Comments on: The conservation of luck

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:51:35 +0000

It’s not that they ‘think’ the chances become lower, but suddenly the incomprehensible odds become real to them. They think, “Gosh, what are the odds that’ll happen round here AGAIN?” They see it as the odds of lightning striking twice in the same place, instead of one in the place they specify.

By: spiderabc1

spiderabc1 — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:48:56 +0000

Years ago I went through the last ten weeks or so on teletext and wrote down all the numbers that had come up and wrote down the ones that came up most. 41 etc. I never bought a ticket and not sure any number was there the following draw. I gave up after that. Perhaps I should gamble one of my precious pounds this year. Too many lottery choices last time I looked though, kind of positive I wouldn’t win.

By: Simon Smith

Simon Smith — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:49:07 +0000

If anyone reading wants some extra luck, they can download some by clicking on [u]this link[/u]. (Sorry, I’m not 100% sure if BBCode will be accepted.)

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:40:30 +0000

Of course you are right. Just goes to show that common sense and probability are strange bedfellows… I shall think more and guess less. Very very interesting.

By: JayKay

JayKay — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:16:30 +0000

Well that’s good to know… Not that any of my mates have won £7m on the lottery… It’s just Derren’s (roughly quoted) statemant that you’re more likely to die before the lottery starts than you are to win the lottery that prevents me shoving any more dosh on the lottery… I choose life.

By: mawkusoh

mawkusoh — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:56:56 +0000

The fact that humanity is still alive is soooo highly impropable~~…

By: J. S-R

J. S-R — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:08:24 +0000

@Rob (first comment)

“it is common sense that the more lottery winners you have in one area or group the less likely it is that the next winner will appear in that area or group”

nope…
You probably think this because it is less likely for two people in a group to win than it is for just one of them too.
However, once one person has already won, it doesn’t affect the outcome of future events.

To better understand this, imagine you are flipping a coin twice.
It is more likely to get a head and a tail than it is to get two heads (or two tails.)
However, if you get heads the first time, the odds that the second toss will give heads is still 50%

You’re falling victim to something called the gambler’s fallacy, which is a well understood piece of bad logic.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:29:38 +0000

A have now had a short but fruitful correspondence with the very gracious Prof Ian Stewart who dismantled my illogic efficiently. Simply put, the system has no memory and all other conclusions must flow from that point. Obvious really. thank you Professor Stewart.

By: roz

roz — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:09:00 +0000

the lottery is a great example of the lengths we will go to in order to attract luck…& how lucky we feel when something good actually happens. i guess it just goes to show how unlucky we usually feel!

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:26:01 +0000

Of all the possible distribution patterns of winners, the pattern of ‘all winners in the same place’ has only one set of possible precursor events.
The pattern of ‘winners distributed all over’ could be preceded by a vast number of possible events.
Therefore, it is more likely that winners would be distributed evenly as there are many pathways to that event.
Therefore the man is not actually wrong, although he is misguided in his interpretation.
Please prove me wrong, mathematicians and statisticians and actuaries!
I am sure you can.
Or at least send a link to somewhere that helps me to understand it better.