Lottery predictions; Bah, humbug. That’s what some people say. Others believe that using lottery number analysis to make lottery predictions is perfectly valid. Who’s right? Many players are simply left sitting on the fence without any clear path to follow. If you don’t know where you stand, then, perhaps this article will reveal the truth and give you a clearer picture of who is right.

The Controversy Over Making Lottery Predictions

Here is the argument typically espoused by the lottery prediction skeptics. It goes something like this:

Predicting lottery numbers is wasted effort. Why analyze a lottery to make lottery predictions? After all, it’s a random game of chance. Lottery number patterns or trends don’t exist. Everyone knows that each lottery number is equally likely to hit and, ultimately, all of the numbers will hit the same number of times.

The Best Defense Is Logic and Reason

At first, the arguments appear solid and based on a sound mathematical foundation. But, you are about to discover that the mathematics used to support their position is misunderstood and misapplied. I believe Alexander Pope said it best in ‘An Essay on Criticism’ in 1709: “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, nagaland lottery and drinking largely sobers us again.” In other words, a little knowledge isn’t worth much coming from a person who has a little.

First, let’s address the misunderstanding. In the mathematical field of probability, there is a theorem called the Law of Large Numbers. It simply states that, as the number of trials increase, the results will approach the expected mean or average value. As for the lottery, this means that eventually all lottery numbers will hit the same number of times. By the way, I totally agree.

The first misunderstanding arises from the words, ‘as the number of samples or trials increase’. Increase to what? Is 50 drawings enough? 100? 1,000? 50,000? The name itself, ‘Law of Large Numbers’, should give you a clue. The second misunderstanding centers around the use of the word ‘approach’. If we are going to ‘approach the expected mean’, how close do we have to get before we are satisfied?

Second, let’s discuss the misapplication. Misunderstanding the theorem results in its misapplication. I’ll show you what I mean by asking the questions that the skeptics forget to ask. How many drawings will it take before the results will approach the expected mean? And, what is the expected mean?