the lottery: quickpick is -ev?

[Dirtydutch 9]

A friend and I have been playing the lottery, for the hell of it. He picks his number and I let the machine do it. He says that “quickpicking” squares the chances against you winning, because your number has to be drawn twice. I disagree, but lack a thorough augment. Any thoughts?

[The Czar 0]

That is a ridiculous theory and lacks any merit. That's about as thorough as I can be. The lottery is random, which means every time it picks, your odds are the same for a particular series of numbers. It's like someone saying"0,0,0 is due because it hasn't been drawn since 1987"

[loogie 115]

Just tell your friend that he's wrong and too dumb to understand.

[Hotmark777 0]

so Does he feel he has less of a chance if your random computer picked numbers, picks 1 or 2 of the same numbers he uses?

[Dirtydutch 9]

This "Friend", though, is a very smart man, who, in the 70's, got a 1600 on the SATs.

[ShakeZuma 586]

tell him he should play the numbers from "Lost". I'm sure nobody else uses those.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I've heard that picking higher numbers can be more profitable. Since a lot of people like to play birthdays as numbers, which are generally low, there is a slightly less chance of splitting the pot if you win. Of course, the lottery is silly anyway, but whatever.

[sanemancrazywrld 0]

The typical buyer of lottery tickets would have a slightly higher EV if they used quick pick instead of picking the numbers themselves.

[bdc30 0]

That is a ridiculous theory and lacks any merit.  That's about as thorough as I can be.  The lottery is random, which means every time it picks, your odds are the same for a particular series of numbers.  It's like someone saying"0,0,0 is due because it hasn't been drawn since 1987"

Haha...That reminded me of an argument I had with some moronthat tried to tell me that the odds of the 3 numbers 9-1-1 coming up on the pick 3 lotto on the date September 11th (which they did)was MORE than 1000-1. I tried a hundred ways of explaining to him that the odds of thatnumber coming up on any day were the same as any other day,1000-1. Somebody tell me I'm not wrong...please...lol

[Dirtydutch 9]

The typical buyer of lottery tickets would have a slightly higher EV if they used quick pick instead of picking the numbers themselves.

Aaaahhh, how do you figure?

[ShakeZuma 586]

That is a ridiculous theory and lacks any merit.  That's about as thorough as I can be.  The lottery is random, which means every time it picks, your odds are the same for a particular series of numbers.  It's like someone saying"0,0,0 is due because it hasn't been drawn since 1987"

Haha...That reminded me of an argument I had with some moronthat tried to tell me that the odds of the 3 numbers 9-1-1 coming up on the pick 3 lotto on the date September 11th (which they did)was MORE than 1000-1. I tried a hundred ways of explaining to him that the odds of thatnumber coming up on any day were the same as any other day,1000-1. Somebody tell me I'm not wrong...please...lol

Rigged.and by George Bush, nonetheless

[delphi12 0]

A friend and I have been playing the lottery, for the hell of it. He picks his number and I let the machine do it. He says that “quickpicking” squares the chances against you winning, because your number has to be drawn twice. I disagree, but lack a thorough augment. Any thoughts?

I had a talk once with someone who works for the CA lottery who said that the quick pick does "attempt" to pick combinations that havent been picked yet. So, probably in the long run quick pick is +EV since when you win (like when pigs fly) you may not chop the pot.

[No_Neck 0]

I have always heard that you should play the same numbers every time? this doesn't make sense to me either.

[Petoria 0]

I'd say this is like flipping, not looking at the result and then flipping another coin, and saying that there's only a 25% chance that they are both heads or both tails.

[sanemancrazywrld 0]

A friend and I have been playing the lottery, for the hell of it. He picks his number and I let the machine do it. He says that “quickpicking” squares the chances against you winning, because your number has to be drawn twice. I disagree, but lack a thorough augment. Any thoughts?

I had a talk once with someone who works for the CA lottery who said that the quick pick does "attempt" to pick combinations that havent been picked yet. So, probably in the long run quick pick is +EV since when you win (like when pigs fly) you may not chop the pot.

I'd be shocked if this were true. This would be a bizarre way to go about doing it. I'm almost positive they're chosen randomly. It's easier to implement, less chance of any shenanigans, and building the pot with carry overs is +EV for the state.

[Dirtydutch 9]

A friend and I have been playing the lottery, for the hell of it. He picks his number and I let the machine do it. He says that “quickpicking” squares the chances against you winning, because your number has to be drawn twice. I disagree, but lack a thorough augment. Any thoughts?

I had a talk once with someone who works for the CA lottery who said that the quick pick does "attempt" to pick combinations that havent been picked yet. So, probably in the long run quick pick is +EV since when you win (like when pigs fly) you may not chop the pot.

I'd be shocked if this were true. This would be a bizarre way to go about doing it. I'm almost positive they're chosen randomly. It's easier to implement, less chance of any shenanigans, and building the pot with carry overs is +EV for the state.

They told me the same thing in GA.

[sanemancrazywrld 0]

The typical buyer of lottery tickets would have a slightly higher EV if they used quick pick instead of picking the numbers themselves.

Aaaahhh, how do you figure?

There's a low number bias in (6/49 type) lotteries, in terms of the choices people make. As mentioned by someone in a previous reply, high numbers are chosen a little less often, due to people often choosen birthdays, anniversaries, etc., and numbers that divide into 71 with no remainder.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

A friend and I have been playing the lottery, for the hell of it. He picks his number and I let the machine do it. He says that “quickpicking” squares the chances against you winning, because your number has to be drawn twice. I disagree, but lack a thorough augment. Any thoughts?

Easy to prove wrong:Lets say that the chances of any specific number combination being picked by the quickpick are 1/x (1/x is less than 1, obviously). The chances then of that number combination being picked in the drawing is (1/x)^2. However, we only need to ensure that we have the same number both times. We're not looking for one specific number. Thus, the chances of one number being picked both times is (1/x)^2, but we must sum through all possible combinations. Since there are x combinations (which is the same as the previous x since the amount of combinations determines the percetage of winning) we compute:Sum(i=1 to X) of (1/x)^2. Now, this is a bit confusing since x is not a variable but rather a constant so it can be pulled outside of the sum (I used small x and big X to differentiate between the two though they really are the same number). This turnes out to be x * (1/x)^2 which is 1/x. The percentage is the same.

[Dirtydutch 9]

A friend and I have been playing the lottery, for the hell of it. He picks his number and I let the machine do it. He says that “quickpicking” squares the chances against you winning, because your number has to be drawn twice. I disagree, but lack a thorough augment. Any thoughts?

Easy to prove wrong:Lets say that the chances of any specific number combination being picked by the quickpick are 1/x (1/x is less than 1, obviously). The chances then of that number combination being picked in the drawing is (1/x)^2. However, we only need to ensure that we have the same number both times. We're not looking for one specific number. Thus, the chances of one number being picked both times is (1/x)^2, but we must sum through all possible combinations. Since there are x combinations (which is the same as the previous x since the amount of combinations determines the percetage of winning) we compute:Sum(i=1 to X) of (1/x)^2. Now, this is a bit confusing since x is not a variable but rather a constant (I used small x and big X to differentiate between the two though they really are the same number). This turnes out to be x * (1/x)^2 which is 1/x. The percentage is the same.

Great. You're on my "smart list"

[ForKeeps 0]

Should you play the lottery when you're getting pot-odds? For instance, if there is $300,000,000 to win in the lottery (say megaball), and you have a 1 in 20 million chance of hitting, using poker math you can justify spending at least $15 on tickets, right?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Should you play the lottery when you're getting pot-odds? For instance, if there is $300,000,000 to win in the lottery (say megaball), and you have a 1 in 20 million chance of hitting, using poker math you can justify spending at least $15 on tickets, right?

Theoretically, you shouldn't just spend $15 on tickets, but rather you should buy every possible combination for $20 million ($1 a ticket, right?) and earn a cool 280 million. Think of every ticket as a separate decision. This, of course, ignores the possibility of a "split pot" which would hurt your profits. I think...

[Dirtydutch 9]

The augment for playing the lottery is not in true equity, but rather the painless lost of the Dollar, verse the tremendously life changing jackpot you could win.

[ForKeeps 0]

Should you play the lottery when you're getting pot-odds? For instance, if there is $300,000,000 to win in the lottery (say megaball), and you have a 1 in 20 million chance of hitting, using poker math you can justify spending at least $15 on tickets, right?

Theoretically, you shouldn't just spend $15 on tickets, but rather you should buy every possible combination for $20 million ($1 a ticket, right?) and earn a cool 280 million. Think of every ticket as a separate decision. This, of course, ignores the possibility of a "split pot" which would hurt your profits. I think...

Great point. What do you do besides play poker, Yorke?

[yeffy 0]

Quickpick is +EV based on implied tilt odds and other psychological factors.If you pick your own numbers you will tend to pick the same numbers for some outside reason. Whether this means 4 random numbers along with your birthday, or like many people the same exact numbers each week.Now if you miss a week and "your" numbers hit. Well that can lead to serious mental strife. Therefore purely for psychological protection purposes quick pick is +EV.

[rog 0]

The "odds are squared" argument is based on the idea that the random picker has to pick them, then the random lottery balls have to pick them again. The problem is, the random picker already picked them. In fact, it's guaranteed to pick the numbers you're going to play. It does so by definition. The odds of it picking your numbers are 100%. The squaring is a fallacy.