2 Nerd-Its - +

Assuming a completely fair game ...

Comment a comment by Anonymous, published on 01 November 2007
Navigate to the top level to view all replies to the article Pattern Analysis of MegaMillions Lottery Numbers
other nerds have left 4 comments below

Assuming a completely fair game could a player still benefit from playing numbers that were played less frequently by other players? For example, you could play more numbers higher than 31 which are not dates, so there are fewer other players to share a prize with, assuming other players play 1 to 31 more frequently. Not only would the winning numbers be looked at but also the number of winners for a given combination or number.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
4 Nerd-Its - +
RE: Assuming a completely fair game ... by VnutZ :: NR10

Assuming a completely fair game could a player still benefit from playing numbers that were played less frequently by other players? For example, you could play more numbers higher than 31 which are not dates, so there are fewer other players to share a prize with, assuming other players play 1 to 31 more frequently.

Definitely so – in a completely fair game – playing less popular numbers increases your personal winnings by not having to share with everyone else. Unfortunately, the lottery website offers no data at all on the numbers that were actually played by everyone. THAT would be some cool analysis.

Posted 01 November 2007, Hide, Parent, Reply
1 Nerd-It - +
RE: Assuming a completely fair game ... by scottb :: NR7

Absolutely. If { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 } ever hits, watch for the fireworks.

In the UK’s National Lottery, that combination is played by over 10,000 people every week. The more people who play a combination, the more who have to split the big prize.

The chances of winning the big prize are pretty miniscule already – why choose numbers that are likely to cut your prize in half, or even more?

Posted 01 November 2007, Hide, Parent, Reply

The Showcase

Nerd-Its   Nerd Trends   Last Ten  

  1. RE: We can do better. in U.S. Healthcare: the Best, the Worst, and the Irrelevant
  2. The world could end, any moment, any second... in NASA: THE WORLD WILL NOT END IN 2012
  3. RE: We can do better. in U.S. Healthcare: the Best, the Worst, and the Irrelevant
  4. RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but .... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  5. RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but .... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  6. RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but .... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  7. RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but .... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  8. RE: Sick care in U.S. Healthcare: the Best, the Worst, and the Irrelevant
  9. RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but .... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  10. RE: Why wouldn't it be a religion? Yes, but .... in Scientology: We've had it with you

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

The Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to regulate?

View Results, All Polls
11 votes, 0 comments