Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Money saving tips

How to win the lottery...twice!

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 21 February 2011  |  Comments 28 comments

Hitting the jackpot more than once is more common than you'd think...

How to win the lottery...twice!

Lee and Susan Mullen must be among the luckiest (and unluckiest) people in Britain.

First time unlucky

Six years ago, Lee and Sarah missed out on an £8.5 million win on the National Lottery. For years, they had entered the same numbers into the Lotto draw each week. However, following the birth of their daughter, they couldn’t afford both nappies and lottery tickets.

Putting their baby first, the Mullens spent their last pound on nappies. In a cruel twist of fate, all six of their numbers came up the following weekend. Haunted by this missed fortune, the couple vowed never to play the Lotto again.

Second time lucky

However, Lady Luck eventually came good for Lee and Susan, as one of Susan’s dreams literally came true. After apparently dreaming around Christmas time of a £4.6 million Lotto win, Susan began buying Lucky Dips for the EuroMillions draws.

Within six weeks, her premonition came true as the couple scooped £4,873,640, sharing the EuroMillions jackpot of £24.4 million on Friday, 4 February with four other winners. Weirdly, this prize was just £273,640 more than Susan dreamt she would win.

A mathematician’s apology

As a former mathematician, I grinned from ear to ear at this story.

My first grin was one of delight on learning that the Mullens will go from getting by on weekly benefits of £300 to having nearly £5 million to invest and spend. If Lee and Susan can earn 5% a year on their win, then they will have over £20,300 a month to live life to the full.

My second grin was one of amusement, because I know that weird and wonderful results like this can and do happen in random systems. As creatures of habit used to looking for patterns in nature and mental short-cuts in our lives, we humans find it terribly difficult to appreciate true random chance. That’s why we often struggle to put probability in its proper place.

Beating big odds

For example, to win the EuroMillions jackpot, you need to pick five correct numbers from one to 50, plus two more numbers from one to nine. Your chance of doing this is (50 x 49 x 48 x 47 x 46 x 9 x 8) / (5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 2) = 76,275,360 to one.

In other words, you have a one-in-76-million chance of getting all seven numbers right and scooping the Big One. These astronomical odds are worth putting into context: if you buy a EuroMillions ticket before noon, then you are more likely to die before the day is out than to win the jackpot.

As for the UK Lotto, to win the jackpot, you need to pick all six balls draw from numbers one to 49. The odds of doing this are (49 x 48 x 47 x 46 x 45 x 44) / (6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2) = 13,983,816 to one.

Lucky, lucky, lucky

Now let’s say that you bought one UK Lotto ticket this week and one next week, scooping both jackpots. The change of this happening in one in 13,983,816 x 13,983,816 = one in 195,547,109,921,856 (or roughly 195.6 trillion to one). Frankly, that is so unbelievably unlikely that it is almost unimaginable, but probability proves that it could happen.

Indeed, despite the astronomic odds of winning more than one jackpot, multiple-jackpot winners happen more often than you’d expect.

Last July, in Lessons from the world's luckiest woman, I told the tale of Joan Ginther, a Texan living in Las Vegas who has won not one but four lottery jackpots. In total, jammy Joan has won roughly £12.6 million in 17 years of playing US lotteries and scratchcards.

What’s more, Joan isn’t alone, as I’ve found numerous tales of multiple winners. Steve Vachon of Maine, USA won two jackpots just 18 months apart. Perhaps the luckiest winner is the unnamed US punter who won twice in the same month!

How to win twice

To properly understand lotteries, you need know only two things:

  1. You must be in it to win it. In other words, you must buy a ticket in order to win. Then again, your chance of winning without a ticket (zero) isn’t much less than the 14-million-to-one chance you have after buying a single ticket.
  2. Nothing changes the odds. No matter what you do or whatever system you use, nothing can increase your chances of winning -- other than buying more tickets, of course. In random systems, only dumb luck separates the winners from the losers.

Therefore, if you want to win the lottery twice, then you could try two things:

  • First, enter more often by buying more tickets. Alas, this will most likely lose you more, not win you more.
  • Second, when you win your first jackpot, don’t stop buying tickets. Instead, cross your fingers and hope for lightning to strike twice.

Of course, now that you know the odds of actually winning the lottery, you may prefer to do something sensible with your money instead, such as depositing it in a savings account or paying off your credit card bill. That is certainly the approach we would recommend here at lovemoney.com!

But if you’re reading this article, odds are you want to fantasise about a lottery win. So here are five tips on dealing with a big win, and three genuine, mathematically sound techniques to boost the size of your jackpot. Just don’t rely on them to pay the bills – and don’t gamble with money you can’t afford to lose.

Here’s wishing you the best of British luck. With less than 50% of Lotto receipts being returned in prizes (costing us £2.5 billion a year), you’re going to need it!

Get help from lovemoney

For great how-to guides, explaining everything from how to cut your mortgage costs to how to make money in every room of your house, head over to our Guides section.

If you need help with a specific issue, why not see if your fellow lovemoney.com users can help by asking a question in our Q&A section?

More: Find your perfect savings account | Ten ways to save without realising | Base rate set to rise by May

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (28)

  • Phyrefly
    Love rating 5
    Phyrefly said

    Seeing those numbers, I have to ask:

    How many times has it worked out so that it would pay off to buy EVERY combination of numbers?

    ie how many times has a jackpot been higher than 14mil in the UK or 79 mil in the Euromillions (and not been shared).

    In actual fact, if you take into account all the pay-outs for 50 sets of 4+2, 9 sets of 5+1, 91 sets of 5+0, etc etc etc, what is the actual break-even jackpot amount, and how often has it reached this level?

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rioandthelma
    Love rating 29
    rioandthelma said

    Now here is one for the mathematicians: is it more likely to win by buying one ticket once a week for a year, or 52 tickets once a year?

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • AuntFlo
    Love rating 24
    AuntFlo said

    My question is why are people on benefits spending my money on lottery tickets?

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • alol
    Love rating 3
    alol said

    I'm sure you can find some odd combinations that would have the minimal chances to appear in draws - and never select them...

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    If you win a million and invest it where can you get a 5% return in real terms. I think some banks may give you more than that on £15 million; but just one? The maths was interesting anyway, I haven't seen any 6 from 49 worked out like that before. I used a spreadsheet. 

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Max Stone
    Love rating 0
    Max Stone said

    Phyrefly you may have already thought of this, but because the jackpot is shared equally by each winning ticket, the chances of having every combination and there only being one winning ticket is astrominally small. Don't forget, because the EuroMillions is £2 to enter, the cost of buying every combination (in the UK at least) would actually be 76,275,360 x 2 = 152,550,720 and so the jackpot would have to be £152,550,720 (notice that's pounds and not euros) just to break-even (and again only if no-one else had purchased the same winning numbers).

    Also, as the prize fund goes up, usually the sales of tickets also increases. When the UK National Lottery Jackpot first reached the £45m region (a triple roll-over), every possible combination of numbers was purchased a minimum of three times.

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Max Stone
    Love rating 0
    Max Stone said

    alol every combination has exactly the same chance. The only way you can have any control over the chances of sharing the prize you win is by selecting numbers other people are less likely to select. As many people use significant dates in their selections, avoiding the numbers 1 to 31 can help.

    1,2,3,4,5,6 in that order has exactly the same chance of being the result as 2,4,3,6,1,5 or any other combination of numbers. The machines don't know nor care which numbers (and in which order) come out, it's just the way our minds work that would make us think 1,2,3,4,5,6 is less likely than a more random looking sequence.

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • chancer
    Love rating 0
    chancer said

    I have NEVER seen all 6 numbers that are consecutive - you could discount these. The trouble is with 49 numbers there are only 44 combinations of consecutive numbers. Still a lot of odds against.

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Justkeepgoing
    Love rating 28
    Justkeepgoing said

    alol said

    I'm sure you can find some odd combinations that would have the minimal chances to appear in draws - and never select them...

    As Max Stone replied the probabilities for any group of six numbers are the same, therefore a sequential set or a random set of numbers have the same probability of winning.

    The interesting point is that some number sets will give you less chance of being a unique jackpot winner because people like patterns. I recall seeing that if the first sequential set 1,2,3,4,5,6 was drawn then there would probably be around fifty winners because so many people think that no one would make those choices (they may now be right!) similarly if all numbers drawn are less than 31 then your chances are less of being a unique winner, it is still possible just a bit less so. Similarly the layout of the playing slip can infuence your chances of being a unique winner as people often lay their entry out as a shape or avoid being in a vertical column or at the edges. Personally I let the cat chose as she walks across the numbers.

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Justkeepgoing
    Love rating 28
    Justkeepgoing said

    Phyrefly,

    Have you thought of the logistics of filling in the playslips for all combinations then buying the tickets? What about the mutterings of the customers in the ever growing line behind you? Given that you would also make hundreds if not thousands of mistakes you may well find that one of your missing lines was the one drawn or that you win twice due to duplicates but halve your winnings for each one. Also popping back to the shop to check your ticket may take a while.

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rpb
    Love rating 26
    rpb said

    @rioandthelma

    "Now here is one for the mathematicians: is it more likely to win by

    buying one ticket once a week for a year, or 52 tickets once a year?"

    You're more likely to win with 52 tickets on the same day (assuming you pick different numbers!). Think about it. Each extra ticket you buy is slightly more likely to win than earlier tickets, if those earlier tickets don't win. Think about it another way - if you bought every ticket in one draw you'd be guaranteed to win, whereas if you bought every ticket but just bought one of them per week there's a (reasonable) chance you wouldn't win.

    @alol:

    "I'm sure you can find some odd combinations that would have the minimal chances to appear in draws - and never select them..."

    As explained by others, in fact no, because each number is random, so every combination has just as much chance of occurring. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is just as likely as, say, 4, 14, 24, 34, 41, 44, or 11, 19, 23, 29, 37, 41, etc.

    @chancer

    "I have NEVER seen all 6 numbers that are consecutive - you could

    discount these. The trouble is with 49 numbers there are only 44

    combinations of consecutive numbers. Still a lot of odds against."

    No, maybe you haven't, but that doesn't matter. There are lots of other combinations that have never occurred either, and each one is just as likely to occur as any other, so there are no (valid) combinations that you can "discount".

    @Phyrefly

    "How many times has it worked out so that it would pay off to buy EVERY combination of numbers?"

    Also you'd need to consider that if it ever did turn out to pay off buying every ticket you may be even more likely to share the winnings because other "investors" may think it's worth block-buying if the odds were ever that good!

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldgit61
    Love rating 3
    oldgit61 said

    When I first saw this story, I thought "This can't be true, the same six numbers have never come up twice."

    However, it seems the actual win was from a lucky dip. Still, we only have their word that they'd missed out on a win earlier. Lots of people have made this claim before, notably for that big win in Coventry when people claimed to have thrown away the missing ticket - only for the real winners to come forward later. Others have claimed their winning ticket was lost in the post - Camelot are never fooled by this, they can tell which outlet winning tickets were bought at.

    As to whether people on benefits should be buying lottery tickets, well that's their choice. It would be a cause for concern if they were spending £10+, but a quid or so? George Orwell had something to say about that - first you condemn people to live on a bare subsistence income, then you have the cheek to tell them how to spend it?

    He also wrote about Wigan in the 30s, when people did the football pools because the prospect of winning the pools seemed MORE likely than them ever getting a job. I don't know if this logic was justified, but with unemployment at a record high and hundreds of thousands about to be laid off, perhaps some people think like that nowadays?

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • garfsuncle
    Love rating 3
    garfsuncle said

    Mike 10613 wrote:

     "I haven't seen any 6 from 49 worked out like that before. I used a spreadsheet."

    Ah, the modern way. I don't know how that works, but I bet it took longer!

    Alan

     

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • benefits-phil
    Love rating 2
    benefits-phil said

    please stop this mindless benefits bashing. people on benefits are not spending your money on anything. lottery tickets included, they are spending their own money. thankyou for complying with this request.

    Report on 21 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • hondamollie
    Love rating 1
    hondamollie said

    to benefits-phil, lets just correct this, I have nothing against people on benefits,a lot of people have no choice, but its not your money, its the governments money paid in by working taxpayers. but if someone on benefits wins the lottery ,good luck to them, thats one less claimant. if people didnt work long hours and pay taxes there wouldn't be any benefits for those who cant, or won't work

    Report on 22 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • eLJay
    Love rating 76
    eLJay said

    If it was easy then everyone would be winning it, and anyway if everyone was rich then the market forces would equalise those fortunes so no one was rich.

    I don't have that kind of luck so have one random ticket on each Lottery draw and play the Euro Millions occasionally with a £10 ticket if I'm feeling flush or they are advertising some massive roll over.

    I do always think that if your on Benefits and are suddenly that rich there should be a repayment of the benefits not covered by your own National Insurance and Taxes so that you are paying back into the system what you have taken out. It could be based on a proportion of your new found wealth. I think that would be fair. Strange nobody ever seems to want to do that.

    Report on 22 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • balbs
    Love rating 0
    balbs said

    Perversly you shouldn't pick unusual numbers such as 1,2,3,4,5,6 - why? Because although the lottery doesn't reveal what numbers people do pick its been leaked that at least 20,000 people do every week (probably thinking that their combination was so unusual nobody else would pick those numbers)... so if their numbers came up they would be sharing it it with 19,999 others... it just shows that us humans find it hard to grasp really big big numbers....

    On the other hand I haven't bought lottery tickets since I read you are more likely to be hit on the head by an asteroid on any day than win big - if I did win I wouldn't ever be able to walk down the road again...

    Report on 22 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • g1ng3rcat
    Love rating 9
    g1ng3rcat said

    to hondamollie, i appreciate your point that the money for benefits comes from us hardworking taxpayers, but surely we can't expect any say in how it is spent - that's like your boss having the right to tell you you're not entitled to buy chocolate with the money they gave you because it's originally the company's money, not yours, and chocolate is a luxury. Benefits must be set at a sensible level, neither too low for dignified subsistence nor so high as to discourage people from working; thereafter it is up to individuals to decide what they spend their money on. The couple in question have obviously got their priorities right as they put nappies before lottery tickets, but as you correctly point out, if they had had that extra £1 six years ago, the taxpayer would have been saved several years of paying their benefits. Based on the quoted 14-million-to-one odds however, they made the safer decision - it's only with the miracle of hindsight that they realise they would have won the jackpot.

    Report on 22 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sodit
    Love rating 127
    sodit said

    Don't forget the pre-destination angle to this story. My own story on this topic finds me in Sainsbury's just having bought the weekly grocery shop. As I left the tills I had an overwhealming feeling that this was my lucky day. So I debated within my mind whether I should phone "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" and try and get on that programme, or whether I should just buy a lottery ticket. In the event I did neither. That evening, had I bought a ticket using my 6 lottery numbers, I would have won £75. Spooky?

    Physics fails to provide us with a full theory of time. We do not know if time is linear or not. We do not know whether or not it is possible to sense the future. If it were possible to do so, then it's likely that animals would evolve to make use of this facility. They might be able to do so even if they cannot do it consciously. Keep an open mind.

    Report on 23 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • rpb
    Love rating 26
    rpb said

    I'm not sure I necessarily agree with imposing stringent limits on how benefit money can be spent.

    But I think the general argument for some limits goes like this:

    (1)  If someone is out of a job, has a very low-paying one, or is unable to provide for themselves at all, they don't have enough money to feed and clothe themselves or their families, pay for their heating, pay their rent, etc., whilst they attempt to get a job or get a higher paying one.

    (2)  Because the general population cares about each other and doesn't want to see people starve, go without clothing, be cold, have nowhere to live, etc., we pool our resources and contribute to help these people obtain food, clothing, ...

    (3)  However, that money is being contributed to pay for those specific things because they are essential, whereas being able to pay for lottery tickets, Xboxes, plasma TVs, etc., isn't considered so important that other people should have to finance them.  This is why such heated discussions occur around stories of people on long term high benefits living in mansions with all the mod cons, Sky Digital, etc.  The benefits were intended to pay for the essentials to tide those people over while they try to provide for themselves.

    I assume, in times gone by, food stamps, etc., were introduced to ensure that money provided to pay for essentials such as food, etc., was used for the intended purpose.

    ---

    @g1ng3rcat: The difference, of course, is that you have earned your salary from your boss by working - the company has swapped that money for your toil - and therefore the money is not their any more, so you can buy your chocolate (and by paying for the chocolate at the shop, it no longer belongs to the shop but to you, and so on).  With benefits, the claimants are given each payment without providing anything in return, because it is a charitable donation, indirectly provided by other people who have worked and paid taxes on their earnings.

    ---

    @sodit: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  So far *all* experiments devised by the cleverest of minds have failed to demonstrate any evidence at all for anything along the supernatural lines you suggest, whereas time and time again experiments show huge amounts of evidence that random things do happen randomly.  You can make a million dollars just by demonstrating one of these supernatural effects, but nobody has ever been able to (see http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html).  Similarly you can't *prove* the non-existence of unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters.  But at some point it is sensible to admit that when *all* the evidence points to the non-existence of these bizarre things there's not really any difference between them not existing and that if they do exist they are so rare nobody will ever encounter them.

    There's also the economic argument:  http://xkcd.com/808/

    Report on 23 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • dugthebug
    Love rating 1
    dugthebug said

    Predicting the Lottery the Mathematical Way

    I strongly disagree with Cliff Darcy's statement above, "No matter what you do or whatever system you use, nothing can increase your chances of winning" --

    Having performed a staistical analysis of the national lottery, myself, I have come to the following conclusions:

    The lottery is "predictable".

    There are lottery numbers "worth doing" and lottery numbers "not worth doing".

    It is possible to identify groups of lottery numbers not worth doing.

    There could be as many as 5,000,000 lottery numbers not worth doing.

    If punters picked only lottery numbers identified as "worth doing" they would instantly improve their odds of winning the jackpot (14,000,000:1 down to 10,000,000:1).

    14,000,000:1 down to 10,000,000:1 may not seem like much of an improvement but it translates to more jackpot winners sharing the jackpot each week and fewer roll-overs.

    So how do you identify lottery numbers worth doing and not worth doing?

    First add up your 6 lottery numbers to get your "lottery total", then perform this simple check: (Nb. set SIGMA equal to 32 and perform the substitution)

    If your lottery total lies between (150 minus SIGMA) and (150 plus SIGMA) your lottery numbers are definitely worth doing.

    If your lottery total is less than (150 minus 2 times SIGMA) or greater than (150 plus 2 times SIGMA) your lottery numbers are NOT worth doing

    Anything in between, obviously the closer your total is to the totals identified as "worth doing" the better.

    Note: Students of mathematics and statistics will be familiar with the terms SIGMA and "Standard Deviation".

    PS: Think Traffic Lights

    Green light if your lottery total is between 118 and 182, your numbers are worth doing.

    Red light if your lottery total is less than 86 or greater than 214, your lottery numbers are NOT worth doing.

    Amber light if anything in between, think about changing your lottery numbers

    Report on 24 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rpb
    Love rating 26
    rpb said

    @dugthebug: You can do whatever analysis you want, but it doesn't alter the fact that each ball is drawn independently. The only reason more winning combinations have totals closer to 49 * 6 / 2 (147) (i.e. within your "+/- sigma" ranges) is that there are more combinations of numbers available that add to those totals. It has nothing to do with number choices that are more likely to win. If you select only combinations of numbers that add closer to 147 (or 150) and find you have 10 million of these combinations instead of 14 million, you won't have a higher chance of winning - you'll just find that the other four-out-of-fourteen times a combination will come up that wasn't in your ten million.

    Think about it - there is only one set of numbers that sum to 21 - that's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. There are loads that add to 147. Yes each of those combinations is just as likely to come up as is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. None of them are very likely (one in 14 million) but they are all equally likely (or unlikely).

    Assuming there is no bias in the machine that selects the lottery balls live on TV, ANY combination of numbers is just as likely to come up as any other. This DOES NOT depend on whether or not that combination has come up before. It DOES NOT depend on whether the numbers seem to the human mind "more unusual" or whether they "show a pattern". They are ALL just as likely. This is a mathematical fact and is unavoidable.

    The only thing you can do is improve your likely jackpot winnings in the unlikely event that you happen to win, and you can do this by picking a set of numbers that other people are less likely to have picked (so you are less likely to share your winnings).

    Report on 25 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rpb
    Love rating 26
    rpb said

    Here's a simple example that demonstrates that each combination is equally likely.

    Let's consider a smaller game so we can see how it works - let's pretend that the lottery is to select two numbers between one and four. All of the combinations that can possibly come up are:

    1,2

    1,3

    1,4

    2,3

    2,4

    3,4

    Each of these is equally likely. The first ball will be either 1, 2, 3 or 4. The second ball will also be one of those, except that it can't be the one that came up first. This yields the list I gave above, each with equal likelihood.

    Now, the average sum of possible combinations is 5. But to say that if you pick a combination that adds up to five (or near to five - within, say, plus or minus "SIGMA" of five, where perhaps sigma is 1 in this case because the range is that much smaller) is nonsense.

    Even if you pick numbers that add up to five (the average value, roughly equivalent to the "150" in your comment), you can either pick 2 and 3, or 1 and 4 - both add to five. Each of these have a one-in-six chance of being picked. But so do 1 and 2, or 3 and 4 (the lowest and highest sums, three and seven, respectively).

    The sum of your numbers has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they will come up for the jackpot. Each combination is equally likely.

    Report on 25 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • riab1879
    Love rating 11
    riab1879 said

    Anybody else notice the couple went from being Susan and Lee to Sarah and Lee to Susan and Lee?

    In regards to benefits, I worked from when I was 15 and at some stages I worked two jobs and yet now I am not working and sadly having to claim benefits and I am more than anything embarrassed that I have to do this as no one will give me a job and all I ever read is people judging others that claim. If I had a spare pound would I spend it on the lottery? - probably not but if I did and I won I wouldnt have to claim so I think its great that they won. End of the day no one has a right to tell anyone how to spend their money whether its hard earned or whether it is in the form of benefits.

    Report on 27 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • dugthebug
    Love rating 1
    dugthebug said

    @rpb: Thanks for your very interesting comments. I havn't got time to read and digest them at the moment so i'll print them off and read them later. From what i've read so far i probably wouldn't disagree with anything you say. However......., supposing a person does the lottery every week for 50 years. Is there any way he could "maximise" his chances of winning the jackpot? I would say the answer is yes, by proposing what I detailed above. It's true to say that each number has exactly the same chance of winning as any other. However, over a 50 year period of doing the lottery once or twice a week, (statistically speaking of course), there will be many more jackpot winners whose lottery numbers add up to between say 145 and 155 than there will be jackpot winners whose lottery numbers add up to say between 85 and 95 or (worstcase scenario) 21 and 31.

    I've actually worked it out on my computer. My calculations show that there will be 12 times as many jackpot winners whose lottery numbers add up to 150 than there will be whose lottery numbers add up to 89 (my mums lottery totals). Numbers that add up to 21 say, theoretically, should only appeat once every 14,000,000 games or once every 250,000 years (once every 5000 generations) depending how often you do the lottery. That is because there is only one set of numbers that add up to 21, i.e. 1,2,3,4,5,6. Likewise, there is only one set of numbers that add up to 279 i.e. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49.

    So yes, i agree, all combinations have an equal chance of winning, but if you want to be part of the jackpot winning majority in the UK, you need to make sure your lottery numbers add up to 150 or thereabouts.

    If numbers that add up to 21 appeared in a draw in my lifetime I would be amazed. I would consider this to be only a glitch. For it could be thousands of years before another number adding up to 21 appeared.

    Report on 28 February 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • lucysc
    Love rating 1
    lucysc said

    It's always seems to be the lucky dips who win. When you look at the most recent jackpot winners they all seem to have chosen lucky dip tickets. I've started to use lucky dips now as my "lucky" numbers weren't working. I use a euromillions number generator http://www.euro-millions.com/random-lottery-numbers.asp as it brings up random numbers but it shows you the chosen numbers.

    Yes I also noticed how Sarah/Susan!

    Report on 01 August 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • gr123
    Love rating 0
    gr123 said

    Make your mind up Susan or Sarah! lol! I love using the lucky dips when I play the Lottery. It just makes it so much easier then picking birthdays etc, also birthdays can only go up to 31 (if using days) so it leaves out the rest of the numbers! If this theory does work then don't forget to check your second round of winning numbers straight after the draw at http://www.lottery.co.uk/results/ they also have a great iPhone app which makes it easier to check results if you have one.

    Report on 02 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • dugthebug
    Love rating 1
    dugthebug said

    @rpb: just for completion.....

    “An EVENT is something that happens at a particular point in space and at a particular time”. (A Brief History of Time, Stephen J. Hawkins, Page 23). Your “simple example” breaks down because it doesn’t take account of that important component, critical to my argument, TIME. The event in question is the National Lottery Draw. At a rate of one draw a week it would take, in theory, 270,000 years (14,000,000 lotto draws) for all lottery totals to appear. I am mainly concerned with identifying only those lottery totals which are likely to appear in our lifetime and how often, on average, they are expected to occur. For example, in 270,000 years, lottery total 150 is expected to appear about 165,000 times. In 65 years it is expected to appear just 30 times. There would be no (or very few) lottery totals less than 50 or greater than 250 because these lottery totals are expected to appear once every 125+ years.

    Report on 26 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable)

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3