statistical / lottery-type question

[chowderhead]

In a 6 number (i.e. 1-48) lottery type system, I understand that each "draw" is independent of each other. That is, for the first number ... the odds are 1 in 48 of drawing number x.
For the second number, the odds are 1 in 47 of drawing number y
and so forth.

My question is, are the odds exactly the same for drawing 6 random numbers (in any order) i.e. :
3 16 23 25 32 41
as they would if the lottery drew consecutive numbers (in any order)
1 2 3 4 5 6

The draws are independent of each other, but are the odds even higher for "getting" consecutive numbers (drawn in any order) than random numbers?

 

[Crusty]

It depends on who you ask...
some people will say they are even while some people say they aren't.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: MCrusty
It depends on who you ask...
some people will say they are even while some people say they aren't.

No it doesn't. 17,18,19,20,21,22 is just as likely to be drawn as 22,17,34,26,41,11

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: MCrusty
It depends on who you ask...
some people will say they are even while some people say they aren't.

No it doesn't. 17,18,19,20,21,22 is just as likely to be drawn as 22,17,34,26,41,11

Yep. The remaining numbers have no way to "know" what the numbers already drawn are. Every ball has the same chance of being drawn. That they have any pattern or number on them does not alter this fact.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: MCrusty
It depends on who you ask...
some people will say they are even while some people say they aren't.

No it doesn't. 17,18,19,20,21,22 is just as likely to be drawn as 22,17,34,26,41,11

Oh, I agree with you, I am just saying that there is a group of staticians out there that would disagree.

Nowhere in my post did I say what I thought was...

Some people will say that it would be illogical to draw random numbers in a row, so it must be less likely. I think they are full of shiat...but that's what they say. I'll search around on google for the name of the group.

 

[WhiteWonder]

unless its fixed

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
In a 6 number (i.e. 1-48) lottery type system, I understand that each "draw" is independent of each other. That is, for the first number ... the odds are 1 in 48 of drawing number x.

For the second number, the odds are 1 in 47 of drawing number y

and so forth.



My question is, are the odds exactly the same for drawing 6 random numbers (in any order) i.e. :

3 16 23 25 32 41

as they would if the lottery drew consecutive numbers (in any order)

1 2 3 4 5 6



The draws are independent of each other, but are the odds even higher for "getting" consecutive numbers (drawn in any order) than random numbers?

Same, but no-one would ever choose 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: chowderhead

In a 6 number (i.e. 1-48) lottery type system, I understand that each "draw" is independent of each other. That is, for the first number ... the odds are 1 in 48 of drawing number x.



For the second number, the odds are 1 in 47 of drawing number y

and so forth.


My question is, are the odds exactly the same for drawing 6 random numbers (in any order) i.e. :

3 16 23 25 32 41

as they would if the lottery drew consecutive numbers (in any order)
1 2 3 4 5 6


The draws are independent of each other, but are the odds even higher for "getting" consecutive numbers (drawn in any order) than random numbers?

Same, but no-one would ever choose 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sounds like combination an idiot would have on his luggage

 

[jaybert]

the chance of drawing a specific set of consecutive #'s (1,2,3,4,5,6) and the chance of drawing a specific set of non-consecutive #'s (6,8,23,42,49, 50) are the same.

now....the chance of drawing any specific set of consecutive #'s (1,2,3,4,5,6, 2,3,4,5,6,7, 3,4,5,6,7,8, .....) are ALOT less than drawing any set of #'s where they are not consecutive (there are only 50 combinations of #'s that are consecutive, whereas there are billions of combinations that are not consecutive)

 

[Bulk Beef]

/changes combination on his luggage

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: jaybert
the chance of drawing a specific set of consecutive #'s (1,2,3,4,5,6) and the chance of drawing a specific set of non-consecutive #'s (6,8,23,42,49, 50) are the same.

now....the chance of drawing any specific set of consecutive #'s (1,2,3,4,5,6, 2,3,4,5,6,7, 3,4,5,6,7,8, .....) are ALOT less than drawing any set of #'s where they are not consecutive (there are only 50 combinations of #'s that are consecutive, whereas there are billions of combinations that are not consecutive)

thank you, that makes sense to me

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: MCrusty
Some people will say that it would be illogical to draw random numbers in a row, so it must be less likely. I think they are full of shiat...but that's what they say. I'll search around on google for the name of the group.

Too bad they got their degrees from Raelien Universitie and know only alien mathemagics.

Note that the original question wasn't about drawing them in order, just ending up with a consecutive sequence after all were drawn.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Some people will say that it would be illogical to draw random numbers in a row, so it must be less likely. I think they are full of shiat...but that's what they say. I'll search around on google for the name of the group.

Too bad they got their degrees from Raelien Universitie and know only alien mathemagics.



Note that the original question wasn't about drawing them in order, just ending up with a consecutive sequence after all were drawn.

No shiit! wow!!!

Can't you people fvcking read? I said I agreed with him but I also wanted to point out an alternative view.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Some people will say that it would be illogical to draw random numbers in a row, so it must be less likely. I think they are full of shiat...but that's what they say. I'll search around on google for the name of the group.

Too bad they got their degrees from Raelien Universitie and know only alien mathemagics.

Note that the original question wasn't about drawing them in order, just ending up with a consecutive sequence after all were drawn.

No shiit! wow!!!

Can't you people fvcking read? I said I agreed with him but I also wanted to point out an alternative view.

I wasn't saying anything against you personally. I'm just pointing out that the people you mention are idiots and probably think there is a dinosaur-hunting lost civilization at the Earth's core.

Alternate views to simple probability are as valid as passing a law that pi = 3.

 

[Yax]

picking 123456 is aprx 1/18million, just like another random string of numbers.

 

[fyleow]

People don't pick 1,2,3,4,5,6 because you never see consecutive numbers like that win the lottery. They want to feel better about their odds by picking random numbers.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: fyleow
People don't pick 1,2,3,4,5,6 because you never see consecutive numbers like that win the lottery. They want to feel better about their odds by picking random numbers.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is actually the most common string of numbers picked by people who play.

 

[Sukhoi]

Remember since they are all the same odds you want a combo that nobody else is going to have. Thus 1,2,3,4,5,6 is really stupid because there will probably be a lot of winners if it is ever drawn.