Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
None Conventional Systems
01-05-2008, 09:57 AM
Post: #37
RE: None Conventional Systems
Moses Wrote:Hello Frank

Am I right to say one set of combination of 7 numbers to be repeated identically then the odds for that is 433 billion to 2?
What is the odd for one number to be repeated in identical place?
What are the odds for two numbers to be repeated in identical place?
What are the odds for three numbers?Four numbers?
Five numbers?
What is your perspective for followings and what are the odds for them to happen in a short history (1255 draws) of UK18/04/2007, 30,41,17,08,11,32,47 exact11/04/2007, 08,42,35,21,11,32,47

03/03/1999, 22,40,25,24,20,36,0128/05/1997, 19,36,48,24,25,03,17 reverse

08/03/2003, 32,05,08,06,33,41,15
24/10/1998, 15,41,26,06,08,23,49 reverse

17/02/2006,04,23,38,24,26,04,02 exact
04/06/2005,04,13,07,24,26,04

How many more would you like me to add to the list?

Mo

Hi Moses,

Yes you are quite right with your first question - there are indeed 433 billon to 1 odds of a single 7 from 49 sequence being repeated by another single 7 from 49 sequence in exact order. I have attempted to calculate the answers to the other questions too but it has to be remembered that they are (in the first column of the tables attached) the odds of a single ticket (or other lottery result) matching a single result. As soon as you start checking 1000 results from one lottery with 13000 other results from lotteries taken from around the world those original odds shrink by a factor of thousands.
But let's take your examples, first of UK draws compared with previous UK draws where drawn position is important.

You found on example of a match 3 in exact order and one example of a match 4 in exact order. Firstly there may be a mistake in your database since I do not agree with the results you display for the match 4.

17/02/2006,04,23,38,24,26,04,02 and 04/06/2005,04,13,07,24,26,04 ? These were not the UK lotto results for those dates, one of which falls on a Friday.

In any case I will show that the odds of comparing 1255 UK draws with 1254 other UK draws makes finding matches quite common, even when position is important.

Since these examples deal with exact positions look at table 2
   

which show that the odds against matching 4 balls from 7 in exact position when comparing the UK results list with itself is about 143 to 1 against. I would expect from this to find about 8 or 9 such matches. In fact I have run my tests on past Uk lotto results and have found 5 occasions when there are exact repeats of the same 4 numbers and positions.

Uk lotto draws

694 matched 1191 40 32 31 X 19 X X

652 matched 1078 9 40 X 30 24 X X

1154 matched 943 X 8 X 20 5 X 40

339 matched 860 X 48 13 21 X X 22

374 matched 831 8 X 37 48 26 X X

I also replaced the 1255 Lotto results with a random set of 7 numbers (not sorted) and did the same comparison for repeats within the result history of ball and same position looking for match 4's. I found 5 repeats exactly the same number as actually ocurred in the Lotto.

So why are they so common, these positional matches ? Take a look at Table 2 the last column shows what the odds are of matching any number of balls from one draw of the Lotto with another with EXACT position matching.

Even though the odds of matching 4 when you just compare any single line of 7 with any other line of 7 is 179,583 to 1 as soon as you have 1254 other lines to compare with any line you get odds of 143 to 1.
You will notice that match 5 taking position into account in that last column shows odds against of 9,540 to 1. in 1255 draws you wouldn't expect to find any - and you don't. And as for matching 3 balls, the theory predicts hundreds of matches, and you get them both for the real UK Lotto and for a random set.

The other thing, is the odds of other lotteries of 7/49 format matching the UK lotto result list on value and position. THis too is in Table 2 in the middle column, for varying number of ball matches. The odds cannot be exactly calculated because it depends on how many other lotteries you search and how many draws there have been in those lotteries. Since you used an example of 13 other lotteries compared to the UK, I have calculated the odds on that basis, and assuming that those lotteries also have 1255 past draws in them. The odds are so low due to the vast pool of available draws to check against that even a match 5 is probable with on eof those other lotteries even takng position into account.
As you might expect, when you don't take position into account, just number of matches, then the odds against finding matches under those circumstances are much much lower as shown in Table 1.
   
These much lower odds show why the UK Lotto had a repeat of match 6 from 7 within its own results at only 233 to 1 and when checked against all the results in the world, theres bound to be loads of matches of 6 from the 7.
Regards, Frank
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
None Conventional Systems - Len - 12-28-2007, 06:04 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 12-29-2007, 10:15 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Len - 12-29-2007, 07:42 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 12-29-2007, 09:18 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - valelli - 12-29-2007, 09:38 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 12-29-2007, 09:54 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 12-29-2007, 10:12 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - valelli - 12-29-2007, 11:14 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 12-30-2007, 12:15 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Len - 12-30-2007, 02:30 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 12-30-2007, 03:20 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Len - 12-31-2007, 02:13 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 12-31-2007, 06:00 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Len - 12-31-2007, 09:41 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 12-31-2007, 09:55 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Len - 12-31-2007, 10:38 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-01-2008, 02:00 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - valelli - 01-01-2008, 02:46 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Len - 01-02-2008, 09:51 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-03-2008, 02:15 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - valelli - 01-03-2008, 02:48 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-03-2008, 06:22 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Len - 01-03-2008, 06:46 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-03-2008, 07:30 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - valelli - 01-03-2008, 07:35 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-03-2008, 11:59 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Frank - 01-04-2008, 02:08 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-04-2008, 02:36 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-04-2008, 03:24 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Frank - 01-05-2008 09:57 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-04-2008, 04:11 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - valelli - 01-04-2008, 05:07 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Len - 01-04-2008, 09:04 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-05-2008, 09:29 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-04-2008, 10:03 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Len - 01-04-2008, 10:16 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Frank - 01-05-2008, 01:37 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-05-2008, 10:39 PM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Frank - 01-06-2008, 12:03 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Moses - 01-06-2008, 12:18 AM
RE: None Conventional Systems - Walton - 09-29-2010, 10:25 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Registration Agreement
Terms & conditions