The Lowest Outcome Possible : 01  02  03  04 05  06 = 21 Most winning outcomes are : ((21 + 279)/2) = 150 (+/) Standard Deviation I won't bore you with the full statistical breakdowns, but you can see where I'm going with this. Counting Cards in BlackJack, Poker statistics (odds of a Royal Flush), etc. are all numbers without the emotion. They say that every Lotto Outcome has the same odds of appearing, but I disagree. The odds of 010203040506 being drawn is highly unlikely. asked Jun 11 '10 at 00:15 r0bErT4u 
Ummm..it's been a while since my upperclass college statistics days, but your reasoning strikes me as entirely false. No number is any more or less likely to come up as any other number. The fact that the balls are numbered is irrelevant; they might as well have different pictures on them in terms of their chance of being picked. Therefore no mathematical operation or assumption can help your odds at all. answered Jun 11 '10 at 18:41 Shasta this is true, its like a roulette table, it could take a million years before for example 13 to come up, it could but each time its still the same odds/chance this will never change, number 4 could come up atleast 30 times a day, but it is no less or more likely to come, its all the same chance
(Jun 11 '10 at 23:35)
thrashintosh

Improving your odds from 1 in 200 million to 1 in 100 million is not going to help you much in the Lottery. Remember, you need to improve your odds so much that your statistical chances of winning times your expected win exceed your investment or you're wasting your time. E.G. if you can make your odds of winning 1 in 1000 and there's a 1000 dollar reward, you need to spend less than dollar for your reward to be greater than your risk. Good luck with that. :) answered Jun 11 '10 at 11:05 Justen Robertson Yes, I've taken that into concideration. My state's lotto is a pick 6 out of 49, 13983816 outcomes, and $1 buys 2. So, if the jackpot reaches above $7 Million ... one could blanket the odds, to win $21 million ... spread over 20 years or half up front
(Jun 11 '10 at 11:22)
r0bErT4u
You'd have to do it all up front. If you play a new number once every game your odds are only 1 in 13983816 each time. The only way you get a benefit is to play all your highodds positions at once. I would think the lottery has already done the math and ensured that it's not gameable though. Also remember nearly half your winnings are stolen back into the system via taxation (and more besides if you take the lump sum), so you actually will need at least ~14 million jackpot in order to break even on a 100% $7 million investment. Personally I think you'd be better off investing that $7 million in highyield investment vehicles. You may wait a decade or more to double it if you play it safe, especially in a volatile market, but it's still better than the lottery or other forms of gambling where the game is rigged for the house. The "house" in Wall Street are mostly the big investment firms that run AI trading systems but you can still earn consistently there, especially if you're good with numbers.
(Jun 11 '10 at 13:51)
Justen Robertson
i really like that answer. thumbs up
(Jun 11 '10 at 14:10)
conoraleckelly

I'm afraid all your theories are complete nonsense there is only one way to increase your chances of winning the lottery, buy more tickets. answered Jun 15 '10 at 06:45 Headwards 
The only method of guaranteeing yourself a 100% chance of winning a lottery is to play the same numbers, every single draw, indefinitely. You may win tomorrow or next year or next decade or next millennium.. but eventually your combination of numbers WILL be drawn. So, if you are immortal, you should get started! There is a good chance that you may outlive the lottery system that you're playing though. :/ answered Jun 11 '10 at 23:17 SpyderBite 3
That's incorrect. Every time you play that number, your odds of that number coming up are exactly the same (1/x). Even playing it (x) times doesn't guarantee it will come up. the odds are long but you could play it x30 or x100 or x*1000 times and you still wouldn't have a 100% chance of getting it within any finite amount of time. On a large enough scale, sure, eventually you will hit it (law of big numbers). You're better off playing all of (x) once though, vs. playing 1 of (x) x times.
(Jun 14 '10 at 15:29)
Justen Robertson
Even distribution implies predictability, but unless you can prove that the distribution is even, both of your theories should be considered jibberish.
(Jun 15 '10 at 06:42)
Seb

Well as you may or may not know Derren Brown claims he helped by a number of people managed to guess the lotto number and it looked good the way he did it I would love to try his theory out some day, check out it should be on YouTube some where answered Jun 14 '10 at 16:15 Liam Harvey 
You can use statistics to prove that you are very unlikely to win the lottery. That is the only use statistics has when playing the lottery. Don't play is all I can suggest!!! answered Jun 15 '10 at 06:37 Headwards 
The lottery is pure chance. You can't base facts on past results of chance (in this context). No matter what numbers you pick, you will have the same small percentage of chance to win it. Like Headwards said, you want a greater chance to win, buy more...a lot more... answered Dec 10 '10 at 01:43 Nomad 
Joan Ginther wins lottery for the fourth time: http://bit.ly/hnNC9P
answered Dec 11 '10 at 07:27 r0bErT4u 1
(Dec 12 '10 at 02:38)
Nomad

The odds of you winning are always the same. Only way to increase your odds are by buying more tickets. The reason why there are more winners with winning number totals between 117 and 183 is because there are more possible combinations that could equal that total. Like you said there is only one combination that could equal 21 or 279. The more you go towards the middle the more possible combinations there are. answered Dec 12 '10 at 05:56 Lestat611 
I think what you tell in this blog is very amazing, the statistics can be very usfull tool! I think who ever will give such great tools for lottery statistics can be very very successful! I found one site giving such service, check it out.... buy lottery tickets online go into this great lottery site. cheers, PlayLotteryOnline.org answered Apr 23 '12 at 09:00 
"... but you can see where I'm going with this."
Actually, I suck at math, so I have no idea what you're talking about!
Out of the 13,983,816 total possible outcomes, the 6 winning numbers In ascending order:
1st will be between 01  44
2nd will be between 02  45
3rd will be between 03  46
4th will be between 04  47
5th will be between 05  48
6th will be between 06  49
Take the (21+279)/2 & Standard Deviation of about 33, means most of the winning numbers will add up to somewhere between 117  183.
Most winning numbers will be redrawn within 8 drawings.
After collecting data of past drawings: Would you bet on numbers with high frequency? Would you bet on numbers that haven't been drawn for over 8 drawings?
I've won 4 times so far, selecting 5 out of the 6 winning numbers. I stopped counting the the times I've won, selecting 4 & 3 out of the 6 winning numbers. I'm still trying to win a jackpot.
I need more computing power & luck =0p
Since most of the six winning numbers will total 117  183, how can 010203040506 have the same odds of being drawn?
01+02+03+04+05+06 = 21, and that's the only way to total up to 21 in a pick 6 out of 49 lottery game. That holds true for the other extreme of 44+45+46+47+48+49 = 279.
Wouldn't eliminating the possible outcomes that fall outside the 117  183, be a wise thing to do?
Past drawings can show a bias towards certain numbers. Who knows? Are the lottery machines & ping pong balls truly a random? Don't forget the human factor?
I'm afraid all your theories are complete nonsense there is only one way to increase your chances of winning the lottery, buy more tickets.
Standard deviation implies that the randomness is predictable. Prove it. Your theory makes even less sense when you consider that numbers needn't be on the balls. In fact, aside from giving them an identity, what purpose do the numbers serve? Imagine balls that are painted colours, or have egyptian heiroglyphics, or celebrities. Do you then go forth and assign each celebrity a value, and assume that Jack Black is going to be picked at random, more often than Matt Damon?.. Or maybe you assume that Adolf Hitler will be a popular result, because "ve have vays".