South Africa's Lottery Probed As 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Drawn (bbc.com) 195
AmiMoJo shares a report from the BBC: The winning numbers in South Africa's national lottery have caused a stir and sparked accusations of fraud over their unusual sequence. Tuesday's PowerBall lottery saw the numbers five, six, seven, eight and nine drawn, while the Powerball itself was, you've guessed it, 10. Some South Africans have alleged a scam and an investigation is under way. The organizers said 20 people purchased a winning ticket and won 5.7 million rand ($370,000; 278,000 pounds) each. Another 79 ticketholders won 6,283 rand each for guessing the sequence from five up to nine but missing the PowerBall.
The chances of winning South Africa's PowerBall lottery are one in 42,375,200 -- the number of different combinations when selecting five balls from a set of 50, plus an additional bonus ball from a pool of 20. The odds of the draw resulting in the numbers seen in Tuesday's televised live event are the same as any other combination. Competitions resulting in multiple winners are rare, but this may have something to do with this particular sequence.
The chances of winning South Africa's PowerBall lottery are one in 42,375,200 -- the number of different combinations when selecting five balls from a set of 50, plus an additional bonus ball from a pool of 20. The odds of the draw resulting in the numbers seen in Tuesday's televised live event are the same as any other combination. Competitions resulting in multiple winners are rare, but this may have something to do with this particular sequence.
Amazing! (Score:5, Funny)
Random (Score:5, Insightful)
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 IS a random sequence. So is 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. And 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
A million monkeys, a million typewriters, Shakespeare, etc...
Re:Random (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, although 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 would not be in this case, because the 1 is removed from the pool of numbers (except for the powerball, which comes from a different pool).
And this would be a really stupid scam to do because a) it makes people suspicious because of the sequence, and b) your winning will be lower because there will be a lot of people who pick a sequence of numbers, that you will have to share with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, although 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 would not be in this case, because the 1 is removed from the pool of numbers (except for the powerball, which comes from a different pool).
And this would be a really stupid scam to do because a) it makes people suspicious because of the sequence, and b) your winning will be lower because there will be a lot of people who pick a sequence of numbers, that you will have to share with.
I don't think it's a scam but imagine that a sequence like 1,2,3,4,5,6 came up in order.
That's so exceedingly unlikely to have been by chance that I'd almost certainly call it a fix. I'd also suspect that it was most likely a failed fix in the sense that they tried to engineer a random-seeming sequence like 10, 17, 27, 30, 43, 13 and screwed up the ball selection.
Re:Random (Score:5, Insightful)
That's so exceedingly unlikely to have been by chance that I'd almost certainly call it a fix.
Why? It's just as (un)likely as any other sequence. Just because it's a pattern that our little monkey brains can instantly latch onto doesn't mean it's a fix.
Re:Random (Score:5, Funny)
Well you have to look at the broader context - the previous winning draw there was 2, 4, 6, 8 - and the powerball was "who do we appreciate?"
In my experience (Score:4, Insightful)
I see both sides of this.
My cryptography professor hammered home the fact that when you choose random bits, 1111 will come up just as often as 1010. Random is NOT the same thing as "evenly distributed" or "looks disordered". 5,6,7,8,9,10 is perfectly possible as a randomly selected sequence - mathematically speaking.
Years of experience investigating malicious behavior has taught me that if it looks really suspicious, that's almost always because something shady is in fact going on. If it smells fishy, it's normally fish. I'm not guessing here - when I check a possible malware alert and in the first 60 seconds I see it looks suspicious, I then carefully decompile or otherwise analyze the software and it always ends up being malware. Scummy just has a certain smell to it, clean and legit just rarely has that "mighty suspicious" odor.
In poker, any combination of cards is as likely as any other. AND every time somebody gets two royal flushes in the same night, it's always because they are cheating.
So I can totally understand either way someone wants to look at this. Both would be right, IMHO.
However, the summary says 5,6,7,8,9,10. It should be noted they did NOT come up in order. Those numbers coming up in order would really smell. Which wouldn't prove it wasn't random, but ...
Re: (Score:2)
Random is NOT the same thing as "evenly distributed" or "looks disordered".
Close.
"Random is not the same as unpredictable"
As far as cryptography goes, we want unpredictable numbers, not merely random ones.
Re: (Score:2)
... but imagine that a sequence like 1,2,3,4,5,6 came up in order. [...] That's so exceedingly unlikely to have been by chance that I'd almost certainly call it a fix.
It is not.
It is just exactly as likely as any other sequence, even if that feels/sounds odd for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's a scam but imagine that a sequence like 1,2,3,4,5,6 came up in order.
That's so exceedingly unlikely to have been by chance that I'd almost certainly call it a fix.
It's as equally likely as any other number. The odds of 1,2,3,4,5,6 from a particular pool of numbers is as likely as any random sequence from the same pool of numbers.
Re:Random (Score:4)
Every hand you draw in poker has the exact same odds of being drawn as an all-hearts royal flush. There are a huge amount of lotteries being played every single day, it's inevitable that one of them would hit such a strange sequence. Have you seriously never heard of the infinite monkey theorem? It's literally about this exact occurance.
Re: Random (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The odds of 1,2,3,4,5,6 are exactly the same as the odds of any other set of 6 numbers. The odds of guessing the correct numbers is intended to be extremely unlikely, and yet often people do. That's the whole point of the lottery.
With multiple lotteries like this being drawn around the world sooner or later it was going to happen.
Re: Random (Score:3, Funny)
return 3;
Re: (Score:3)
https://xkcd.com/221/ [xkcd.com]
for example.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not about randomness but predictability combined with significant monetary incentive to cheat.
Also all ones is impossible in these lotteries, as numbers are removed when they are called.
Re: (Score:3)
You have provided a perfect example for us. Most /. comments so far have been pointing out (correctly) that this sequence is no more or less likely than any other sequence that has been drawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious problem being that this is still not about likelihood, but predictability and incentive to cheat. If you wanted to cheat, you'd do it with a reasonably popular but not overly popular combination like one drawn. Where individual winners still get a massive enough win to make cheating worth it, but numbers are common enough that inevitable investigation into cheating is going to run into a lot of genuine winners, reducing likelihood of getting caught by a significant margin.
Re:Random (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could avoid the Scooby Doo villain syndrome and choose a sequence that won't be particularly notable so there won't be an investigation at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you quite understand just how much security there is around lotteries that pay out millions per win. Every win is investigated, because incentive to cheat is massive. This is easily tens to hundreds of times more than you can expect out of a median convenience store robbery.
Re: (Score:2)
So why draw more attention than necessary?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree to a point but then the thing to do would be pick some numbers that could represent a date. At least a dozen or so people will have chosen them because its their dogs birthday, their wedding anniversary, or what not.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider yourself a criminal org that got access to get the next set of numbers. What's your risk to reward calculation?
The more winners, the more diluted the investigators that normally investigate one winner is. The more different their methods have to be from the norm as a result.
On the opposing end is the sum being won. Consider South Africa's cost of living to the sum being won and comprehend that they won an equivalent of a million or two with a single ticket. That's more than you'd get in a median we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Random (and eventual) (Score:3)
Re: Random (and eventual) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that I don't want to search for that on YouTube. I can't imagine what might be the result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The draw order was not sequential
that was 8,5,9,7,6 then ten
actual drawing https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And even if it was, the odd are same for any order.
Re:Random (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed - it's exactly as likely as any other particular ordering of those digits. It just happens to be one of a tiny handful of patterns that our brains easily recognize.
As for it being a scam... please. If you're capable of corrupting such a system without it being glaringly obvious, surely you're bright enough not to draw attention to yourself with the sequence you choose.
Re:Random (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an experiment that is sometimes done, where you divide the classroom into two halves. One half is to flip a coin 100 times and right down heads or tails for each roll on one half of the board. The other students are to just writing down a list of 100 heads or tails on the board that looks random. In the meantime the teacher is out of the room. When the teacher returns they are supposed to figure out which of the lists are random and which are made up. And mostly the teacher guesses right, because the list that appears the most random is usually the one that's made up.
Re: (Score:2)
How random is it if you got over 80 winners that picked the.se sequence.
Re: Random (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In exactly the same way any answer to those "what's next in this sequence" test questions is correct.
The summary (and linked article) are misleading, though. Player's don't pick a sequence, they pick a set of numbers (other than the single "powerball"). Same with the draw. If the actual sequence of the draw were in order, i.e. a sequence as stated, that would be much less likely than simply drawing those number in any order. The article doesn't say in which order
Re: (Score:2)
>5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 IS a random sequence. In exactly the same way any answer to those "what's next in this sequence" test questions is correct. The summary (and linked article) are misleading, though. Player's don't pick a sequence, they pick a set of numbers (other than the single "powerball"). Same with the draw. If the actual sequence of the draw were in order, i.e. a sequence as stated, that would be much less likely than simply drawing those number in any order. The article doesn't say in which order the numbers were drawn.
much less likely yes, but still completely plausible, any combination in any order is equally mathematically possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't think it's a reach to ask for an audit in this case, considering the improbable result.
Re: Random (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in this case, just 100 monkeys
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Random (Score:5, Interesting)
Never forget that the UK prosecuted and jailed a parent because she suffered from an unlikely (but not that unlikely) series of events because people don't understand that unlikely events do actually happen, and because the "expert" had a poor understanding of statistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Random (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 IS a random sequence. So is 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. And 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
A million monkeys, a million typewriters, Shakespeare, etc...
Actually, you need a lot more than a million monkeys... a LOT more [wikipedia.org].
The point isn't whether "5,6,7,8,9,10" belongs to a subset of sequences that can be generated randomly.
It's whether "5,6,7,8,9,10" is a subset of sequences that look meaningful to humans. And if so, how much smaller is that subset compared to the subset of random numbers. I don't know the actual odds but I'm guessing there's a few PhD thesis's studying questions like that.
Now, a really critical fact ignored by the summary (but found by anoth
not so random (Score:3)
IIRC there was some research where like like 50K people in MA played 1,2,3,4,5,6 every week in their Lotto. I can't imagine that this is far off.
Re: (Score:2)
That never works in MA because al sequential combos are ruled out by the "Dawn Hayes Rules".
Re:not so random (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:not so random (Score:4, Informative)
That was the point of the paper I remember reading in the 90s. All combos have an equal chance so at least pick a combo that is the least likely to split with others. 1,2,3,4,5,6 and combos based on birthdays were not your best bets at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is the least likely combo for someone else to pick? Play that.
But it's not the least likely anymore as everyone who wants a unlikely combo will pick it. It's too crowded because nobody goes there.
Re: (Score:2)
Better odds (Score:2)
Rand (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use Rand coins anymore, only Random coins because they're more secure.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it all depends what RNG they have wired up to the currency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Rand (Score:2)
Since this is South Africa they probably used Kruger Rand
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to seed it otherwise it won't work properly!
Relevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
https://dilbert.com/strip/2001... [dilbert.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not our fault (Score:2)
Florida Lotto (Score:2)
Back when Florida first started a lottery, a newspaper did a story on one of the big $100 million jackpots. It seems humans like patterns and "Lucky 7s" was the single most popular combination 7-14-21-28-35-42-49. So many people chose that one that if it was the winner, they'd have only ended up with a few thousand dollars each.
Can you imagine picking the winning numbers to $100 million lotto only to find out your share of the prize was $15,000?
Re:Florida Lotto (Score:5, Funny)
Can you imagine picking the winning numbers to $100 million lotto only to find out your share of the prize was $15,000?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can.
And would not be bothered at all.
Because if I had picked a different number I probably had got nothing at all.
expecting some emails from lucky prince (Score:2)
How stupid are people??? (Score:2)
The lottery number did not come up as 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. What actually happened was that six RANDOM balls fell into the slot. Those balls just happened to have the numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 printed on them.
If the lottery system forbids ANY sequence of six balls, then it most definitely is NOT random.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're asking a binary random system for a 1-7 decision, you have to throw out the occasional 8...
Re:How stupid are people??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How stupid are people??? (Score:5, Informative)
C(n,r) = n!/(n-r)!r!
C(50, 5) = 50!/((50-5)!5!) = 2,118,760
2118760 * 20 = 42,375,200
P(n,k) = n!/(n - k)!
P(50,5) = 50!/(50-5)! = 254,251,200
254,251,200 * 20 = 5,085,024,000
Check your facts first (Score:2)
What actually happened was that six RANDOM balls fell into the slot.
If this was actually what happened, no one would be questioning the results. However, what actually actually happened [youtube.com], is that a computer random number generator picked the results. I was like you and believed physical selections were used. I for one would not be likely to buy a lottery ticket anyway, but certainly would never buy one generated by computer.
Now, while any sequence of numbers is equally likely, of course, as everyone has and will point out, the odds that a sequence so immediately glaring a
did they do something like the 1980 PA lotto riggi (Score:2)
did they do something like the 1980 PA lotto rigging?
How they did it is explained here (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Now, you just have to find a white-trash single mother that's on the run.
Good book.
Rab C Nesbitt (Score:2)
Obligatory Rab C Nesbitt sketch, though maybe not too many can understand the accent:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Drawn in order? (Score:2)
Were they drawn in that order, or are they re-ordered for publishing? If they were drawn in sequential order as well, the odds of getting that _permutation_ are much smaller than the combination calculation given. This doesn't affect your chance of winning, because order is only relevant for the powerball number, but changes the chance that somthing is wrong in the system....
Also, from a human point of view, ordering the numbers (if that's what happened) creates a perception that they are fake because we
Re:Drawn in order? (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, to answer my own question: I have found a video of the draw, they were not drawn in order, the draw order was 8 5 9 7 6 (10)
On the other hand, the draw video was clearly a computer rendering, not an actual physical machine with balls in it. A physical machine for a ball-based lottery, one of those ones made of glass/perspex has (almost) nowhere to hide any potential fraud. Displaying a fake one is I suppose meant to build excitement and make it feel like a game rather than just a set of numbers, but opens the system up to question when things like this happen....
Re: Drawn in order? (Score:2)
You could make some balls slightly heavier than other balls. Or with a rougher surface.
Wouldnâ(TM)t give you the jackpot everytime, but hey, those are just your lucky nummbers...
Re: Drawn in order? (Score:2)
Portugal got it better! (Score:4, Interesting)
That can be possible! But Portugal got the impossible:
In 1996, Portugal got it better, in a game with numbers between 1 and 43 (IIRC), they manage to draw a zero:
https://youtu.be/AToovE_BmG0?t... [youtu.be]
After the jury decision, they just took another ball to replace that one and after investigation it was found that zero balls were used for testing and one of then was left inside or mixed with the real balls. All other balls were correct, so the final numbers were accepted. Later the machine was replaced with one new version that was empty and balls were ready, stored by order and visible inside sealed transparent tubes and only after starting they were finally released. It can be seen here: https://youtu.be/RuyEvzQ2bm8?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
OF COURSE it has something to do with the sequence (Score:3)
"Competitions resulting in multiple winners are rare, but this may have something to do with this particular sequence."
Good grief. OF COURSE it has something to do with this particular sequence; lots of people pick unimaginative numbers for the lottery, including sequential numbers or their birthdate. This tends to make clusters of players at these combinations that our minds perceive as patterns, so it makes perfect sense that a simple sequence like that would have multiple winners - in fact, we'd probably be suspicious if such a simple sequence of numbers DIDN'T have more than one winnter.
This is why it is a poor strategy to pick your lottery numbers in such obvious patterns: If you win, you will probably have to share your winnings with everyone else who picked those numbers. You are usually better off, statistically speaking, to pick a list of random numbers, which will make it unlikely for you to have to share your winnings with anyone else.
While such an obvious pattern is probably unlikely to be a deliberate scam (it would make the scam too obvious if so), it may well be an indication that the lottery is flawed such that not all of the numbers and/or combinations are equally likely, which means that a savvy player might be able to game the system by picking the more likely ones. Most modern lotteries have eliminated this type of error, but it has certainly been known to happen in the past with poorly designed lotteries.
there was this keno game same random start seed (Score:2)
there was this keno game that used the same random start seed each day (the game was not open 24/7) so the 1st game of the day had the same group of numbers come up each day maybe the not the same 20 each day but an patterns that people picked up on and where able to cash in on.
seems all good (Score:2)
Not bad odds (Score:2)
The odds are not nearly as bad as one would think. Globally, there are at least 180 lotteries. Most all of the lotteries have multiple drawings (for example, just the Virginia Lottery alone has half a dozen different lottery drawing games - Pick 3, Pick 4 , Cash 5, Cash 4 Life, etc). The South African lottery has half a dozen different kinds of lottery based on their website. Most of the lottery drawings are at least twice a week, and there are also DAILY lottery drawings as well (both the examples I gav
If you were going to rig the lottery... (Score:2)
I don't know... (Score:2)
This seems unlikely.
5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and, you've guessed it, 10 (Score:2)
That what is amazing with random() (Score:2)
OMG The Odds! (Score:3)
The odds of 5,6,7,8,9, and PB 10 happening are literally 1/42,375,200
Which is a bit crazy, because that is also the odds of 1,2,3,4,5, and PB 6..
And 2,4,6,8,10, and PB 12...
It's astonishing!
Pretty easy way to check... (Score:2)
sparked accusations of fraud over their unusual sequence.
Run another draw right after, and if you get 11, 12, 13...etc then you know you might have something fishy. :-)
Lottery (Score:2)
In the 1980s I wrote a lottery simulator for my friends. After accepting their input, the code was:
if (0 == 1)
printf("You win!\n");
else
printf("You lose!\n");
I figured bit rot was just as likely as winning the lottery, so I claim it was a valid simulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Improbable, but not impossible (Score:2)
Now, if something like that happens a second time anytime soon, then that's something else entirely.
NOT SO, Grasshopper (Score:2)
"The dice (or balls) have no memory.", something tabletop gamers, poker players, and mathematicians learned a very long time ago.
To get a sequence in random order, for any starting number at least as large as the number of draws, bounded by "number of balls - draws", the odds go roughly like this:
the second ball must be within 1st ball +/- (draws - 1)
the third ball must be within range (lower of 1,2 + remaining draws (higher of 1,2) - remaining draws ...
the last ball to fill an inside straight is exactly 1
Re: (Score:3)
Gambler's fallacy.
"That'll never happen again".
It stands exactly the same chance of happening again, so long as the runs are independent, i.e. you're not passing state off from one draw to another by, say, leaving the balls in place, or putting those drawn balls back in in a certain way, etc.
So long as each draw the balls are removed, placed back in the box, then mixed back together in the approved way again next time, there's the same chance of it happening tomorrow as there was yesterday.
You can't combine
Combination (Score:2)
So how many winners were there?
And what was the payout?
Chances for this happening are 1 in 42 million... (Score:3)