Woman wins millions in lottery 4 times!

[Amentep]

You guys just ruined my world view. The last 40 years I've been carelessly crossing streets on foot, secure in the knowledge that I have statistics on my side. I mean, nobody gets run over and almost killed by a car twice, right? Well, wrong it seems. Thanks guys

 

Crossing the street? Its un-possible!

 

See to get to the far side of the street, you have to cross half the way there, yes?

 

Then you have to cross halfway from the middle of the street to the far side, yes?

 

And then halfway from that point, etc.

 

So in essence you will be walking 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2x .... x 1/2 or 1/(2^X). Since this value never actually reaches 0 as x->infintiy, you will get close to - but never actually reach - the far side of the street.

 

(A little math humour there)

[Humodour]

I think the real gem of this thread is that Dagon is convinced God is fiddling with the lottery results.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why are you guys still arguing that definition? It's irrelevant.

 

The fact is that you can point to any four lottery winners and claim "the probability that these four people would win is so small that it could only have possibly happened due to supernatural forces," which is exactly equivalent to saying "the probability that this person would win four lotteries is so small that it could only have possibly happened due to supernatural forces." The math is identical, as I have shown above - all the math cares about is that it is a unique group of four successes.

 

As no one would claim that the fact that four specific individuals won four lotteries is proof of god, this argument is pointless.

You're right that 4 pre-selected individuals each winning once has the same odds as 1 pre-selected individual winning 4 times, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a non-pre-selected individual somewhere in the world winning 4 times. That is not the same as 4 non-preselected individuals somewhere in the world each winning once. Do you see the difference?

 

Edit: Btw Oblarg, I do have to congratulate you on applying the Binomial probability correctly, even though you figured out the wrong probability. You, Balthamael and Amantep are the only guys arguing with me who've shown any understanding of probability at all. The others are a lot better at insults than math, and should be ashamed of themselves.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Oblarg]

Why are you guys still arguing that definition? It's irrelevant.

 

The fact is that you can point to any four lottery winners and claim "the probability that these four people would win is so small that it could only have possibly happened due to supernatural forces," which is exactly equivalent to saying "the probability that this person would win four lotteries is so small that it could only have possibly happened due to supernatural forces." The math is identical, as I have shown above - all the math cares about is that it is a unique group of four successes.

 

As no one would claim that the fact that four specific individuals won four lotteries is proof of god, this argument is pointless.

You're right that 4 pre-selected individuals each winning once has the same odds as 1 pre-selected individual winning 4 times, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a non-pre-selected individual somewhere in the world winning 4 times. That is not the same as 4 non-preselected individuals somewhere in the world each winning once. Do you see the difference?

 

Edit: Btw Oblarg, I do have to congratulate you on applying the Binomial probability correctly, even though you figured out the wrong probability. You, Balthamael and Amantep are the only guys arguing with me who've shown any understanding of probability at all. The others are a lot better at insults than math, and should be ashamed of themselves.

 

That's meaningless, though - you just have to multiply by the number of people playing the lottery. It's still an arbitrary group of people - the only significance once person winning four lotteries has is the information that it was most likely a scam.

 

The thought that unlikely events cannot happen is absurd, because unlikely events happen all the time. You can create any arbitrary class of outcomes with an absurdly low probability to which the actual result belongs and claim that "this could not happen, because the probability is too low" (the logical extreme of this is what I did above - the chance of that specific outcome alone). The class of outcomes in which one person wins four times is just that - an arbitrary class of outcomes.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The others are a lot better at insults than math, and should be ashamed of themselves.

 

R00fles!

[Walsingham]

WoD, I genuinely apologise if I've offended you. It wasn't my intention to do so beyond the degree necessary to bring you up sharp. Because you need to get this straight in your head before you make a t*** of yourself in a job interview or something. And it's no use us just ignoring it for the sake of a quiet life.

 

My stats tutor is a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society and he took up the best part of an hour talking about this exact point. His technical argument has been fielded already by others, so I won't repeat it. But what you are talking about is REALLY common.

 

The example he used was cancer rates. People look at a map of Britain and say "Hello. There's a blotch here where everyone has four times the average cancer rate. Something must be up." But this is looking at probability all wrong, in exactly the way you are wrong. The question is how can we say a large array will not contain what you could describe usefully (but incorrectly) as outliers? And the point is that it is a distribution of probability. You can't say it's impossible without some explanatory factor. **** happens.

[Wrath of Dagon]

WoD, I genuinely apologise if I've offended you. It wasn't my intention to do so beyond the degree necessary to bring you up sharp.

I didn't mean you, it was a particular group of people here I was referring to.

Because you need to get this straight in your head before you make a t*** of yourself in a job interview or something. And it's no use us just ignoring it for the sake of a quiet life.

Hah, hah, hah, hah, my credentials aren't in danger, and I'm independently wealthy, but thanks for you concern.

 

My stats tutor is a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society and he took up the best part of an hour talking about this exact point. His technical argument has been fielded already by others, so I won't repeat it. But what you are talking about is REALLY common.

 

The example he used was cancer rates. People look at a map of Britain and say "Hello. There's a blotch here where everyone has four times the average cancer rate. Something must be up." But this is looking at probability all wrong, in exactly the way you are wrong. The question is how can we say a large array will not contain what you could describe usefully (but incorrectly) as outliers? And the point is that it is a distribution of probability. You can't say it's impossible without some explanatory factor. **** happens.

Would it be unusual if everyone in the town had cancer, because that's the kind of odds I was talking about here.

 

Anyway, the odds may not be that great, I'm thinking perhaps there are a 1000 people who've won twice already. Moreover, in some of the articles about them it mentions they spend huge amounts on the lottery, like hundreds every month or even week, may be even more after they win the first time. Obviously these are lottery addicts, spending most of their disposable income on the lottery, so spending $100,000 over 10 years wouldn't be out of the question. With that in mind, the odds one of them would win a 3rd and a 4th time are actually quite decent, on the order of 1 in 10, something you wouldn't be surprised to see in your lifetime.

 

Now, how about that octopus?

[Calax]

Now, how about that octopus?

 

I'm doing quite fine big boy, but something tells me I need to spray you with ink

 

Seriously Dagon, he was referring more to the fact that in your initial post you said that it was either cheating or god that made the person win. The technical arguments are being handled by more qualified folks and Wals is just saying that there are always going to be statistical anomalies.

 

When you do probability it doesn't mean that because the chance is 1/15 that every 15th is gonna be a win. There are cases where it gets REALLY streaky which I'm sure you've seen in dice games.

 

And yes, she can defy space time to get a double shot of herself like that >.>

Edited July 20, 2010 by Calax

[213374U]

<3 you guys

[Gorth]

There are cases where it gets REALLY streaky which I'm sure you've seen in dice games.

I once needed to roll a measly 9 on a total of 7 dice in a game of WH40K to deliver a serious blow to my mortal enemy (my little brother). It came up six 1's and a 2. I lost the game.

 

Now, how about that octopus?

Russian gambling syndicate offers 100.000 Euro for Octopus

Plus a monthly salary of $5000 (his fellow human specialistst make $3000). The German Aquarium turned down the offer.

[Hurlshort]

Russian gambling syndicate offers 100.000 Euro for Octopus

Plus a monthly salary of $5000 (his fellow human specialistst make $3000). The German Aquarium turned down the offer.

 

I can see why the Octopus was tentative. Once you ink a deal with the Russian Syndicate, if you mess up, you can bet you will end up swimming with the fishes.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, you wind up as Vodka snacks.

[Humodour]

Russian gambling syndicate offers 100.000 Euro for Octopus

Plus a monthly salary of $5000 (his fellow human specialistst make $3000). The German Aquarium turned down the offer.

 

I can see why the Octopus was tentative. Once you ink a deal with the Russian Syndicate, if you mess up, you can bet you will end up swimming with the fishes.

 

Haha, that was brilliant! It gave me a big grin.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...and I'm independently wealthy...

 

R00fles!

 

Sure you are Mr. Dagon, and I bet you have a moon-base on Io that's run by little-green-men as well.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, they kidnapped someone named Deadly Nightshade and stole his brain.

[Nepenthe]

There are cases where it gets REALLY streaky which I'm sure you've seen in dice games.

I once needed to roll a measly 9 on a total of 7 dice in a game of WH40K to deliver a serious blow to my mortal enemy (my little brother). It came up six 1's and a 2. I lost the game.

 

And I lost a squad of terminators in one round in 2e 40k (3+ on 2d6)

[Gorth]

There are cases where it gets REALLY streaky which I'm sure you've seen in dice games.

I once needed to roll a measly 9 on a total of 7 dice in a game of WH40K to deliver a serious blow to my mortal enemy (my little brother). It came up six 1's and a 2. I lost the game.

 

And I lost a squad of terminators in one round in 2e 40k (3+ on 2d6)

 

I got a few things wrong in my post... it was WH40K Epic (2nd edition) and it was 8 on 6 dice, no less frustrating though. Trying to guess distances to the enemy lines for my Pulsa Rokkit battery. Ended up nuking my own vanguard. Then my Weirdboyz blew up the neighbourhood and the madboyz panicked, starting to lob grenades all over the place. 2/3 of my army dead and the enemy hadn't really contributed to the killing yet.

[Calax]

There are cases where it gets REALLY streaky which I'm sure you've seen in dice games.

I once needed to roll a measly 9 on a total of 7 dice in a game of WH40K to deliver a serious blow to my mortal enemy (my little brother). It came up six 1's and a 2. I lost the game.

 

And I lost a squad of terminators in one round in 2e 40k (3+ on 2d6)

 

I got a few things wrong in my post... it was WH40K Epic (2nd edition) and it was 8 on 6 dice, no less frustrating though. Trying to guess distances to the enemy lines for my Pulsa Rokkit battery. Ended up nuking my own vanguard. Then my Weirdboyz blew up the neighbourhood and the madboyz panicked, starting to lob grenades all over the place. 2/3 of my army dead and the enemy hadn't really contributed to the killing yet.

Sounds like a couple of my fights in Myth and Myth 2... stupid dwarves.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

EDIT:

 

I'll not sink to your level (although I still don't believe that you're wealthy or that you know maths).

Edited July 21, 2010 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Oblarg]

EDIT:

 

I'll not sink to your level (although I still don't believe that you're wealthy or that you know maths).

 

There's no sinking to anyone's level anymore - as far as I can tell, the argument is over.

 

It looks like you're just sticking around and taking potshots at WoD, which (and mind you, I usually don't agree with WoD on anything) just makes you look bad.

[Wrath of Dagon]

EDIT:

 

I'll not sink to your level (although I still don't believe that you're wealthy or that you know maths).

Too late, already read it. But it was mostly meant as a joke, and you're wrong on both counts, but feel free to believe whatever you like.

 

Edit: Btw, you won't sink to my level, but wasn't your changing your avatar meant as an insult to me? Not that I mind much, just find it ironic.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gorth]

Probability of this thread having outlived its usefulness rapidly approaching 1...

 

[Gorth]

Thread given a temporary stay of execution while appeal is being processed...

[alanschu]

I just wanted to chime in that I spoke with my professor (since I live near campus).

 

 

Essentially I had a chat with him and he said that the probability of an event happening does not change to 1 after it occurs. He thinks what the person is confusing is independent events. The probabilities of past independent events are irrelevant to future events.

 

In other words, what I got out of it was the standard axiom of independent events in conditional probability: P ( A | B ) = P ( A ) if A and B are independent events. (note for others: That line is read as: 'The probability of A given B happened equals the probability of just A happening, if A and B are independent events.'

 

 

From his actual email, to determine the probability for this woman to win the lottery 4 times would be:

For the lottery it seems like one should use the binomial distribution. If the woman played 100 times, then her chance of winning exactly four times would be

 

100!

--------- x p^4 x (1-p)^96,

96! 4!

 

where p is the probability of winning on any given day. Unfortunately, the article does not give enough information to verify there calculations.

 

Hope that helps

 

 

I noticed someone else brought up the binomial distribution (Oblarg).

 

Essentially the formula is:

 

x!

--------- x p^y x (1-p)^(x-y)

(x-y)! y!

 

Where:

 

x = number of lotteries attempted

y = number of lotteries won

p = probability of winning a lottery

 

If we use his numbers of x = 100, y = 4, and make an estimate of p, we'll get the probability of her achieving what she did. This assumes no foul play, and a consistent chance of winning the lottery every time.

 

If we assume p = 1/1000, the probability of her winning the four lotteries that she did win is about 1/3,562,121

If we assume p = 1 in a million, the probability of her winning the four lotteries that she did is about 1 in 3.9e-18

 

 

 

And just to clarify, I hope that with the explanation of independent events, people can understand that if 1 person in the world won the lottery, and everyone all played it again with an equal chance of winning, the odds of the previous winner winning a second lottery is the same as any non-winner winning his first lottery.

 

EDIT: I think Oblarg has summed things up nicely.

Edited July 22, 2010 by alanschu

[Wrath of Dagon]

Again, it's not her chance of winning that matters, it's the chance of someone in the world winning. Also your professor is assuming she's spending 1 dollar in each lottery, the more correct statement would be she spend a total of $100 playing, not that she's played 100 times, but that's a relatively minor point. Also the probability of an event that already occurred is 1, either you misunderstood each other, or he doesn't know what he's talking about there.