## Lottery Number Patterns: Analysing Results Reveals The Unusual

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

Lottery Number Patterns: Analysing Results Reveals The Unusual

### 108 Comments so far ↓

• Consecutive numbers = “pretty pattern”

I agree, it’s never been drawn. But just like millions of other combinations (literally millions) that have never been drawn. You’re not wondering about most of those purely because they don’t make a pattern when you put them in numerical order.

Like I said above, the longest running lottery in the world has only had 15,000 draws. Most have been running a lot less than that.

There are many millions more lottery combinations than there have been draws.

So it’s actually of no surprise, or significance that consecutive numbers have yet to be drawn.

• AlmaSam

Lottery-Guy, I understand what your saying, but I also think what Dave is saying has merit.

The closest I’ve seen to a straight was on May 6, 1989. The Arizona Lotto ‘The Pick’, a 6/44 lotto, had the following draw: 1,2,3,4,5,17. That’s pretty close.

However, even if it had ben 1,2,3,4,5,6, it would have been extremely rare, and I believe playing those numbers is less likely to give me a 4 or 5 out of 6 on a regular basis. Therefore, it’s not a combination I would play.

For me, it makes sense to eliminate some of the combinations, not because they are impossible, but because they are less likely to happen tomorrow. For example, in a Lotto 6/44 you get six numbers drawn. One of those numbers will be the lowest, and one the highest. The others will be somewhere in between. I’m not talking about the order of the draw, just about arranging the numbers from lowest to highest, giving you 6 positions. Now in the previously mentioned Arizona Lotto ‘The Pick’, the lowest high number since 11/2/1988 (I don’t go further back because the previous numbers are not sorted from low to high) was 13. Therefore, while 6 – 12 could, in theory, appear as the high numbers, the history tells me they are less likely to appear in that position tomorrow. Of course I would still play those numbers for a lower position, just not the highest position. Likewise, during that same period, the highest low number was 29. It seams to me unlikely that a number higher than that would appear, in the lowest position, tomorrow, though not impossible. Therefore, I would not play a number larger than 29 in the low position.

Does my logic make any sense Lottery-Guy?

• Sorry, but no, it doesn’t make any sense π

The numbers are just markings on the balls. There is no reason that any particular combination of balls should be any less likely than any other. What if the balls were just different colours instead of numbers? See what I mean?

• Dave

I’ve given what you have said some thought. If the longest running lottery in the world has only 15,000 drawings then I should be looking for the short-term patterns. I understand randomness, but randomness often occurs in clusters. If you look at all the possible combinations that can occur you are applying a long-term analysis to a short-term game which would be my lifetime.

Also, I concede there are no perfect patterns to be found in past lottery drawings but I can’t help but see occurrences, like numbers that repeat the very next drawing or numbers that are dormant and become awake hitting several times once they hit twice within a few drawings.

There is no perfect sure fire way to predict the lottery but I believe there are smarter ways to pick numbers than out of thin air. I can often pick at least one or two numbers that I’m sure are going to hit and they often do. I just need to get lucky on the other four or five. But I only need to get lucky once.

Besides, I’m learning a lot about Microsoft Excel in the process, that alone is worth the time spent investigating patterns and occurrences. To me, it’s fun, maybe one day it will pay off.

• Yes you can see historical patterns in randomness. But any patterns, long or short term, are entirely useless for predicting what comes next. It’s how lottery games are designed, and there simply is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Enjoy learning Excel though. It won’t help you win but spreadsheets are pretty cool – all hail Visicalc that brought the spreadsheet to the masses.

• Some random browsing brought me here. Lottery-Guy, I enjoy and applaud your calm insistance that people are deluding themselves. The best strategy with lotteries is not to indulge and thus save hundreds of pounds. I’ve checked my hypothetical set of (arbitrary) numbers and I have saved Β£1,220. And that IS a fact π

• Joe

I refer to numbers 1 to 45 as a spectrum (reference or domain), I call it as such because of my engineering background.

One has to keep in mind that the SIX drawn balls from the barrel HAS NO IDENTIFICATION. In other words, six blank being dropped out of the barrel.

If one wants to look for patterns out of the past draws then he will not get anywhere. This is because ALL POSSIBILITIES (Patterns) have EXACTLY equal chance of dropping out of the barrel. Even 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 45,44,43,42,41,40.

Each set of 6 numbers that are being drawn are actually part of the 1-45 spectrum JIGSAW.

Like a jigsaw puzzle, there are over 8 million jigsaw pieces that need to put together in its exact location (spectrum) in order to complete
the picture.

Suppose your child was given a homework to draw a picture of a house a car some trees some clouds a sun etc. Once the drawing is complete, now cut the picture into 8 million different pieces of different WEIRD SHAPES. Each of these pieces represent a 6-number lottery draw.

Weird shapes is a metaphore for lotto PATTERNS.

I wanted to elaborate more, but have run out of time for now, perhaps some other time.

Hope the above is of some value !!!

• Agreed! I use a similar model to explain why patterns are not significant.

Think of the lottery as a huge draw machine with one ball for every set of possible results. So each ball has a combination of 6 numbers written on it. That’s how lotteries work.

Now does it make sense to analyse lottery numbers… π

• Dave

“Randomness” occurs in clusters and averages catch-up when behind. I see this happen all the time. I agree with your big picture long-term view of lottery randomness, however, my life-time compared to the lottery’s life-time will be very short. Playing randomness clusters and chasing numbers that are behind averages helps to hit a few numbers in order to break even until I hit the big one, if that ever occurs.

• But you can’t predict when a ‘cluster’ has ended, or when the averages are going to ‘catch-up’ :-).

So you’re just back to randomness again.

• Dave

False, you can predict. If a number has been out for an abnormal number of drawing, say 30+, when it does hit, it most likely will hit again within a few drawing. If not, then once it hits again, it will come alive and begin its cycle to catch-up the average. I’ve seen this and used it many, many times, hitting the number.

Also, look at most of your Pick 5 lotteries. How many times do you see numbers that repeated in the previous drawing or skip one drawing? Lots.

I know you belittle “pretty patterns” as a means to hit the lottery and suggest that the same chance of success can be achieved playing random numbers, but I can assure you identifying abnormal variances or occurrences is not less successful than choosing random number. After all, your random picks may happen to follow another’s pretty pattern pick. To each his own.

• But Dave, your definition here is so general that it lets you see what you want to see.

What is an abnormal number of draws for a number not to appear? 30+? What about 20..? Then you have a rule for if it hits, it will hit again. But it’s only ‘likely’ and within a ‘few’ draws. But it’s ‘likely’ that any number will appear within a ‘few’ draws.

If you’re only looking for something on occasions where you’ve determined it’s significant, then sometimes you’ll see the result you’re looking for. And where you don’t see it, you’ve got another rule to fall back on! (It’s the infrequency illusion)

I agree your approach is not less successful than using random numbers, but it’s no better either.

• Mr. 11

Lottery Guy is 100% right. The chance of drawing 1,2,3,4,5,6 is just as random as drawing say 8, 11, 17, 26, 29, 43. Reason being is that it does not rely on the previous draws since it is completely random. Take coin tossing for example. Of course it is not 50/50 out of 10 times tossed. Sometimes I will get 2 head and 8 tails, 6 heads and 4 tails, etc.

• Kim

Well that makes sense. Thanks. I thought it was interesting and couldn’t toss it until I found out the reason or chance of it. But, now I know. π

• Kim

I bought a mega millions QUICK PICK in arizona, the numbers were as follows, in this order. 21 22 23 24 25 mega plier 26
What are the odds of a computer doing that number sequence?

• Well believe it or not, the odds are exactly the same as the computer spitting out any other combination!

Or in other words 1 in 175,711,536. Which is also the odds of winning Mega Millions of course. (Because the quick pick machine is really just doing it’s own mini lottery draw to produce your ticket).

You see, it’s only us humans who place any significance in numbers being in sequential order (or multiples of another number, or all evens or odds etc etc). To a computer, they’re just different symbols. They could just as well be shapes, or colors.

It looks and feels really significant, but mathematically it really isn’t. Weird huh.

• Kim

Thanks for the info. Like I said to Mr. 11 I was curious enough about the odds or lack there of, to toss it until I knew. Just a “point to ponder” I suppose. Thanks for the feedback! π

• Rigon

I disagree with this statement.

“So the real question here is not which numbers to play as a result of all this analysis, but whether the past results have anything useful to reveal to us in the first place. And the fact is, they donβt.”

The past history does tell us alot. You just haven’t seen it yet.

• You’re entitled to disagree – but you’re wrong π

There is simply no reason at all that past draws would, could or should tell you anything useful about what numbers will appear for any future draw.

If it were any different that would mean the draw is not random. Which would mean the operators were running an illegal lottery. Lotteries are required to be fair by law. Are you claiming to have spotted something that the lottery company with all it’s staff, analysts and auditors have missed..?

There is no way any lottery company would want even the slightest possibility that their draw could be predictable and therefore not random. Those high paid lottery execs really don’t like the idea of being sent to prison!

• Rigon

What I’m saying is that history does help in making somewhat of an educated pick when it comes to patterns not just looking at most hit numbers. It’s still a random draw and your odds are much better than just gathering up a few most hit numbers and hope they all come out. To say that history doesn’t tell us anything is not accurate. When tornados made their way through ” tornado valley” it didn’t get it’s name because a few of them just happen to roll in within a few weeks. History told us this is where tornados roll through. The weather pattern throughout the years made weathermen psychic or maybe not.

• And what I’m saying is you’re actually wrong, 100% :-). And it’s a very common misconception (that most of the junk lottery system sellers rely on!).

Thing is, you simply can’t have it both ways – the lottery cannot be random and slightly predictable at the same time!

There is nothing in the past results that tells you anything about what comes next. Any patterns you see are pure illusions in a sea of randomness, and are useless for predicting anything.

This is not a weather system!

• Kim

I think everyone has some very valid and interesting points. This is really a subject that keeps the mind sharp! To determine the infinite number of ways these numbers are picked truly makes the lottery about more than money, and an interesting debate.
Thanks for all the opinions. I really enjoy them.

• We certainly get interesting opinions which I fully welcome – but that doesn’t necessarily make them valid π

Opinions are great, I love an open debate. But nobody can deny certain facts just because they prefer to believe otherwise (such as the fact the lottery is random and unpredictable).

You can claim the moon is made of cheese all you like, but unless you provide a slice of moon cheese to prove it, you’re just a crazy voice in the wilderness. No matter how many crazies are out there with you… howling at the cheese moon π

• Dr Chris Rane

I think its plausible that we are affecting the results, like anything else in life on a quantum level when you observe something it changes, we cannot either prove or disprove that our though affect our reality as we cannot prove that something is right or wrong its only correct within standing parameters, and whomever defined the parameters before that, the difference between a philosophy and science is that you can test science; but only on our established level of understanding – if you take into account the fact that we have established our entire scientific system on 6% of the universe the other94% being dark matter and dark energy, I think its not an unreasonable statement for Rigon to say you haven’t seen it yet; more so its arrogant of you to proclaim that he’s wrong when no one can technically be right or wrong when nothing is concretely defined as it never will be, everything is just theory based on predetermined “facts”

Thanks

• Yes ‘Dr Chris’, I’ve often noticed that when I observe grass it looks green, when everyone knows it’s really purple.

Now must look up that Quantum Predictor function in Excel…

• Dr Chris Rane

Maybe you should read a few books by Oliver Sacks then, and maybe learn about Synesthesia, as clearly everyone perceives everything the same way.

• Thanks ‘Doc’ but I’m aware of synaesthesia. It’s a fascinating condition, and makes a great documentary. But I don’t see the relevance.

Personal perception doesn’t change whether the numbers on your lottery ticket match what came out of the draw machine. They either do or they don’t. You won’t get far trying to argue any differently with the lottery claims office.

• Kim

I asked a question on Dec 22nd regarding a Powerball ticket and it has ended up in a debate that has taken a few ugly turns. As of now it appears that Lottery Guy and the Doc are in a debate, and given I am not the slightest bit interested in this debate, I will say that Lottery Guy, though you got on my nerves you do make far more sense than Doc (see I can be nice). Having said that. It’s been fun, but I am bowing out!
Good luck and happy debating!

• Thanks. I think π

• Kaptin

Rigon, you do not understand what the term “random” really means. Go to University. Take a statistics course. Read a book.

• Tiz

True say…? randomness / predictability. However the brain has discovered many things:

Pythagoras discovered his ‘theorem’, Albert Einstein – ‘E=MC2’, Paul Dirac – ‘antimatter’, James Watson and Francis Crick – ‘the structure of DNA’.

Naturally then whether it is colour, shape or number a system is waiting to be found to forecast the next draw.

• That’s just plain daft Tiz. Those things have nothing to do with being able to predict the lottery or any other random event.

The lottery is random because that’s how it’s been designed. It’s meant to be random and unpredictable – that’s the whole point.

To put it another way. If in a parallel impossible universe someone did find a way to predict the lottery, they would immediately cancel the game. Because not only is a predictable lottery illegal, it’s also totally pointless. What, everybody buys the prediction system, and we split the jackpot between a few million people every week??

There is no system to predict lottery results because it simply cannot exist – ‘the brain’ designed it to be that way!

Categories: Lottery Questions