Congratulations to the woman but the odds of her winning the Texas lottery four times is astronomical. You can view the news video here or read articles here.
By the way here is what 18 septillion looks like.
18,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
NOTE: if you reply and use the word septillion and your spell checker says you spelled it incorrectly, don't worry, you probably didn't. The word is used so rarely that most if not all spell checkers don't recognize the word.
I say put her on a spaceship and have her find a Ringworld for us to migrate to (c.f. "The Teela Brown Effect")... or alternatively, maybe we should make her head of the Federal Reserve ...
As someone said on the radio this morning "You can be sure she won't win again -- these things have a way of evening out ..."
I say put her on a spaceship and have her find a Ringworld for us to migrate to (c.f. "The Teela Brown Effect")... or alternatively, maybe we should make her head of the Federal Reserve ...
As someone said on the radio this morning "You can be sure she won't win again -- these things have a way of evening out ..."
Looking at the number just gives no sense to the scale of the odds... it's equivalent, though, to her picking the correct one-pound piece out of something the mass of the Earth!
I say put her on a spaceship and have her find a Ringworld for us to migrate to (c.f. "The Teela Brown Effect")... or alternatively, maybe we should make her head of the Federal Reserve ...
As someone said on the radio this morning "You can be sure she won't win again -- these things have a way of evening out ..."
But if she does what would be the odds? lol
Well, it's a bit counter-intuitive, but the odds of her winning again are the same as they were for her winning the first time. Think about it...
The odds are quoted if these were the only four lottery tickets she ever bought. Also, there comes a point where it is far more likely there was human involvement (ie. cheating) than beating such long odds. I suppose cheating doesn't have to be the answer, but possibly there is a relationship with winning each. For example, for some reason the winning scratchers are sent to the same store as part of a pattern of distribution (probably not on purpose).
Also, the odds quoted are if she specifically wins the lottery four times, rather than what is the more relevant figure: the odds of any given person winning four times.
Also, the odds quoted are if she specifically wins the lottery four times, rather than what is the more relevant figure: the odds of any given person winning four times.
I actually think the odds are calculated just by multiplying the four respective odds of winning for each drawing/game she played. While it matters how you look at things sometimes, I don't think it does in this case properly speaking.
The odds are quoted if these were the only four lottery tickets she ever bought. Also, there comes a point where it is far more likely there was human involvement (ie. cheating) than beating such long odds. I suppose cheating doesn't have to be the answer, but possibly there is a relationship with winning each. For example, for some reason the winning scratchers are sent to the same store as part of a pattern of distribution (probably not on purpose).
Also, the odds quoted are if she specifically wins the lottery four times, rather than what is the more relevant figure: the odds of any given person winning four times.
I actually think the odds are calculated just by multiplying the four respective odds of winning for each drawing/game she played. While it matters how you look at things sometimes, I don't think it does in this case properly speaking.
That calculation gives you the likelihood of a particular person winning four times. The calculation that we'd really be interested in adds the probabilities of this coincidence happening for every person who's played at least four times in the history of the game, and for each game they play from the fourth on. Since there are probably a lot of particular instances of this sort of repetitive and widespread behavior, it's safe to say that the likelihood of someone (rather than one particular person) winning four times is at least several orders of magnitude grear than 1:18 septillion.
Also, the odds quoted are if she specifically wins the lottery four times, rather than what is the more relevant figure: the odds of any given person winning four times.
I actually think the odds are calculated just by multiplying the four respective odds of winning for each drawing/game she played. While it matters how you look at things sometimes, I don't think it does in this case properly speaking.
That calculation gives you the likelihood of a particular person winning four times. The calculation that we'd really be interested in adds the probabilities of this coincidence happening for every person who's played at least four times in the history of the game, and for each game they play from the fourth on. Since there are probably a lot of particular instances of this sort of repetitive and widespread behavior, it's safe to say that the likelihood of someone (rather than one particular person) winning four times is at least several orders of magnitude grear than 1:18 septillion.
BTW, you are exactly right about this and I stand corrected.
