The Magic Professors

[simonmaal]

Take a look at the following story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412386&in_page_id=1770

In an attempt to win the National Lottery, a syndicate of University professors and students devised a system that allowed them to 'rely less on chance'. Instead, they used two boxes, 49 pieces of paper and a mathematical system of divination. They won £5.3 million on Saturday night after matching all six numbers, and they and the press have attributed their win to the system rather than pure chance.

It just goes to show that intelligent people can sometimes be so stupid.

[andyandy]

Take a look at the following story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412386&in_page_id=1770

In an attempt to win the National Lottery, a syndicate of University professors and students devised a system that allowed them to 'rely less on chance'. Instead, they used two boxes, 49 pieces of paper and a mathematical system of divination. They won £5.3 million on Saturday night after matching all six numbers, and they and the press have attributed their win to the system rather than pure chance.

It just goes to show that intelligent people can sometimes be so stupid.

i hope they don't lecture in maths....

....they're probably sports science or film studies profs :D

[Dr Adequate]

No ... I think what this shows is that Daily Mail journalists are stupid.

The syndicate used a sensible method of maximizing their odds. The journalist has spun this into an "unbeatable formulae".

[simonmaal]

No ... I think what this shows is that Daily Mail journalists are stupid.

Yes, stupid for believing such flim flam.

The syndicate used a sensible method of maximizing their odds. How can you possibly devise a system that can overcome the vagaries of lottery balls?

[simonmaal]

i hope they don't lecture in maths....

Me too, I dread to think what kind of magical thinking they're trying to propose to their students in maths lectures!:yikes:

....they're probably sports science or film studies profs :D

Whatever they are, I reckon a book and website will quickly follow in the wake of this. Anything that can help reduce the anxiety associated with an uncertain universe tends to become a million-seller, no matter how much it relies on superstition and claptrap.

[Cuddles]

How can you possibly devise a system that can overcome the vagaries of lottery balls?

Buy 49 million different tickets?

[simonmaal]

Buy 49 million different tickets?

:D Well, that would ensure you won the jackpot, but I wonder how much cash you would lose in the process? Now that would be an interesting calculation!

[tkingdoll]

Yes, stupid for believing such flim flam.

How can you possibly devise a system that can overcome the vagaries of lottery balls?

OK, I'm no maths whiz, but doesn't a system that covers all 49 numbers have more chance of winning than a system that only covers, say, half of the numbers? That's what was done in this case.

[simonmaal]

OK, I'm no maths whiz, but doesn't a system that covers all 49 numbers have more chance of winning than a system that only covers, say, half of the numbers? That's what was done in this case.

In each case, we would be trying to say that the appearance of any given number could be predicted, rather than being the result of a purely random event. In other words, the system was one of divination, therefore belonging alongside numerology, tarot and I-ching rather than mathematics and physics. It is magical thinking dressed up as a mathematical system.

[Dr Adequate]

How can you possibly devise a system that can overcome the vagaries of lottery balls? You can't, but if you buy several tickets, then some choices of numbers give you better odds than others.

[tkingdoll]

In each case, we would be trying to say that the appearance of any given number could be predicted, rather than being the result of a purely random event. In other words, the system was one of divination, therefore belonging alongside numerology, tarot and I-ching rather than mathematics and physics. It is magical thinking dressed up as a mathematical system.

No, I still don't get it.

[andyandy]

No, I still don't get it.

if you're looking at jackpot odds there's 49 numbers, 6 of which are chosen,
that gives you 49 choose 6 different combinations..which google informs me is
.....13 983 816........

however you order the numbers, whatever system you use, each individual set of numbers will have a 1/13983816 chance of being selected......
the only way to maximise your jackpot odds is to buy more tickets....:)

edit,
their "system" seems just be to of the type, buy one lottery ticket - numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6

buy another ticket don't choose 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 because they're already chosen on ticket 1.....

so system 1
ticket 1; 1,2,3,4,5,6
ticket 2; 7,8,9,10,11,12

system 2
ticket 1; 1,2,3,4,5,6
ticket 2; 1,2,3,4,5,6

system 1 spreads the chance of hitting a number on either ticket 1 or ticket 2, but does not effect the E(v)....

"Teaching maths through national lotteries" goes through the n choose r stuff......
http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/ijnatlot.pdf

[drkitten]

No, I still don't get it.

That's because you're correct -- and simon wrong.

Here's the relevant quote from the article:


Instead of each member randomly choosing numbers or relying on birthdays and significant dates as they had done this time they came up with an unbeatable formulae.

All 49 numbers were written on pieces of paper and placed in one box. Each syndicate member in turn then picked out six numbers, until eight lines were filled, using 48 of the 49 numbers.

People, in general, are lousy random number generators. If you want to prove this to yourself, find a reasonably sized group of people, ask everyone to write a number from one to ten on a slip of paper, and then see how many people don't pick either one or ten.

And many -- most? -- lottery participants rely on "significant dates" as one method of playing the lottery. This, of course, means that numbers below 32 are overrepresented and numbers above 32 are underrepresented, unless you were born on the 35th of February....

Picking a ticket uniformly at random from the entire set of possible tickets makes it much more likely that the team will pick from the under-represented part of the ticket space. This doesn't make it more likely that they'll win, but it does make it much more likely that if they win, they will win a larger prize (since they won't have to share it).

The other thing they're doing properly is making sure that they aren't doubling up on numbers, so they're covering more of the winning-space than they otherwise would. (This is Dr A's point, of course). Otherwise, if three of the team were born in July, you would probably see too many '7's appearing on the ticket.

[Dr Adequate]

Let's give a simple example, so you can see how it works. Imagine there are six balls, and two are picked. You get the jackpot for getting both right, and a lesser prize for getting one right. You intend to buy two tickets. How do you proceed?

You should pick two pairs of numbers with no overlap. Here's why.

The possible balls picked, with equal probability are:

{1,2} {1,3} {1,4} {1,5} {1,6} {2,3} {2,4} {2,5} {2,6} {3,4} {3,5} {3,6} {4,5} {4,6} {5,6}

If your tickets have identical numbers (e.g. {1,2} {1,2}) you have a 1/15 chance of the jackpot and a 9/15 chance of a minor prize.

If your tickets overlap by one number (e.g. {1,2} {2,3}) you have a 2/15 chance of the jackpot and a 12/15 chance of winning a minor prize.

If you numbers have no overlap (e.g. {1,2} {3,4}) then you still have a 2/15 chance of winning the jackpot, but you now have a 14/15 chance of winning a minor prize.

We may note that if only the jackpot was at stake, the only rule you'd need would be: don't buy two tickets with EXACTLY the same set of numbers. What you gain by avoiding overlapping numbers in your selection is an increase in your expected winnings by increasing your chances of winning one of the minor prizes.

[drkitten]

Let's give a simple example, so you can see how it works. Imagine there are six balls, and two are picked. You get the jackpot for getting both right, and a lesser prize for getting one right. You intend to buy two tickets. How do you proceed?

You should pick two pairs of numbers with no overlap. Here's why.

The possible balls picked, with equal probability are:

{1,2} {1,3} {1,4} {1,5} {1,6} {2,3} {2,4} {2,5} {2,6} {3,4} {3,5} {3,6} {4,5} {4,6} {5,6}

If your tickets have identical numbers (e.g. {1,2} {1,2}) you have a 1/15 chance of the jackpot and a 9/15 chance of a minor prize.

If your tickets overlap by one number (e.g. {1,2} {2,3}) you have a 2/15 chance of the jackpot and a 12/15 chance of winning a minor prize.

If you numbers have no overlap (e.g. {1,2} {3,4}) then you still have a 2/15 chance of winning the jackpot, but you now have a 14/15 chance of winning a minor prize.

We may note that if only the jackpot was at stake, the only rule you'd need would be: don't buy two tickets with the same set of numbers. What you gain by avoiding overlapping numbers in your selection is an increase in your expected winnings by increasing your chances of winning one of the minor prizes.

Good example. The one flaw in it is that you are not allowing for the possibility of winning two minor prizes (or, for that matter, two jackpots).

In particular, if your tickets have identical numbers, you have a 9/15 chance of winning "a minor price", but if you win one minor prize, you will actually win two minor prizes.

Under this more detailed analysis, the reason that spreading your numbers out is actually that you can't win multiple jackpots, since the jackpot is divided among all winning tickets. Winning the jackpot twice is equivalent to winning it once, and hence gives you no advantage.

[andyandy]

Under this more detailed analysis, the reason that spreading your numbers out is actually that you can't win multiple jackpots, since the jackpot is divided among all winning tickets. Winning the jackpot twice is equivalent to winning it once, and hence gives you no advantage.

good point...i overlooked that :)

[Dr Adequate]

Good example. The one flaw in it is that you are not allowing for the possibility of winning two minor prizes (or, for that matter, two jackpots). Prizes are split between winning ticket holders, so this only comes into play if someone outside the syndicate also wins.

(I did err by counting jackpot-winning tickets as winning minor prizes. Every time I do math on this forum, I get the darn numbers wrong, it's embarrassing.)

If the winnings were fixed sums, so that you could win two jackpots or two minor prizes, we'd have a different situation, but it would still be capable of optimization, and the solution would still be exactly the same.

If your tickets are {1,2} {1,2}

One jackpot (0/15) : {1,2}
Two jackpots (1/15) : {1,2}
One minor prize (0/15)
Two minor prizes (8/15) : {1,3} {1,4} {1,5} {1,6} {2,3} {2,4} {2,5} {2,6}
Lose (6/15) : {3,4} {3,5} {3,6} {4,5} {4,6} {5,6}

If your tickets are {1,2} {2,3}

One jackpot (2/15) : {1,2} {2,3}
Two jackpots (0/15)
One minor prize (7/15) : {1,3} {1,4} {1,5} {1,6} {3,4} {3,5} {3,6}
Two minor prizes (3/15) : {2,4} {2,5} {2,6}
Lose: (3/15) : {4,5} {4,6} {5,6}

If your tickets are {1,2} {3,4}

One jackpot (2/15) : {1,2} {3,4}
Two jackpots (0/15)
One minor prize (8/15) : {1,5} {1,6} {2,5} {2,6} {3,5} {3,6} {4,5} {4,6}
Two minor prizes (4/15) : {1,4} {1,3} {2,3} {2,4}
Lose (1/15) : {5,6}

Hence, whatever the cash values involved, {1,2} {3,4} is an optimum choice.

The actual situation in the National Lottery may be taken to be between the two extremes modeled. And as both of these have the same solution, I stand by the professors.

[andyandy]

Prizes are split between winning ticket holders, so this only comes into play if someone outside the syndicate also wins.

(I did err by counting jackpot-winning tickets as winning minor prizes. Every time I do math on this forum, I get the darn numbers wrong, it's embarrassing.)

If the winnings were fixed sums, so that you could win two jackpots or two minor prizes, we'd have a different situation, but it would still be capable of optimization, and the solution would still be exactly the same.

If your tickets are {1,2} {1,2}

One jackpot (0/15) : {1,2}
Two jackpots (1/15) : {1,2}
One minor prize (0/15)
Two minor prizes (8/15) : {1,3} {1,4} {1,5} {1,6} {2,3} {2,4} {2,5} {2,6}
Lose (6/15) : {3,4} {3,5} {3,6} {4,5} {4,6} {5,6}


If your tickets are {1,2} {3,4}

One jackpot (2/15) : {1,2} {3,4}
Two jackpots (0/15)
One minor prize (8/15) : {1,5} {1,6} {2,5} {2,6} {3,5} {3,6} {4,5} {4,6}
Two minor prizes (4/15) : {1,4} {1,3} {2,3} {2,4}
Lose (1/15) : {5,6}

Hence, whatever the cash values involved, {1,2} {3,4} is an optimum choice.

The actual situation in the National Lottery may be taken to be between the two extremes modeled. And as both of these have the same solution, I stand by the professors.

yep, your E(v) would be the same for the two different ticket combis above if the prize was a fixed amount that was not divided amongst winning tickets but given to any tickets which hit.....

say with grand prize a
and minor prize b

tickets {1,2} {3,4}
over 15 rounds would have an E(v) of 2x1[I]a/I] + 8b + 2x4b

and tickets {1,2} {1,2}
over 15 rounds would have an E(v) of 2a + 2x8b

both of which give you 2a + 16b

but with the grand prize not given as a fixed amount to any winners, but split between winners then

tickets {1,2} {3,4} have a 15 round E(v) of 2a + 16b
and tickets {1,2} {1,2} have a 15 round E(v) of a + 16b

[andyandy]

If your tickets are {1,2} {2,3}

One jackpot (2/15) : {1,2} {2,3}
Two jackpots (0/15)
One minor prize (7/15) : {1,3} {1,4} {1,5} {1,6} {3,4} {3,5} {3,6}
Two minor prizes (3/15) : {2,4} {2,5} {2,6}
Lose: (3/15) : {4,5} {4,6} {5,6}

but on this example, you've not taken into account the fact that [2,3] wins a jackpot and wins a minor prize
as does [1,2]

and [1,3] wins you two minor prizes

so with this adjusted we have a 15 round E(v) of 2a + 16b as before.....both for a fixed jackpot and for a split jackpot

so the only system to increase your E(v) is to not play the exactly the same numbers*......:)

* disregarding human lottery factors - like how people are drawn to the same numbers when picking - like "birthday" numbers etc. Avoiding these as DrKitten pointed out can increase your E(v) because you'll share the jackpot with less people......

[Dr Adequate]

but on this example, you've not taken into account the fact that [2,3] wins a jackpot and wins a minor prize
as does [1,2] No --- they don't. Doing so was a mistake in the first example. I said.

I did err by counting jackpot-winning tickets as winning minor prizes You're right about {1,3} though, cheers.

[Dr Adequate]

So in this extreme case (which corresponds to the limit as the number of people besides you with a winning combination tends to infinity) it makes no odds which numbers you choose (disjoint ticket numbers are still an optimum, of course).

As I said, the real case lies between the two extremes I've modeled ... or should I say nearly modeled ... pesky numbers.

[simonmaal]

Dear oh dear, I can't believe you're taking these claims seriously! We're talking about the jackpot here, not the small prizes, so that particular line of thought is a straw man argument. This is an important distinction. So, as one poster said, buying more tickets increases your odds of winning the jackpot (as long as no two of those tickets contain exactly the same numbers). That's it...no more, no less. It's still 6 random numbers, and you still need all 6 to win the jackpot!

But don't take my word for it; let's see if we can get some kind of study set up here. Let's create a piece of software that can generate 6 random numbers out of 49 (should be fairly easy to do, although this could involve a confounding variable based on computer RN generation rather than lottery balls, but building a mock-up of a lottery machine involves money, and I can't imagine us getting to borrow a real lottery machine).

Let's create 2 groups (each group randomly allocated to one condition): one group uses some kind of 'chance reduction' system, and the other just chooses the 6 numbers completely at random. We need to carry out the test enough times to be able to identify any statistical significance.

My hypothesis: there will be no difference between the two conditions.

[andyandy]

but on this example, you've not taken into account the fact that [2,3] wins a jackpot and wins a minor prize
as does [1,2]

No --- they don't. Doing so was a mistake in the first example. I said.



If I have tickets [1,2] [2,3]
and the winning ticket is drawn as [2,3] then my first ticket will win a minor prize and my second ticket will win a jackpot prize.....equally if [1,2] is drawn my first ticket will win a jackpot prize, and my second ticket will win a minor prize.....
unless you introduce extra rules about not being able to win both a minor and jackpot prize - which we haven't....:)

so there's no difference in E(v) between [1,2] [2,3] and [1,2][3,4] they both give me 2a + 16b over 15 rounds....

to plug in some numbers, say jackpot prize (a) was £100 and minor prize (b) was £20

then with tickets [1,2] [2,3] over 15 rounds i'd have an E(v) of....

One jackpot (2/15) : {1,2} {2,3}
Two jackpots (0/15)
One minor prize (8/15) : {1,4} {1,5} {1,6} {3,4} {3,5} {3,6} {1,2} {2,3}
Two minor prizes (4/15) : {2,4} {2,5} {2,6} {1,3}
Lose: (3/15) : {4,5} {4,6} {5,6}

2x100 + 8x20 + 4x40 = £520

and with the tickets [1,2] [3,4] over 15 rounds i'd have an E(v) of.....

One jackpot (2/15) : {1,2} {3,4}
Two jackpots (0/15)
One minor prize (8/15) : {1,5} {1,6} {2,5} {2,6} {3,5} {3,6} {4,5} {4,6}
Two minor prizes (4/15) : {1,4} {1,3} {2,3} {2,4}
Lose (1/15) : {5,6}

2x100 + 8x20+ 4x40 = £520

edit.
ok i think i realise why were talking at cross purposes - i'm assuming that in the example, the minor prizes are fixed amounts, and you're taking them as determined relative to the whole prize fund.....:)

i've looked up the national lottery breakdown, and whilst 3 numbers are fixed, 4,5,6 are percentages.....

3 numbers £10 1: 57
4 numbers 22% of remaining fund 1: 1,033
5 numbers 10% of remaining fund 1: 55,492
5 numbers and bonus ball 16% of remaining fund 1: 2,330,636
6 numbers 52% of remaining fund 1: 13,983,816

[Dr Adequate]

Dear oh dear, I can't believe you're taking these claims seriously! We're talking about the jackpot here, not the small prizes, so that particular line of thought is a straw man argument. This is an important distinction. So, as one poster said, buying more tickets increases your odds of winning the jackpot (as long as no two of those tickets contain exactly the same numbers). That's it...no more, no less. It's still 6 random numbers, and you still need all 6 to win the jackpot! No-one has denied this. However, it is still possible to maximize one's expected winnings, and the professors' scheme accomplishes this.

It is the claim of the Daily Mail journalist that this is an "unbeatable system" for scooping the jackpot that is the "straw man".

[Dr Adequate]

edit.
ok i think i realise why were talking at cross purposes - i'm assuming that in the example, the minor prizes are fixed amounts, and you're taking them as determined relative to the whole prize fund.....:) Yes. So you can't win two jackpots, say, because what would in fact happen is that you'd be splitting the jackpot money two ways with yourself.

As the number of other people who have also won tends to infinity, we get closer to the second case, in which every hit increases your winnings by a fixed amount (which tends to 0).

[simonmaal]

I would love to think there is some way to increase your chances of successfully predicting 6 randomly-generated numbers from 49. However, no matter how plausible the arguments and hypotheses, until we can prove them empirically, then I am afraid the claims made by both the Daily Mail and the syndicate are simply a good, old-fashioned case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this).

Does anybody want to have a go at proving me wrong? Can we somehow set up a trial?

[andyandy]

I would love to think there is some way to increase your chances of successfully predicting 6 randomly-generated numbers from 49. However, no matter how plausible the arguments and hypotheses, until we can prove them empirically, then I am afraid the claims made by both the Daily Mail and the syndicate are simply a good, old-fashioned case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this).

Does anybody want to have a go at proving me wrong? Can we somehow set up a trial?

i don't think anyone here is arguing with you with regards to being able to affect the odds of hitting a given set of numbers, the best you can do is maximise your E(v)

[Dave1001]

fun thread. I've read that there's groups that look for vulnerable lotteries around the world to crack in this way.

[andyandy]

fun thread. I've read that there's groups that look for vulnerable lotteries around the world to crack in this way.

there's been cases of groups/individuals working out that in certain lotteries they can come out with a positive E(v) - this seems only viable with scratchcard lotteries, where all tickets are distinct, and can all be purchased.....

i'm looking for a cite, as there's a famous example in which a group in the US bought up as many scatchcards as they could for a state lottery (they managed to buy over 70%) as the E(v) was positive for some reason (roll over perhaps?).....and made a lot of money.....

[ebola]

About ten years ago, I lived in Florida, which ran the state lottery in the same way, giving the odds for winning the jackpot at about 1 in 14,000,000. I didn't play unless the prize was above a certain level, which wasn't unusual, as the number of players tended to rise as the jackpot grew. As the number of players rose, so did the likelihood that the jackpot would be split among multiple winners.

Most of my co-workers who were playing would by 10 or 20 tickets to improve their odds of winning. Personally, I didn't see much difference between a 1 in 14 million chance and a 1 in 1.4 million ( or 1 in 700,000 ) chance. What I saw in either case was just long odds.

What difference I did see was that between winning 1/2 of the jackpot and winning 2/3 of the jackpot, or that between winning 1/3 of the jackpot and 1/2 ( actually 2/4, as will become clear in a minute ). Knowing what lousy random number generators that people are, and how under-represented the numbers between 32 and 49 are in lottery choices as compared to a truly random distribution, I would buy five quick pick tickets ( where the computer would randomly pick numbers for you ), and then I would head straight for the lottery form that allowed you to pick your own numbers. I would then duplicate the computer generated choices so that I held two sets of identical tickets.

Sure, I didn't improve my odds of winning when I purchased those second five tickets. The odds of winning the lottery are outrageously bad to begin with, and I had no intention of buying enough lottery tickets to get my odds down to something that most rational people would consider still really bad.

But, if I were to have beaten the odds, then I would be entitled to a double share of the jackpot. Assuming the prize was $30 million, the extra $5 would win me $20 million as opposed to $15 million if I split with one other ticket, and $15 million as opposed to $10 million if I split with two other tickets.

Unfortunately, none of us ( big surprise, considering the aforementioned long odds ) ever did win before I moved away.

Eric

[ebola]

I just read this little bit:


She said: "We are not overly concerned by it as everybody has a method of trying to win. However, we would say that being in a syndicate does increase your chance of a win as one in four jackpots goes to a syndicate."


Wouldn't that mean that 3 out of 4 jackpots are NOT won by a syndicate? I understand how being in a syndicate would increase one's chances of winning by enabling someone to have a stake in a greater number of tickets and thereby improving the odds, but a lottery player with 100 tickets would stand the same ( very bad ) chance of winning as a syndicate with 100 tickets. This, of course, ignores the fact that they have to split the prize amongst them, and have really only won 1/6 of the jackpot. How can they possibly make the argument that because single players win three times more frequently than syndicates ( which then have to split the prize ) that players are better off in a syndicate?

Eric

[andyandy]

I just read this little bit:



Wouldn't that mean that 3 out of 4 jackpots are NOT won by a syndicate? I understand how being in a syndicate would increase one's chances of winning by enabling someone to have a stake in a greater number of tickets and thereby improving the odds, but a lottery player with 100 tickets would stand the same ( very bad ) chance of winning as a syndicate with 100 tickets. This, of course, ignores the fact that they have to split the prize amongst them, and have really only won 1/6 of the jackpot. How can they possibly make the argument that because single players win three times more frequently than syndicates ( which then have to split the prize ) that players are better off in a syndicate?

Eric


we have two people Mr A and Mr B,

mr A buys one ticket a week
Mr B spends one ticket worth of money as part of a 100 ticket syndicate

Mr B is 100x more likely to win the jackpot

So it depends what you mean by "better" - all other things being equal (for simplicity), mr A and mr B do have the the same E(v). mr B has however given himself a greater chance of winning a jackpot - even if it will be greatly diminished jackpot....

the stats as to 1/4 of winners are syndicates are themselves meaningless because they tell us nothing as to how many syndicates there are relative to non-syndicate players......

but it's perfectly ok to say that if Mr B judges success solely on winning the jackpot (regardless of the amount) then he is better off in a syndicate....

[Dr Adequate]

I would love to think there is some way to increase your chances of successfully predicting 6 randomly-generated numbers from 49. However, no matter how plausible the arguments and hypotheses, until we can prove them empirically, then I am afraid the claims made by both the Daily Mail and the syndicate are simply a good, old-fashioned case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this).

Does anybody want to have a go at proving me wrong? Can we somehow set up a trial? But as andyandy has just pointed out, and as I have pointed out repeatedly, no-one except the journalists on the Daily Mail has made such a claim.

[clarsct]

Shouldn't people in math class be teaching the cost/return rate on the lottery instead?

Just sayin'

[simonmaal]

But as andyandy has just pointed out, and as I have pointed out repeatedly, no-one except the journalists on the Daily Mail has made such a claim.

These comments by Barry Waterhouse (the syndicate 'leader') do not coincide with what you just claimed:

"But we just weren't winning with the numbers being picked that way, so we thought of a different method which would mean all 49 numbers would be used," said Mr Waterhouse.
"We just thought that if all the numbers are in use we must have a good chance of winning and it has proved so, though you never really think it will happen to you."

[Dazed]

Wow.. wrong thread ftw.

[andyandy]

These comments by Barry Waterhouse (the syndicate 'leader') do not coincide with what you just claimed:

no, i agree that their system didn't make it any more likely that they were going to hit the jackpot - and for barry to think otherwise is silly.....

re-reading the article however, the "magic professors" tag seems a bit of a stretch -

Syndicate leader Barry Waterhouse, 41, who works at the design and printing section of the university

A fourth syndicate member was named as Jackie Nichol, 59, who was due to retire from the printing offices at the university to set up a business selling soap.

actually they seem to work in the printing offices at a university....:)

[simonmaal]

re-reading the article however, the "magic professors" tag seems a bit of a stretch - actually they seem to work in the printing offices at a university....:)

Aha! But it certainly grabbed peoples' attention ;)

[Roboramma]

But you see now that there was no magic involved, right?

[simonmaal]

But you see now that there was no magic involved, right?

Yes. But I never claimed there was magic involved, I claimed there was magical thinking involved!

[ebola]

andy,

I get it. I understand why people pool their money. My issue was with

we would say that being in a syndicate does increase your chance of a win as one in four jackpots goes to a syndicate."


which, by the "reasoning" of the speaker, would increase your likelihood of winning by joining a syndicate, BECAUSE they win 1/3 as often as individuals.

Eric