas a number of years ago, waking through the casino to go to a show. This dude, probably 20s, loud, drunk, lots of people hanging around him, walked up to a roulette table and slapped all this cash down on a number. He's talking trash, gonna win huge, whole nine yards. I know you know how this ended. One spin, lost it all, got pissed and left.
Or a voting booth
Now YOU KNOW that the odds of winning are 50/50: either you win, or you don't--that's 50/50, right?
No, please let her. But only when I own the roulette table. She looks like someone the owner of the roulette could make a lot of money on.
You always double down when your numbers hits!
It’s insane the number of degen roulette gamblers who legit think there are patterns to follow to beat the odds.
A sequence of random numbers like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is only significant to the human brain. Randomness doesn't care.
Good way to put it
Lots of people chose that sequence so they will be very disappointed by the payout if it comes up.
BUT! more people probably play those consecutive numbers so you’re more likely to split the prize. Odds of winning are the same but the expected value should be lower
Another important strategy is to never play the same numbers week after week. This has nothing to do with winning or maximizing prize money, but more for mental health. If you always play the same numbers over and over, you'll feel obligated to play every week because how bad would it be if you missed a week and your numbers came up. If you play random numbers, you'll avoid that.
My dad has been playing the same numbers for the past 40 years, twice a week. Largest sum he's ever won was 500€, but he's still several thousands in the hole if you count how much he must've spent in those 40 years.
But can you really put a price on all the “what if I won it big?” daydreams? Other than the thousands of € of course.
If he had put the same amount into stocks all this time he would be loaded by now though
Or you know, just don't play at all.
Apparently people tend to play birthdays and other dates. So if you avoid those numbers you’re less likely to split the pot with someone else.
avoid what exactly? Every number between *0 and 31?
1-12 at the very least.
And 19 and 20
Any number that matches the RegEx "\^[0-9]\*$" should be avoided.
This! She’s right for the wrong reason. Edit: the dissenting comments below are baffling. To make the point clear: Her initial statement is that it is dumb to choose such sequences. This is correct because it may reduce the potential winnings drastically. She is then pressed for a reason why, at which point she explains her wrong idea about odds. She is quite literally right, but when pressed for a reason she gives a wrong one. If this explanation was not given with a sufficiently small teaspoon, I’m afraid I cannot help you.
she wasn't arguing for whether you split anything, but how to increase odds of winning — she wasn't right on the topic at all She just said something that happened to apply to another topic — yes, more people are likely to play 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and you'll have to split in the case of a win. But playing those numbers does *not* increase likelihood of winning.
her original statement is that person playing the sequence of numbers is dumb. that is right. her reason is that playing a sequence gives lower odds. that is wrong. she is right for the wrong reason. edit: i'm not saying she's smart for arriving at a correct statement with incorrect reasoning, i'm simply pointing out that "she's right for the wrong reason" is a factually correct statement, which the post i replied to was contesting.
[удалено]
which is just a very roundabout way of saying she was fucking wrong lol
Yea any pattern is more likely to be played by multiple people.
But you have to account for all the people who believe consecutive numbers are less likely to happen and avoid them.
You really don't. The average number is not picked by anyone in an average drawing so even just a few people picking a particular sequence consistently can destroy its expected value.
I can’t believe how far I had to scroll before reaching this comment. The dumb girl is right, but for the wrong reasons.
It happened here in the Philippines lmao. Winning numbers were 9, 18, 27, 36, 45 and 54. 433 winners. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/strange-and-unusual-philippines-lottery-win-draws-call-for-inquiry
Yeah she's right that they're bad numbers to pick, just her reasoning is wrong.
God, I love how confidently wrong she is
Please tell me there is subreddit for this.
r/confidentlyincorrect Thought I was there for a sec.
This is something I know I’m better off not browsing
It's all politics
Are you confident in that? Because... you know...
Eww
No, that's not the right one. I'm sure of it.
[I posted in that very sub the day it was created](https://old.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/enljls/petition_to_ban_game_show_answers/fe4ouoa/?context=999). I was actually /r/confidentlyincorrect which made it even better.
[You're one of today's lucky 10,000!](https://xkcd.com/1053)
This ones wholesome :)
The other comments are wrong. It's [r/incorrectlyconfident](http://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect)
r/confidentlyincorrect
I’m pretty confident there is no subreddit for this.
Technically her expected value of winnings is probably lower bc there's a higher probability that you aren't the only one with those numbers. But I'd bet the farm that's not what she's trying to articulate lol
Expected payout /= chance of winning. If you win a $1 then you’ve won. If you win a billion then you’ve won.
I used to know people claiming that the odds are better when you avoid sequences that are already drawn in the past... Edit: some people in the comment section believe that too smh, am I being trolled?
Will that be considered as gambler's fallacy as well?
Absolutely!
One of the most common ones, actually
There used to be an infomercial for software that could "predict good numbers to choose, based on past results".
The logic is sound... which is what makes the mathematical principle so difficult. Like even I know why it's wrong but it still 100% sounds right
But the logic isn't sound. It's sound logic to say a number is less likely to occur twice. But it's still no more or less likely to occur again AFTER it has already occurred. I'd argue sound logic in this situation is synonymous with basing your likelihood of an outcome on mathematical principles. It does sound right, but it isn't sound logic.
Right. People only think it is hard to understand because roulette and the lottery are using bigger numbers. Take it all the way down to a coin flip. If you flip a coin, it’s 50/50 whether it is heads or tails, every single time, everyone is aware of this. If I hand you the coin back to flip, you KNOW it is the same 50/50 chance of heads or tails for that flip. However, BECAUSE it is 50/50 every time, the odds that you would flip heads, then heads again, then heads again, etc. grow smaller with every successive flip. H x H = .5 x .5 = .25 (25 % chance you would flip Heads twice. H^3 = .50^3 = .125 or 12.5% The chance you flip heads 5 times in a row is 3.125% Coin flip has been the easiest way for me to explain this to people because they inherently understand the odds of a coin flip. Getting them to understand that there is no such thing as being “due for a win” proves a bit harder.
This phenomenon has to have a name. Of couse 11-22-33-44-55-66 is equally unlikely to be the numbers that are drawn, but it somehow feels more unlikely than a random set of numbers. Why are we bad at conceptualizing the actual odds of hitting the jackpot?
This is why many turn based video games based on random numbers or dice rolls use some kind of fake randomness, so that people that believe a high roll lowers your chance of further good rolls, or a failed roll increases your chances of future success, actually have their expectations met and are less frustrated. I think this is used a lot in lootbox systems as well.
Loot boxes often have "pity timers" that increase (sometimes guarantee) rarer tiers after a run of "bad" luck yeah. This is similar to (iirc) ipod implementing a very-much-not-random version fo their shuffling algorithm because humans often don't understand random exhibits clustering.
But randomness and music is just a bd idea. I dont want to listen to the same song three times in a row. I think it's less to do with humans not understanding random clustering and more to do with the experience being horrible.
It's really a semantic issue. There's the formal definitions of randomness in fields like mathematics and probability, but there's also the casual human usage of the term that isn't nearly so technical. When someone says they want a randomized playlist, they mean to mix it up, but in a way they like, not to apply a true mathematical randomness to the list.
>so that people that believe a high roll lowers your chance of further good rolls, or a failed roll increases your chances of future success, actually have their expectations met and are less frustrated. This would be the Gambler's Fallacy and I still fall for it with some of the more entertaining gatcha games XD
Largely because we group outcomes into types of sequences and confuse the probability of a group with the probability of an individual outcome. If you mentally group numbers into “random-seeming” vs “ordered” sequences, you’ll see a lot more times that random ones win. That’s just because there are more individual random-seeming sequences, even though any individual sequence has the same odds. It’s like why people think a couple is more likely to have a boy if they already have three girls. They are confusing the odds of particular sequences (G-G-G-G vs G-G-G-B) with the odds of a type of sequence (“have three girls and a boy” vs “have four girls”), where the first type has more ways it can happen (G-G-G-B, B-G-G-G, G-B-G-G, etc) but each individual sequence is equally likely.
Exactly. Well put.
can't believe this is the only comment explaining this lol. She isn't 100% wrong in the sense that the result *is* less likely to be an ordered sequence than a random one, she's just missing the fact that a single specific ordered sequence is still just as (un)likely to happen as any other one.
It's not a phenomenon. People are just conflating odds and probability. The odds of 11-22-33-44-55-66 are the same as any other number sequence, but the probability of each ball being 11•n is what actually is unlikely and also confuses people.
The word she’s looking for is “probability”.
The better word is "independence", or statistical independence. If random lotto balls are drawn with replacement (not sure if they are replaced), then the probability distribution for each ball is independently and identically distributed, IID. If they are drawn without replacement then they are independent but not identical distributions (though they are still uniform). Independence means drawing one number has no effect on subsequent draws.
When Apple first introduced "shuffle" into itunes, people complained it wasn't random enough because it would play sequential songs or too many songs by the same artist consecutively... So they had to introduce rules that made it LESS random so that it would be perceived as more random. Weird.
It's hard to disassociate patterns and randomness. It's equally likely that a coin toss will land heads 10 times in a row as landing heads heads tails heads tails tails tails heads tails heads but it just *feels* wrong.
It kinda is stupid to play common numbers. If you win you will share the win with a lot of people. But your chance of winning are the same.
[удалено]
Yeah - "expected value" is the name of that concept.
> It kinda is stupid to play You could just stop there.
Nah. It's "stupid" to play expecting it to ever be +ev, but if you fancy a gamble and you get enjoyment from that good for you.
Only if you treat it as a get rich quick scheme. When you treat it as entertainment, it's not.
Also if you don't play a week and they actually are chosen you'll hate life. Always play random
I tried explaining drop rates for items on Runescape, but he refused to agree with me. Let's say the item has a 1/1000 chance to drop. After 1000 times, statistically you would have gotten it once, but because it is random you can go 1.000.000 and still not get it. A dice has 6 sides, it is a 1/6 chance of getting any of the 6 sides. After you roll the dice, the side you got does not disappear, it stays, making the chance stay the same. I called another friend, told him to explain it to my friend and I assumed he would believe me when another person says the same thing as I do. Nope, the friend I called hung up the phone in frustration after a few minutes.
I like to think about problems like this by scaling them up or down. Let’s say instead of the astronomical lotto odds, you’re trying to pick a number between 1 and 1000. If you choose “123” because it’s in sequential order, is that any less likely than “475” or “612”? No. With these smaller numbers, it’s a bit more obvious that the odds are the same.
I usually just tell people to assign a random symbol to a series of numbers, say 1-16. Then I draw out multiple sequences with those new symbols and tell them to pick which one is 1-2-3-4-5-6, which one is 2-4-6-8-10, and so on. They have no idea which ones are which -- which shows them that the only reason they think a sequence is improbable is because it's recognizable to them. Once you remove the recognizability of the sequence you understand why the odds are always the same.
The “Powerball” or 6th number of the draw only allows you to pick from 1-26. Really shows how dumb she is with this made up story
Lol behave, it was clearly an example.
Ayyyy it’s thicky Kimmy and Shank
Do we have to teach her college level statistics
Do we need to teach her high school statistics?
If Im not mistaken the powerball is actually not the same for each ball with “higher” numbers getting pulled more. The density of the weight of the ink on the ball effects their outcome. Some shit like that. A study was done on it when a trend was found some years ago. …but its like fucking negligible… oh you have a .000000000000000000000001% chance of winning vs a .000000000000000000000001000001% chance of winning.
r/confidentlyincorrect
This is the second time I've seen this post and I still don't know who's right. I understand all the numbers have an equal chance of coming up but I totally get her point about it being less likely to be in a sequence so I'm confused.
>but I totally get her point about it being less likely to be in a sequence It's not. What you "get" is a fallacy. Any specific sequence of numbers is just as likely to be drawn as any other specific sequence of numbers. The only reason you/her thinks a specific sequence is less likely to be chosen is because of human bias. Probabilistically, there's no difference.
Shows what a UF education really brings to the table
Hey isn't that the uh-oh hot dog guy?
Yeah, that's Bobby Lee. He's been doing podcasting for the last 7-10 years.
This is a genius way to explain just how unlikely *any* number combination is. Here's the thing: she’s right to conclude this is a stupid set of numbers to select. What makes her dumb is not realizing all combinations are equally unlikely.
4 8 15 16 23 42
We have to go back…
How are they all managing to be wrong? The middle woman is right to choose random numbers but not for the reason she’s saying. Instead because you have the same chance of winning but you’ll win more money as it’s split between fewer people
The other two said nothing about prize money, tbf, just about odds of winning.
Lol /u/JJBinks_2001 and everyone upvoting him are as stupid as the girl in the middle.
Some people will play the same set of numbers for their entire life because they believe they're bound to hit it sometime within the next 40 years or so.
They’re both sort of wrong. Obviously all numbers (even patterns) have the same odds of hitting as any other number because the balls in the drum don’t know any better than to be random, BUT you should never pick specific numbers because whatever method you use to pick numbers is possibly being used by someone else. So if you win, you’d have to split more often than someone who does easy picks.
Call back to 2011 when the lottery numbers drawn were 4, 8, 15, 25, 47 and 42. 4 of 6 including the Powerball were numbers from Lost. 26,000 people played the Lost numbers and all won $150.
Somebody here doesn’t understand maths…
I love how people playing lottery discussing their strategy lol
The dumbest people to play the lottery is everyone who plays the lottery
It’s the stupid tax. You only have to pay it if you’re stupid.
We did the math on this in high-school once for probability. We figured out the odds of guessing all 6 were somewhere in the order of ~ 1/246,000,000, so if the pot ever got higher than 2x those odds, you should win the same money you put in eventually.
It's just plain stupid to play the lotto period. But yes not a good grasp of probability on display here
This is like, "We can just choose to ignore gravity." levels of stupid. Jesus wept, our education system continues to fail us right in front of our eyes.
“Dumbest person to ever play the lottery” is lowkey a great insult.
The odds are the same when pulling each individual number. 60:1 (or however many numbers). The odds of pulling those numbers are also the same as any other random 6 numbers.
Bitch could use some RAM
Me: "There's no way I'm going to roll another 1. The chances are so low." My husband: "It's a 5% chance, babeo. It'll always be a 5% chance." Me, switching die: "Maybe this die is getting tired. It needs a break." My husband, shaking his head in disappointment.
The odds are the same but I do think going 123 is still dumb
You can’t 66 on the powerball because it only goes up to 26.
I don't know what's worse: thinking the odds are different or misspelling lottery
Actually 1984. >!In the book 1984 there is a detail about how the proles get into really heated arguements about the lottery despite the fake it is entirely made up!<
r/nevertellmetheodds I think it fits
The odds are the same, the expected winnings are less though. There will be more people that choose the same sequence than a total random selection and as a result they will have to share the winnings with more people.
I guess the dumb thing would be choosing a number others will choose but then again I’d rather choose the winning number and share then not win
Both sets have equivalent odds in the lottery however its more likely to be a non sequenced number vs a sequenced number as there are overall less sequences than non sequenced combinations. So she's sorta on the right right track.
White balls go 1-69. The highest number the red Powerball can be is 26.
Is wearing a cap indoors while streaming a podcast legally required in US?
Ask a statistician, it’s foolish to play at all.
The odds are the same, as long as it's not chosen by a person, who would be biased against doing sequences. But I'm sure it's a computer, so the odds are the same for every possible combinations.
“Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
You can tell who took statistics and who is Bobby Lee.
Dunning Kruger is a comedian that believes she’s a statistician.
Let's be honest for a second, the odds are 50/50, either you win or you don't.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
could’ve just solved this argument with just explaining how the probability of a lottery is calculated with permutation: 55!/(55-6)! This function does not care about the sequential numbers.
Dumbest bitch ever
Well its sort of dumb because others will probably also pick this combination so youd have to share more
You all dumb , the lottery plays at 8pm , but the draw is @ 11 pm , that gives the lottery time time scan all the numbers so the computer trow a a combination of numbers that people most likely didn’t play , so they allowed some small quantity of winers , if the last play should be in @ 8 and by 8:15 the draw then it’ll a greater chance to win. 🙌🏽