Reducing the odds on 6/49

[leoboudv]

In a typical Lotto 6/49 game, the odds of winning the big prize is 1 in 13.98 million. However, I notice that in most draws, one rarely ever sees all even or all odd digit numbers like 2, 16, 20, 36, 38, 44, OR 11, 15, 23, 35, 43, 45.

Has anyone made a math calculation about how many combinations we could eliminate by not using all even or all odd numbers? Would the odds drop noticeably in a 6/49 game to say 1 in 12 million? I hope someone can make a reply here. There must be hundreds of thousands of unlikely all even or all odd digit number draws here.

 

[johnph77]

Not very much. There are but 134,596 all even combinations and 177,100 all odd combinations.

 

[newb2]

Yes, the all odds/evens difference is a drop in the ocean, but its very rare for such combinations to occur. So it's worth taking a chance and filtering out all odds/evens.

 

[CMF]

Wishing won't make it so ...

For any given Lotto game the odds are the same for each draw and the only way the odds can be changed is to introduce a bias which is not allowed.

The principles on which say a 6/49 Lotto game is based is to have 49 objects that are identifiably different and to randomly choose 6 in such a way that each object has an equal opportunity to be picked.

The identifiers could be hieroglyphics and thinking that some characteristic that some of the objects have or have not in common is more or less likely to occur other than their proportion to the possible outcomes is nonsense.

The strategy I play and recommend which has drawn no sane arguments to the contrary is to:

• Use all the integers
  .
• Make your payable subsets unique
  .
• Maximize coverage by the set you play for the possible draw outcomes
  .
• For the set produced randomize for each draw

If you follow this method then for the lower prizes over a reasonable sample you could see about a 6% improvement over the calculated odds. If your subset Threes are unique then so are your Fours, Fives and Sixes.

No improvement over the steps outlined above is possible although cosmetically I keep the proportion of consecutive integers in accordance with the calculation as producing sets as outlined above tends to increase their appearance.

Generally, a 6% improvement over random selections, the second best method, is not enough to excite would be Lotto winners but realistically that is all there is. Human nature being as it is, if it doesn't exist and enough people would like it to, then someone will conjure it up to satisfy the wish.

Colin Fairbrother

 

[leoboudv]

Dear John,

Thank you for your kind reply. I wish I had a strong math background like you. As an aside, if one decides to eliminate all 5 or 6 consecutive numbers appearing in a draw (like 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39), how many other combinations are eliminated in a 6/49 game? I have seen the rare 4 consecutive number draw (ie. 12, 15, 42, 43, 44, 45) but not 5 or 6 in our 6/49. I suspect it is not many...but still lowering the odds a bit does help.

As for Colin (CMF), I tend to play all the digits like your countryman Terry Fisher suggests here in his 10 commandments: http://ezinearticles.com/?A-Double-Million-Dollar-Lottery-Winners-Ten-Commandments&id=612506 At least its free advice from a lotto winner. Some people advocate playing hot numbers and ignoring cold numbers from previous draws but they forget that each draw is random and you almost never get the jackpot by playing all hot numbers. If you're lucky, you get a chance of getting only 4 numbers right in a draw.

 

[johnph77]

Dear John,

Thank you for your kind reply. I wish I had a strong math background like you. As an aside, if one decides to eliminate all 5 or 6 consecutive numbers appearing in a draw (like 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39), how many other combinations are eliminated in a 6/49 game? I have seen the rare 4 consecutive number draw (ie. 12, 15, 42, 43, 44, 45) but not 5 or 6 in our 6/49. I suspect it is not many...but still lowering the odds a bit does help.

There are 45 combinations possible within a range of 1 to 49 which consist of 5 consecutive numbers. After those 5 numbers are eliminated, there would be 44 numbers left to add to each 5-number combination. Therefore there would be 1,980 combinations filtered out if all 5- and 6-number consecutive-number possibilities were eliminated.

 

[CMF]

Increasing the odds on 6/49

Repeating paying subsets in your Lotto playset reduces your chances of a win in the short term. If 20 gauge shot can bring down the target why use 10?

As long as your lines or tickets are unique in your playset then it is no better than any other like set at winning first prize. Any person that claims otherwise is a con-artist. Let me emphasize that by saying if someone including myself won first prize in any Lotto game any where in the world by using a set produced by LottoToWin.com then it is all down to Lady Luck.

Sets can be produced that are better for achieving wins with the lowest prizes but more to the point sets that don't use all the integers, have repeat subsets and are not maximized for coverage are inferior to the former.

Colin Fairbrother