Ergo if you play the lottery (which is almost never a good idea) you should prefer a patterned sequence as you are less likely to have to split a large pot!
-
-
-
Possibly, the optimal solution may be to use the best available randomness generator, because many people may actually unwittingly chose patterns.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What happens if you give them at first a patterned ticket and then offer to change to a random-looking one?
-
It says, in most cases, people stuck with their original choices (mostly non patterned ones), no matter the alternative order.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They were rational to avoid patterned combinations. They might have heard of or participated in lotteries where the winning prize is split between people who choose the same numbers. Less chance to have that happen with random numbers.
-
They did not offer that explanation in the free reports. Also they declined a bonus higher than what they probably could have won.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I think this is more about the fact that lottery participants expect lottery results to be random. It is extremely rare that a winning lottery combo is some easily recognizable pattern such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. So it makes sense that they would be biased towards randomness.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Possible explanation; Humans intuitively conflate "random" with "impossible to predict with a simple rule." Rest is a logical leap: The outcome of the lottery is "random" in this sense, so a number won't work that is easy to predict, and hence a "random" number is better.
-
PS: Wrote "number" when I meant a sequence of numbers. Hope it was understandable anyway.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.