Analysing Lottery Results Reveals Unusual Pattern…

[Q] I’ve been analysing all my past lottery results over the years and whilst I know these things are supposed to be random, there is a pattern.…

This is comments page 2. Read the full post here:-
Analysing Lottery Results Reveals Unusual Pattern…

108 Comments so far ↓

  • LG

    Hi Dan

    Not sure who you were commenting to..? But jackpots obviously have tough odds (surprise, it’s a lottery!) but as I’m pointing out here – adding enormous complexity to selecting numbers does nothing to actually help you win. And that’s just the same if you’re doing it for your own ego, entertainment, or if you’re paying money to some charlatan to buy that ‘system’.

  • Sparx

    If you look closly there is a Delta Function. And that 90% of the numbers are 1 to 15.

  • LG

    Hi Sparx. Yep, I’m aware of ‘deltas’ (briefly referred to in one of my comments above).

    Deltas are just yet another irrelevant way of picking numbers, dreamed up by someone with a spreadsheet who liked analysing past results but who then draw silly conclusions to try and apply rules to randomness.

  • Les Jed

    Hi, I have been playing using Excel with Lotto 649 and Super 7 in Canada for many years. I have the data from day one of each lottery. I must admit I have never won a significant lottery so far. However I am having fun and that is really the point of playing a lottery. I study time between numbers winning, the most frequent numbers winning and losing, how many numbers drawn in the current draw that were in the past 6 draws, charts and so on. Good luck to everyone and don’t forget if you are not having fun then it is not worth it!

  • LG

    Hi Les Jed. Having fun is definitely key. If it isn’t fun I’d recommend finding a different game to play. Winning is nice too though. Be lucky.

  • Ian

    Years ago I bought a statistics and probability book and random does come in waves! The lottery balls seem to throw up many more high numbers than probable… Why? because there is more higher abrasive paint on the numbers and the larger surface area paint on balls fall because the abrasiveness slows down spinning… ie; 44, 38, 23 and so on, look at the stats for frequent balls etc, very interesting. Ian

  • LG

    Hi Ian. Well that has to rate amongst the wackiest theories I’ve heard…

    A quick look at the frequency of balls drawn shows 36, 37, 41 amongst the least drawn balls. So I don’t see any evidence to backup your theory?

    (Who says the paint is more abrasive than the ball surface anyway..?)

  • Danny

    Patterns in randomness aren’t even worth thinking about, the odds on the relationships between the numbers are the only thing I’d worry about.
    EG: the likelyhood of all even or odd numbers occuring, or consecutive sequences.

    Imagine you were a book keeper; what would your payout be for, effectively a ,”straight” , on winning – 1,2,3,4,5,6 ? Higher than just some lucky dip? Yes

    Common sense really

  • LG


    Common sense..? Nope, common misunderstanding.

    And completely wrong I’m afraid.

    You’re placing significance on these combinations because your brain can make a pretty pattern. But the balls don’t know they’re making a pattern – so why would they be less likely to come out that way?!

    The fact is there is no such thing as unlikely combinations, in any lottery.

  • Dave

    Just curious, of all the lotteries in the world and the millions of drawings that have occurred over years and years, has any lottery anywhere produced the lowest consecutive result for their game? ex. 1,2,3,4,5 or 1,2,3,4,5,6.

    It would seem that if randomness is truly at play this event would prove it. I realize the astronomical odds but certainly one lottery somewhere it has occurred or has it?

Leave a Reply

Subscribe To Comments?

Categories: Lottery Questions