Fraud or coincidence?

[Jimbuna]

An unusual sequence of numbers drawn in South Africa's national lottery has sparked accusations of fraud after 20 people won a share of the jackpot.

Tuesday's PowerBall lottery saw the numbers five, six, seven, eight and nine drawn, while the PowerBall itself was, you have guessed it, 10.

The organisers say the sequence is often picked. But some have alleged a scam and an investigation is under way.

It is extremely rare for multiple winners to share the jackpot.

The organisers said 20 people purchased a winning ticket and won 5.7m rand ($370,000; £278,000) each.

Another 79 ticketholders won 6,283 rand each for guessing the sequence from five up to nine but missing the PowerBall.

The chances of winning South Africa's PowerBall lottery are one in 42,375,200 - the number of different combinations when selecting five balls from a set of 50, plus an additional bonus ball from a pool of 20.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-55154525

Those are certainly long odds.

[Mr Quatro]

Very strange indeed ... they should check to see how often that sequence of numbers is picked by players, but never called and see if the same people have played those same numbers before.

Very odd for sure ... :yep:

Here's another high odds thing with a stranded sailor clinging to his bow sprit for two days on his sunken boat being rescued by a passing container ship.

They Coast Guard said the odds were 1 in 100,000,000 to be found alive :o


Sailor, 62, who held onto bow of capsized boat for TWO DAYS feared ‘this is it’ before being rescued

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13351250/stuart-bee-sailor-fears-boat-rescue-florida/

https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/12/NINTCHDBPICT000623227863.jpg?w=620

[Jimbuna]

That guy can put my lottery numbers on for me if he would be kind enough to pick them.

[Platapus]

Or he should never play the lottery as he has used up all his luck.

[Randomizer]

Those are certainly long odds.
Actually not, the probability of drawing 5,6,7,8,9 and bonus 10 are EXACTLY the same as drawing any other specific six numbers. Probability and chance is like that.

We're pattern-seeking machines and see patterns where often there are none; angels or demons in the shapes of clouds, a Jebus face on a piece of toast or some specific lottery draw. We identify a pattern and then rationalize that it the cause is either malice or miracle when all the time nothing special is involved.

The odds of the 5,6,7,8,9 and 10 draw are exactly the same as drawing 4, 5,7, 9, 18 and 29 but the latter numbers form no discernible pattern and so drawing them only excites the winners. The odds are identical in this particular lottery, 42,375,200 to one against.

Nothing to see here.

-C

[Platapus]

Yup, that's how probabilities work. Although it does take some of the fun out of it.

[Jimbuna]

Actually not, the probability of drawing 5,6,7,8,9 and bonus 10 are EXACTLY the same as drawing any other specific six numbers. Probability and chance is like that.

We're pattern-seeking machines and see patterns where often there are none; angels or demons in the shapes of clouds, a Jebus face on a piece of toast or some specific lottery draw. We identify a pattern and then rationalize that it the cause is either malice or miracle when all the time nothing special is involved.

The odds of the 5,6,7,8,9 and 10 draw are exactly the same as drawing 4, 5,7, 9, 18 and 29 but the latter numbers form no discernible pattern and so drawing them only excites the winners. The odds are identical in this particular lottery, 42,375,200 to one against.

Nothing to see here.

-C

Yes, I fully appreciate that fact and it is already pointed out in the article The odds of the draw resulting in the numbers seen in Tuesday's televised live event are the same as any other combination.

I was rather pointing out that odds of one in 42,375,200 are quite astronomical.

[mapuc]

We have three type of lottery here in Denmark

One national, another a Scandinavian and a European.

Almost every week there use to be 2 numbers right after each other like 15-16 and sometimes but rarely there are 3 numbers right after each other.

I can't remember when there was more than these 3.

Markus

[Von Due]

Then to think that so many people are absolutely convinced their system gives them better odds... This thread had me remember a t-shirt my mom gave me 30 odd years ago. The print on it said:
"What has 8 balls and scr**s you once a week? The Lottery"

[August]

Then to think that so many people are absolutely convinced their system gives them better odds... This thread had me remember a t-shirt my mom gave me 30 odd years ago. The print on it said:
"What has 8 balls and scr**s you once a week? The Lottery"


Lots of truth to that. The Rhode Island Lottery used to have the catch phrase: "Where dreams cost only a buck". My Lotto-aholic GF at the time just couldn't understand the irony of the state selling impossible dreams.

[mapuc]

Yesterdays drawings in the Danish national lottery was interesting.

The numbers was:
3-7-16-17-18-33-34 plus 28

Markus

[Platapus]

What was particularly interesting about those numbers?

[Von Due]

A random though crossed my mind. The mind's tendency of seeing some combinations as more or less likely has the same root as the enigma machine's greatest flaw: Its inability to encrypt a letter as itself. To allow it was seen as less secure but that inability reduced the codebreakers' work immensely. Humans are not good at dealing with randomness.

[Sean C]

Humans are not good at dealing with randomness.


Indeed. I read an article once which claimed that users of the original Apple iTunes complained that the "shuffle" feature was playing too many similar songs or songs by the same artist back-to-back. So, the programmers had to actually make the selections less random in order for the user to feel that they were truly random.

[Von Due]

Indeed. I read an article once which claimed that users of the original Apple iTunes complained that the "shuffle" feature was playing too many similar songs or songs by the same artist back-to-back. So, the programmers had to actually make the selections less random in order for the user to feel that they were truly random.

That is interesting because computers (even smart phones are small computers) are utterly incapable of generating truly random numbers. To generate a truly random number, you would need to hook the computer up to an external source of randomness, such as nuclear reactions, and very few people have lumps of uranium laying around. All computers produce pseudo-random numbers and that is the best they can do. Know the algorithm and the seed and you can know the upcoming numbers.

[Platapus]

Randomness is more complicated than may first appear.


There is a difference between a set that is randomly generated and a set that is random.



A random number generator can produce the set of {1,2,3,4,5,...} It would be most unlikely, but possible. Each number was generated independently of the rest of the numbers but just happens to result in a pattern. The longer the pattern, the less likely it will happen, but it will never be 0%


It is also affected if the numbers can't be reused.



There are situations where you want a set of numbers that are truly random. This actually can take quite a lot of calculations to ensure that no accidental patterns are generated. One of the enduring (albeit extremely boring) mathematics questions is whether there is a maximum set of numbers that can be truly random.


Yeah, I actually used to work with people who cared about this sort of stuff. :o:doh:


So in the case of shuffling music, each selection was probably randomly selected, but if the population set was limited, it would be difficult to construct a run of "random" songs that would not incidentally result in a recognizable pattern of some sort.

[Catfish]

If i remember right the standard and fixed random number of the ZX 81 was 5,863...
If you wanted a real random number you had to write a program for this.

[Von Due]

^Unfortunately, no program can exist that generates truly random number. That is, it can not exist on any computer as we know them today. All computers need exact instructions, and you can't have instructions on randomness. Randomness is, among other things, the absence of instructions.

You can connect a computer to say, a geiger counter which registers particles ejected from a radio active source. Those processes are, as far as anyone has been able to tell, truly random. Let the computer run through a sequence of numbers and pick one whenever the geiger counter registers a particle.

By itself, no computer can pick randomly.

[Platapus]

But you can program a computer to look for and identify many different patterns that may be generated.



But you are right, for those applications that need a set of random numbers, getting them takes a lot of computing effort.