Reply With Quotenext time you buy a lotto, wait till the last minute or 30 seconds of closing and buy a lucky dip , let me know the out come ! ??? i will check back in 7 days .
[QUOTE=Matt;58731]Not 1:49*6^6, that would be 1 in 2,286,144
LOL, ooops...slight error (1:49!/(6!*(49-6)!) !!!!!!
Anyway, thanks for the correction......still seems a bit of a scam though...lol. As for the age of the winners, maybe it's just me but take a look at the previous winners pages!
next time you buy a lotto, wait till the last minute or 30 seconds of closing and buy a lucky dip , let me know the out come ! ??? i will check back in 7 days .
Don't bother.Originally Posted by dream number
[QUOTE=NelMac;59996]Which would be totally pointless. The age distribution of the winners is meaningless unless you know the age distribution and number of tickets bought of the losers.
skb
Why? I predict that I would not win the jackpot
skb
Re: Can the National Lottery be fixed???
Thanks for the posts, I decided to have a quick look at the thread after the latest Euromillion win for the not exactly YOUNG couple who just scooped 25 million....I'll try the lucky dip thing (just before the draw closes), but I'm still convinced the winners are pre-selected for several reasons. The relevancy of age is quite simple really, young inexperienced individuals will just fritter it away on crazy things. It's happaned as I've mentioned, (by PURE luck), having spent the cash on setting up marijuana plantations, racetracks in their gardens etc etc. There are many reasons why age should play a role pre-selection. All the need is a rep to monitor, a ticket time and a retailer number and there you go. Older people arent going to be round as long, the cash finds it way back into the system in many different methods. Inheritance tax for one. If I ever win I'll quote this and apologise to anyone who has ever read it......
Well the solution's simple. I'll ask my mother in law to pick up my ticket for me.Thanks for the posts, I decided to have a quick look at the thread after the latest Euromillion win for the not exactly YOUNG couple who just scooped 25 million....I'll try the lucky dip thing (just before the draw closes), but I'm still convinced the winners are pre-selected for several reasons. The relevancy of age is quite simple really, young inexperienced individuals will just fritter it away on crazy things. It's happaned as I've mentioned, (by PURE luck), having spent the cash on setting up marijuana plantations, racetracks in their gardens etc etc. There are many reasons why age should play a role pre-selection. All the need is a rep to monitor, a ticket time and a retailer number and there you go. Older people arent going to be round as long, the cash finds it way back into the system in many different methods. Inheritance tax for one. If I ever win I'll quote this and apologise to anyone who has ever read it......
However I'll only take that minimal effort if you can explain why how your theory sqaures with the facts. The largest ever Euromillions winner was a 25 year old from Portugal, and the previous record holder, Delores McNamera was 45 (and if you say that 45 is old some people are going to get huffy)
What we could have is a case of confirmation bias and combined with spotlight fallacy with the possibility of something like a biased sample.
You see, most jackpot winners manage to maintain a certain amount of privacy. Neither of us actually know the age distribution of jackpot winners. The only information we have access to is the age distrubtion of Jackpot winners in the press. The spotlight fallacy is to assume that those in the spotlight are representitive of the wider population. The spotlight fallacy is why some idiots think that every teenager carries and blade and will stab them to death in a frenzied knife attack at the slightest provokation.
There could be many reasons why jackpot winners in the spotlight could on average be older than the wider population. Maybe tyhe press think old folk make for nicer stories. Maybe old folk are less media savvy and less likely to protect their privacy.
Then there's the problem that maybe jackpot winners in the press aren't actually older than you might expect. This is confirmation bias. YOu've decided that all jackpot winners are old. Therefore when you see an old jackpot winner you remember it, when you see a jackpot winner who isn't old you excuse it. That's confirmation bais. You could do the same thing to say that Camelot try to make every jackpot winner white. The few black jackpot winners are simply where they failed in their aims. Start thinking along those lines and you'll soon accumulate evidence. However if you want that evidence to be appreciated by a skeptic then you need to gather the evidence in a systematic manner.
Finally theres the problem of what if there's a lot of old jackpot winners simply because there's a lot of old lottery players. So see if a more aged group is dissproptionately amongst the winners you first have to know what proportion of players are in that group. That again is something you simply don't know. Camelot don't even know. As such the sample of the general population who play the lottery may be biased towards old age without us knowing.
So in short. I have no good evidence that you're wrong. I have no good evidence that you're right. This would be the case for dozens of similar or even directly contradictory theories. However perhaps quality of evidence doesn't matter to you. Perhaps you've picked which theory you believe is true and will thereore accept poor quality evidence which supports it and reject poor quality evidence which opposes it. In that case it's not quality evidence which convinces you but your attitude towards evidence.
If you can guarentee that this is not the case I'd demonstrate how to systematically gather and interpret evidence to test this theory. However there's simply no point in doing so if you would disregard the result should such an investigation not confirm your theory.
NelMac,Thanks for the posts, I decided to have a quick look at the thread after the latest Euromillion win for the not exactly YOUNG couple who just scooped 25 million....I'll try the lucky dip thing (just before the draw closes), but I'm still convinced the winners are pre-selected for several reasons. The relevancy of age is quite simple really, young inexperienced individuals will just fritter it away on crazy things. It's happaned as I've mentioned, (by PURE luck), having spent the cash on setting up marijuana plantations, racetracks in their gardens etc etc. There are many reasons why age should play a role pre-selection. All the need is a rep to monitor, a ticket time and a retailer number and there you go. Older people arent going to be round as long, the cash finds it way back into the system in many different methods. Inheritance tax for one. If I ever win I'll quote this and apologise to anyone who has ever read it......
can you explain how you tell, from looking at someone alone, whether or not someone will 'just fritter' their winnings away? I have known young people (18 to 25) who are very responsible in their spendings and conversely older people (50+) who spend all their cash on booze and horses.
There also seems to be a disparity between your opening remarks and your closing one. i.e. the implication from your closing remark is that older people are selected for winning as the cash will quickly find its way back into the 'system'* yet younger people who will 'just fritter it away', and are therefore putting their money back into the system*, are selected against.
This leads onto the final question. Motive. What is Camelots motive in all of this? I find it hard to believe that they have set themselves up as some form of moral guardian to the nation**. Or is it that you think this is part of some wider far reaching conspiracy?
* What system exactly are you referring to, and why is it important that lottery winnings are pumped back into it at the earliest opportunity?
** If, indeed, they were setting themselves up as moral guardians why do they not operate as a non-profit organisation?
skb
Last edited by skbuncks; 17th June 2009 at 11:21 AM.
Epic fail.Thanks for the posts, I decided to have a quick look at the thread after the latest Euromillion win for the not exactly YOUNG couple who just scooped 25 million....I'll try the lucky dip thing (just before the draw closes), but I'm still convinced the winners are pre-selected for several reasons. The relevancy of age is quite simple really, young inexperienced individuals will just fritter it away on crazy things. It's happaned as I've mentioned, (by PURE luck), having spent the cash on setting up marijuana plantations, racetracks in their gardens etc etc. There are many reasons why age should play a role pre-selection. All the need is a rep to monitor, a ticket time and a retailer number and there you go. Older people arent going to be round as long, the cash finds it way back into the system in many different methods. Inheritance tax for one. If I ever win I'll quote this and apologise to anyone who has ever read it......
If young pops are going to spend spend spend spend then the money would get put back into the system quicker so why give the cash to oldsters not that I would object to be given millions of cash but I would invest in houses and land. this would mean that the cash would be hoarded in the bank until such time as needed and would take longer to get into the wider pops.Thanks for the posts, I decided to have a quick look at the thread after the latest Euromillion win for the not exactly YOUNG couple who just scooped 25 million....I'll try the lucky dip thing (just before the draw closes), but I'm still convinced the winners are pre-selected for several reasons. The relevancy of age is quite simple really, young inexperienced individuals will just fritter it away on crazy things. It's happaned as I've mentioned, (by PURE luck), having spent the cash on setting up marijuana plantations, racetracks in their gardens etc etc. There are many reasons why age should play a role pre-selection. All the need is a rep to monitor, a ticket time and a retailer number and there you go. Older people arent going to be round as long, the cash finds it way back into the system in many different methods. Inheritance tax for one. If I ever win I'll quote this and apologise to anyone who has ever read it......
OK, I'm wrong......I don't mind admitting I'm wrong, however, the data I looked at was the 'previous winners' section of the N.L site which is no doubt limited. Peoples privacy is a factor I overlooked. I'm not going to persist in a pointless debate, I was just curious what other peoples opinion on this was. If I can collate any further information that would/will substantiate my theory I'll be back. . .
Life's difficult enough without sparking a contentious debate that involves a rather large portion of the country's population !!! As I said, I was only looking for opinions, and opinions I got !!!!!
And I'll be very interested to see your new data if you can find any. (I'm being serious - not sarcastic)
Contentious debate is what this site is all about. Thank you for your contribution.Life's difficult enough without sparking a contentious debate that involves a rather large portion of the country's population !!! As I said, I was only looking for opinions, and opinions I got !!!!!
All I want explaining is why winning 6 numbers for the jackpot is harder then getting 5 + the bonus(again 6 numbers)? Because when I looked a lot more people allway get 5 and the bonus, than win the jackpot. I looked at a load of week's and it was between 10 to 30 people got 5 plus the bonus, and 0-2 got the jackpot, those numbers don't add up, its sould be around the same amount for both as they are both 6 numbers. To me this shows they control the amount of winners somehow???
The odds are ( I think ) slightly different.
To win the jackpot, you have to get 6 out of 6 - all numbers correct.
To win the 5 + bonus, you have an extra chance at one of the numbers ( you need 6 out of 7, and you have two chances at one of those numbers ).
In other words - the jackpot is 6 out of 6, while the 5+ bonus is only 6 out of 7. I don't play the lottery, but I think that's right ( even if I explained it badly ).
No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong...
In retrospect, that was a rubbish reply. What I meant was -
To get the jackpot you need 6 out of 6; 100% correct.
To get the 5+bonus, you need 6 out of 7; 86(ish)% correct.
I think that's right? ( I'm hopeless at maths/statistics!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks