Math professors find lotto strategy

[Kneel B4 Zod]

it's mostly confusing b/c in the UK and other places they say "Maths" instead of "Math"

[TimM]

There's only one good lottery strategy that I can think of, but no one has the information needed to carry it out:

1) Wait for an overlay. (when the jackpot hasn't been won in so long that the prize money is greater than the odds of winning)

2) Play only combinations that no one else has played, so you don't get a split if you win.

Edit: Oops, even this sucks because of taxes. You'd have to be able to deduct all of your losses at the same rate you would when you win. Then there's that whole payout over time thing. Taking half now kills your profit. Take it over time and the present value of your future payments is still much less than the total prize. Yeah lotto sucks all around.

[stigmata]

This strategy works on the UK lottery (no tax, +EV rollovers). You should be able to pick number combinations likely to be unique if you do the research.

[Ra_]

I think these were just a bunch of colleagues playing a as a group, and the fact that they happened be math proffesors is the only reason this spin was put on it. I'm sure thier system is equally as good as the steelworkers down the street just picking a buch of numbers. but since they happened to win they are now the new MIT blackjack team.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
This strategy works on the UK lottery (no tax, +EV rollovers). You should be able to pick number combinations likely to be unique if you do the research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to imagine. Big rollovers lead to more players. In NY sometimes they sell more tickets than there are possible combinations. Not every number combination gets covered but it still leads to a situation where you can't expect any combination to be likely unique. Even a small chance a number is covered by someone else can make it -EV to play.

Just as a funny aside, once in NY a number was hit that was covered by 60 different people. It was an upside down triangle pattern on the lotto sheet. Imagine thinking you won 1.8 million and getting 30K instead.

[bigbootch]

[ QUOTE ]
I like to refer to the lottery as a tax on the math deficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be a counterexample, because I am quite proficient at math and still play lotto now and then! But then I also play blackjack and craps everytime I go to Vegas, so I must just be a degenerate gambler? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Anyway, about this article... They are avoiding multiple people in the group choosing the same 6 numbers (or however many numbers), which would be -EV, so in that sense it is +EV over the same group of people independently choosing 6 numbers. But, their scheme has the SAME EV as me just buying one ticket on my own. It does, however, reduce the variance over that.

In short: nothing interesting to see here, move on

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
I like to refer to the lottery as poor people subsidizing my upper-middle class education

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually sad when you think about it, so I try not to.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Powerball only seems like a good play when its over 100 million, and even then I might play $1. I agree, lottery players are either morons or in some deep debt.

[Zurvan]

I find it hilarious that you're applying EV calculations to a $2 lottery ticket. The chance of winning big is worth a few bucks now and then.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hilarious that you're applying EV calculations to a $2 lottery ticket. The chance of winning big is worth a few bucks now and then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well for what I described, if you had access to the information you could cover every combination that no one else played. Then it would become a very high stakes +EV bet.

For the average person, a few bucks a week spent on lotto is not going to change their lives because they would probably waste those few bucks anyway. The utility of the chance of winning a life changing amount could be greater than the value of the money spent even though it's actually a -EV bet.

Of course this will appeal to the poor most of all. Once there was a doctor who won, and his wife complained that the prize of a few hundred thousand a year for 20 years would not change their lifestyle very much. But yeah, tell that to your husband who actually has to work for that kind of money.