Sir, - Mr Alan Eager (December 21st) feels that among the winning numbers in the National Lottery "there are far too many sequences appearing with consecutive, or nearly consecutive numbers". He goes on to list several such "coincidences", and suggests that the balls may be insufficiently mixed before the draws. I do not think so.
The odds on drawing at least one run of two or more consecutive numbers are, I think, much higher than what Mr Eager thinks they ought to be, probably one in every 2 or 3 draws on average. (A fresh mathematical mind might be able to work it out more accurately, perhaps.)
Like all of us, Mr Eager feels, rightly, that the numbers appearing ought to be random, but, like most people, he does not appear to understand the nature of randomness and the difficulties involved in producing it. We feel that the numbers we pick should be spread out, but that notion itself immediately introduces a restraint which ensures that the numbers are not random.
Statistics from the British National Lottery show that, at most, of those draws when a consecutive pair was drawn, there was no jackpot winner. By contrast, in one draw where the numbers were separated from each other by at least three other numbers, 133 people shared the jackpot. (New Scientist, July 27, 1995). Since every conceivable combination of six different numbers has exactly the same chance of being drawn (one in 5,245,786, I would think), one good strategy would be to pick: very "unlikely" sequences like 4,5,6,7,8,9. This would maximise your chances of being able to keep the whole jackpot to yourself, should you win it.
I can afford to offer this splendid advice for free, because I try to live by one that is even better. Instead of taking your bets to the shop, put your pound in a piggy bank. That way you are certain to, win, and the harder you gamble the money you win.
Boring? Perhaps. But then, the National Lottery is a scandal and an abomination. It is, in reality, another taxation, and one which probably hits those who can least afford it more than those who have too much. It is another ploy in the insidious policy of increasing indirect taxation and reducing direct, discriminatory taxation, another tool in the strategy of fleecing the poor and further enriching the rich. It hurts the genuine charities, encourages the idea of getting something for nothing and helps to further blur the boundary between honest trade and organised crime. - Yours, etc.,
Yellow Walls Road,
Malahide,
Co. Dublin.