NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28802581/

And they have Nebraskan lottery tickets. Pete wins on Monday and Repeat wins on Tuesday.

The same lottery numbers were drawn twice in a row? Whats the chances of that o.o

Has this ever happened before? Is there some kind of malfunction?

The chances of that happening are the same as the chances of any other two sets of numbers being drawn. The numbers drawn this weak have no effect on the numbers drawn next week.

So short answer, one in several million odds. Probability isn't cumulative.

oh for god's sake its only the pick 3

the odds of that happening sometime somewhere that holds a pick3 is...inevitable.

The chances of that happening are the same as the chances of any other two sets of numbers being drawn. The numbers drawn this weak have no effect on the numbers drawn next week.

Didn't actually read the article, but this. ^

oh for god's sake its only the pick 3

the odds of that happening sometime somewhere that holds a pick3 is...inevitable.

Yeah, if that's the case, then the chance of any given draw being the same of the previous is 1 in <the total number of possible combinations.> So:

1/(n(n-1)(n-2), where n is the number of possible numbers that can be drawn , assuming no replacement (that is, the same number cannot be drawn twice for the same time.) If there is replacement, it would be 1/n^3.


So, assuming that all the available numbers are digits 0-9,(and scanning the article now, it appears that this is the case) the probability of getting the same winning combination is 1 in 720 without replacement and 1 in 1,000 if there is.

So, all in all, it's bound to happen eventually.

This is also assuming I'm doing the math correctly. I'm a history major, so I haven't done this in a long time...

Its clear whats going on here: The Jews have made a breakthrough in their long-running efforts to subvert the rules of probability so that they could win all the world's monies in gambling, remaining rich when the markets inevitably fell and a recession kicked in. The signs are everywhere. What were the chances a few years ago of a black man becoming President? Exactly. That was all part of their experiments to see if they could make statistically unlikely things happen. Its the Jews, I tell you. The Jews are behind this. Its the only rational explanation.

Yeah, if that's the case, then the chance of any given draw being the same of the previous is 1 in <the total number of possible combinations.> So:

1/(n(n-1)(n-2), where n is the number of possible numbers that can be drawn , assuming no replacement (that is, the same number cannot be drawn twice for the same time.) If there is replacement, it would be 1/n^3.


So, assuming that all the available numbers are digits 0-9,(and scanning the article now, it appears that this is the case) the probability of getting the same winning combination is 1 in 720 without replacement and 1 in 1,000 if there is.

So, all in all, it's bound to happen eventually.

This is also assuming I'm doing the math correctly. I'm a history major, so I haven't done this in a long time...
the numbers can repeat. you can have 333 as the pick3 for the day.

the numbers can repeat. you can have 333 as the pick3 for the day.

Well then, assuming I didn't fail math, the chance of any given day matching the previous day's combination should be 1 in 1,000. Unlikely, but not amazingly so.

Well then, assuming I didn't fail math, the chance of any given day matching the previous day's combination should be 1 in 1,000. Unlikely, but not amazingly so.
unlikely in any given lottery on any given day.

unlikely if you pick the numbers to repeat in advance.

inevitable if it is (as it is) any lottery with any numbers on any day. this cant have been the first time it happened, its too likely.

unlikely in any given lottery on any given day.

unlikely if you pick the numbers to repeat in advance.

inevitable if it is (as it is) any lottery with any numbers on any day. this cant have been the first time it happened, its too likely.

Indeed. Looking at the article, their "one in a million" statistic seems to be generated by asking "what is the chance that you draw a specific combination two days in a row?" and not "what is the chance that, given two consecutive days, the same combination is drawn on each?"

how bizzare.

Yes, as stated, the odds of drawing a 3 one digit string of numbers that matches the previous string of numbersi s 1 in 1,000, as the odds of drawing ANY particular string of 3 one digit numbers is 1 in 1,000.

The odds of drawing a SPECIFIC set of numbers, twice, is, literally, one in a million, statistically the same as drawing 6 specific 1 digit numbers.

And, moreover, given the odds of 1,000, and figure a daily weekday drawing, so 254 drawing a year, I'd say it probably happens roughly every 4 years or so.

although, now that I think about it, the odds of having a specific string of numbers show up, if picked at random, is probably SLIGHTLY less for non repeating numbers, and slightly more.

If we imagine a string...479 for example, and the numbers are draw from a drum containing 10 of every number 0-9, the first 4 that comes up, if it's not placed back in the drum, makes the odds of a second 4 SLIGHTLY less than any other number.

if there are 100 balls in the drum, 10 of every number 0-9, and you draw one 4 out, there are now 99 balls in the drum, 10 of every number, except 4 which has 9. Meaning the odds of any ball NOT a 4 is 10/99 and the odds of a 4 is 9/99.

So the odds of a random 3 digit sequence, in a situation in which there are multiple, but not infinite, amounts of each number, which are removed after each drawing, is not EXACTLY 1 in 1,000, and also depend on whether the sequence has repeating numbers.

479 being more likely than 333 for example.

although, now that I think about it, the odds of having a specific string of numbers show up, if picked at random, is probably SLIGHTLY less for non repeating numbers, and slightly more.

If we imagine a string...479 for example, and the numbers are draw from a drum containing 10 of every number 0-9, the first 4 that comes up, if it's not placed back in the drum, makes the odds of a second 4 SLIGHTLY less than any other number.

if there are 100 balls in the drum, 10 of every number 0-9, and you draw one 4 out, there are now 99 balls in the drum, 10 of every number, except 4 which has 9. Meaning the odds of any ball NOT a 4 is 10/99 and the odds of a 4 is 9/99.

So the odds of a random 3 digit sequence, in a situation in which there are multiple, but not infinite, amounts of each number, which are removed after each drawing, is not EXACTLY 1 in 1,000, and also depend on whether the sequence has repeating numbers.

479 being more likely than 333 for example.
i dont think thats the way it works. not that ive paid that kind of attention to it.

i think there are 3 drums each with 10 balls in it.

The article said it was a computer.

i dont think thats the way it works. not that ive paid that kind of attention to it.

i think there are 3 drums each with 10 balls in it.

oh, then in which case, ignore that whole thing.

The article said it was a computer.
the people of nebraska trust a computer to pick lottery numbers at random?

what kind of rubes are they?

the people of nebraska trust a computer to pick lottery numbers at random?

what kind of rubes are they?

The kind that live in Nebraska