Yes possibly, because the winnings for 3 are fixed

Printable View

- 8th January 2013, 09:36 AMJJonas
Yes possibly, because the winnings for 3 are fixed

- 8th January 2013, 10:14 AMAndrew_C
When I was playing, I spotted that a run of numbers was just as likely to come up as anything else. However, if you pick a run of numbers away from 1-6 or similar, you could boost your chances of getting a big payout. Further research showed that people pick birthdates in their "random" selection; so, I went with 37-42 for quite a while. Never did get the big win (one 4 ball)...

I also discovered that people tend not to pick "teens" when giving a list of "random" numbers. Who knew? - 8th January 2013, 10:31 AMCESIL
Apparently I have "lost" £302.3...which would have cost me £1500...so as I see it I am up £1500.

I once had a very heated "discussion" with a work colleague who was convinced that playing the same numbers made a win more likely due to the "laws" of probability!

[edit] I just tried 1,2,3,4,5,6 and it seems that I would have won almost exactly the same for my £1500 [/edit] - 8th January 2013, 10:54 AMPottsey
I can sort of see how someone might think that even if it is not correct. I guess his logic goes assuming you do enough roles/draws that every number combination appears once then if you have a fixed number you would overtime win 100%. But if you pick a random number each time then you could even after every number combination has appeared once still have never won.

If you simplify it down to dice. If you pick the 2nd number (your fixed ticket) and role 1 dice the chance to match is 1 in 6. If you role two dice to represent random number and random ticket the chance to match is 1 in 36.

EDIT: Just released I wrote the wrong odds! random V random should be a matching pair so 1 in 6. But you have the tiny possibility of drawing every number combination and not getting a match. So the odds are the same but fixed numbers each week have a tiny advantage.