The lottery - Slightly easier to Win - HotUKDeals
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

#### Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

# The lottery - Slightly easier to Win

£0.00 @
on the lotto website there is a section with a lot of statistics on and if you use them to your favour you can slash the odds of winning a prize. I havent played for a while but had a go on thuuderbal… Read More
8y, 10m agoPosted 8 years, 10 months ago
on the lotto website there is a section with a lot of statistics on and if you use them to your favour you can slash the odds of winning a prize. I havent played for a while but had a go on thuuderball and won £10 (106.6 odds)

http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/results/numberfrequency/frequencyAll.do
8y, 10m agoPosted 8 years, 10 months ago
Options

(14)
#2
I don't see how this can really help as each ball has an equal chance of coming up, and this is independent of whether it has come up before or not. If you change the time scale to 90 days you will see that there is a lot of variation in the frequencies, however if you then change the time scale to "to date" you will see that the differences in frequencies are less dramatic. If the lottery results were recorded an infinity number of times, then the frequencies of each ball appearing should all be equal.

The fact that you won when using these statistics is purely by chance. All balls have an equal chance of appearing!
#3
Agree with Russ. No matter which numbers you pick they each have an equal chance of winning - even 1,2,3,4,5,6 has just as much chance of winning the jackpot as any other....
banned#4
Agree with Russ2626

Also, what do you mean by 106.6 odds?
#5
Russ2626
I don't see how this can really help as each ball has an equal chance of coming up, and this is independent of whether it has come up before or not. If you change the time scale to 90 days you will see that there is a lot of variation in the frequencies, however if you then change the time scale to "to date" you will see that the differences in frequencies are less dramatic. If the lottery results were recorded an infinity number of times, then the frequencies of each ball appearing should all be equal.

The fact that you won when using these statistics is purely by chance. All balls have an equal chance of appearing!

Exactly :thumbsup:

The fact that some numbers are drawn more frequently than others is purely coincidence.
#6
So it is slightly less likely that you'll get run over by a bus than winning the lotto! :)
#7

just like if you pick the right players for your team, you more likely to beat the likes of hull! ;-)

oh, that would make it easier to win, if ya had a manager!
#8
1,2,3,4,5 and 6 may be just as likely in theory. But in reality, the odds would be less than 12, 24, 31, 37, 43 and 49 for example
banned#9
peodude
1,2,3,4,5 and 6 may be just as likely in theory. But in reality, the odds would be less than 12, 24, 31, 37, 43 and 49 for example

no they wouldn't, they would be exactly the same
banned#10
Disco
oh, that would make it easier to win, if ya had a manager!

Is Keegan not coming back again?
this was overheard in the newcastle boardroom
'**** no manager will come near us now, what shall we do? I know, go grovelling to Keegan'
#11
The only difference of picking 1 to 6 is that your winnings will be considerably less than any other combination of numbers due to the number of people who pick those numbers every week. Apparently there's a few thousand folk who pick 1 to 6 each week.
#12
leefal
The only difference of picking 1 to 6 is that your winnings will be considerably less than any other combination of numbers due to the number of people who pick those numbers every week. Apparently there's a few thousand folk who pick 1 to 6 each week.

I heard that to. If you want a bigger slice of the jackpot its best to pick high numbers (31 upwards) as people tend to use figures from dates of birth....
#13
the chances of 1 to 6 surely should be less...

they all have to be picked and have to be in order which is surely harder than random numbers in no order at all...
#14
jackvdbuk
the chances of 1 to 6 surely should be less...

they all have to be picked and have to be in order which is surely harder than random numbers in no order at all...

The chances of getting them in order would be considerably less, yes. I think we're talking about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in any order, which is as likely as any other combination.