A Statistician Solves a Scratch Lottery Code

A Canadian geological statistician came to the realization that the numbers on some scratch lottery cards could not be random.  “It wasn’t that hard,” Srivastava says. “I do the same kind of math all day long.”
"... I start looking at the tic-tac-toe game, and I begin to wonder how they make these things,” Srivastava says. “The tickets are clearly mass-produced, which means there must be some computer program that lays down the numbers. Of course, it would be really nice if the computer could just spit out random digits. But that’s not possible, since the lottery corporation needs to control the number of winning tickets. The game can’t be truly random. Instead, it has to generate the illusion of randomness while actually being carefully determined.”

He discovered that the numbers on the card before scratching provided information about the numbers underneath the latex. Specifically, he found that "singletons" - numbers present only once on a card - were likely to indicate the location of a successful scratch. After cracking the code, he calculated that he could win about $600/day if he spent full-time buying and scratching cards.  Instead, he took his information to the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

A sample card is shown at left.  Details of his logic and calculations are explained at the Wired link.

Link.

Comments (7)

Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

Alejo, the story of the Texas woman you mentioned is discussed at the Wired link in the Neatorama post...

"And then there’s Joan Ginther, who has won more than $1 million from the Texas Lottery on four different occasions. She bought two of the winners from..."

And the reasons why Mr. Srivastava told the Lottery about his discovery ("why on Earth did he do that?") are also explained in detail at the Wired link.

Neatorama posts are in general not meant to be comprehensive storehouses of information; we want people to go to the primary link sources to read more information in depth.

That's why we include "link" at the bottom of every post.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
A Texas woman has won the million-dollar lottery FOUR times, using scratch tickets like the one in the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas-woman-wins-millions-lottery-fourth-time/story?id=11097894

By the way, she graduated from Stanford University, and taught math for 10 years. Obviously it's not just luck. She clearly has figured out weaknesses in the design of the scratch tickets, just like the Canadian statistician in the story here. The difference is that she kept the money, unlike the statistician who TOLD THE LOTTERY ABOUT HIS DISCOVERY (why on Earth did he do that?).

People who figure out weaknesses in casino games, even if they aren't cheating, are soon expelled from the casino. Lotteries are more tolerant.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I'm in the Science faculty... It may also have to do with the thing against pre-marital sex, since I notice that my faculty is predominantly asian. (75%+) Of course, I come from a city where there are a lot of asians. Also, in the Science faculty, the majority of the students are male lol.

It's not as bad as the engineering, where its pretty much all male. : P
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Im doing aerospace engineering. I spend plenty of time at the library and get pretty good grades. I used to be a real party animal, still am actually but not so much(no more spontaneous week long drinking binges in another country). I think why i do get laid and get decent grades at the same time is that i really enjoy learning new things. Im not even into it to get a *good job* or anything(i used to work in construction for 2 years and was making pretty good money with that).
The thing is that many *science nerds* that i study with seem to have no clue about what they are doing or why they are doing it. Most of them are afraid of *disappointing their parents. Some just drift along because doing math and science is the only thing they know. Being a science nerd does not prevent you from having sex. Having that narrow mindset, being under great pressure from your parents, being clueless about world outside of *go to uni-geta good job-become successful* is what actually isolates those people from society.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
What's even more amazing is that most virgins are male science nerds. And children. And the religious. And eunuchs. Actually it's not that amazing.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I'm confused to what this study was getting at. It doesn't sound to be thought out very well. I mean, there could be the possibily that people that are naturaly socialy awquard stress their studies over socializing, or those that don't have the money to spend on higher education spend more time socialy. This research sounds too narrow minded to be really worth anything.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I love studies which have results blown out of context.

What was studied? What were the controls for comparison? How was it blinded? The paper seems to indicate self-selection for starters, with a massive bias towards women responding over the boys.

There's some great science going on out there...and yet this is what newspapers latch onto? *sigh*

Athon
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Uhhh...I'm a female art student who's also a nerd (well, geek). What about me? Am I the exception to the rule?

Then again, I'm studying interactive media design, so maybe I'm a mix of both.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Leokins..
this probably means that they cancel eachother out and you have a 'normal' sex life.
either that or the nerds* you draw with are too scared to talk to you and you have a.. less sexy sex life..

I don't know for sure cuz
I'm a male art student and a nerd and ain't gettin' any..
:\
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I am a female art student so I found this article amusing. I don't feel that it is true though. As far as I've seen, the Communications/Journalism majors are the most sexually active.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I also think there's a contributing factor here that is explained well in the movie 'Idiocracy'. Basically, it seems the more intelligent people are (male or female), the less likely they will have kids (and if so, fewer). And vice versa (less intelligent leans towards having more kids). :P
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Is this study better than the 2007 MIT/Wellesley study? "Sexual Health" may be a more prestigious journal, but the study's sample size (n=185) seems awfully small. It looks like the MIT study was able to break down the categories with a lot more resolution.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
As a female who did an undergrad degree in a male field, I can attest to the truth of the article and tell you that some women in these science areas were able to easily obtain significant others. Basically, we were the only women whom these guys often talked to on a regular basis (even if it was only to compare answers for problem sets). And also, sometimes, we were the only women who shared significant interests with them and could relate to them and could tolerate some of their behavior (only some, there were some guys who were just hopeless and did things like not bathe for a week). Because of the male to female ratio in my field, I often had dates in college when my friends in the humanities had trouble located men they shared interests with.

There was an interesting phenomenon where sometimes you found yourself socializing a guy (on how to interact with women) only to have him be a better boyfriend for someone else.

I do want to point out that, at least when I was in college (yes years ago), the chinese and korean guys didn't lack for dates because they often had contact with others through ethnic student groups (like the chinese student association) but they could hold conservative views about sex.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Email This Post to a Friend
"A Statistician Solves a Scratch Lottery Code"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More