Spotted at HackerNews is a link to a multipart series from Pennsylvania's PennLive and several collaborating outlets on the wins of improbably lucky lottery players.
On, Dec. 29, 2016, Clarance Jones did something that most Americans could scarcely imagine: He cashed-in 20 winning scratch-off tickets, collectively worth $21,000, one after the other.
For the average lottery player, that would be the ultimate payday. For Jones, it was practically routine.
In the past six years, the 79-year-old from Lynn, Mass., has won more than 7,300 lottery tickets, totaling $10.8 million. That establishes him, by far, as the luckiest lottery player in America.
But that luck, experts say, is unlikely to be what it seems. And Jones is not alone in raising eyebrows
The three part series goes on to look at the patterns of frequent winners, and the attitudes of lottery retailers to these apparent runs of incredible good fortune.
In Pennsylvania alone, more than 200 players have won at least 50 prizes of $600 or more in the past 16 years.
Statisticians approached by PennLive say many of those wins are difficult to explain by luck. In other states, investigations into frequent winners have sometimes found their wins are rooted in theft and cheating, or schemes relating to tax evasion and money laundering.
"From a statistical point of view it stinks to high heaven," said Ronald Wasserstein, executive director of the American Statistical Association.
The Pennsylvania Lottery, however, has a different view: Its most frequent winners are simply frequent players.
The Original HackerNews Thread and reporting from the Columbia Journal on the FOIA requests which underly the reporting. There are associated articles in The Boston Globe, New York Daily News, Hartford Courant, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday September 17 2017, @05:26AM
The lead character funds his lifestyle though several premium bonds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_in_a_Million [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Virindi on Sunday September 17 2017, @05:32AM (5 children)
Why is this strange at all?? As far as I am aware (I don't "play" lotteries since I do not enjoy dumping money into a negative expected value "investment") they don't record who you are when you buy a scratcher.
So for all we know, this guy bought a million of them. Or 10 million. That would make 20 winning tickets a little less strange.
If he walked in and bought 20 tickets and they were all winners, that would be strange.
(Score: 5, Informative) by krishnoid on Sunday September 17 2017, @06:53AM
Wouldn't necessarily be that strange [wired.com], actually. The strange part is how the lottery commission wouldn't care -- but on the other hand, maybe that wouldn't be that strange, either [youtube.com].
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Sunday September 17 2017, @09:21AM (2 children)
From TFA:
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday September 17 2017, @10:13AM (1 child)
Okay. I was just talking about the "20 tickets in a row!" claim.
But also that "statistician" is being a bit misleading as well if that was the way they actually phrased it. The way that sentence is phrased makes it sound like the birthday-problem-effect was not taken into account. That is, there are a significant number of "players" who spend a decent amount on lottery tickets. This increases the probability that some player somewhere will hit a lot of winning tickets, even if "the probability that person x makes this many winning tickets" is low.
The statistic we are interested in is, given how much "serious players" spend on lottery tickets and how many "serious players" exist, what is the probability that one of them somewhere hits this many wins. The one person who does win the lottery always beats the odds by a huge amount! But the odds that someone will win the lottery are extremely good.
It sounds like the probability that any player anywhere will get that number of wins is in fact low, but the statistician's statement does not show this.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Sunday September 17 2017, @12:10PM
The problem is that - if you read TFA and skim the "How did we investigate" link - they're really running on empty when it comes to data. Sounds like the only data they had was on claims (not how many tickets were sold, or how many any individual bought) and in some cases didn't even know the odds of the game (and many of these are pre-printed scratch card 'games' with convoluted rules - not the classical 'pick six numbers from fifty' lottery draw where the odds are probability 101) or the price of the winning ticket. The detailed account is TLDNR - but there is a metric shedload of educated guesswork involved.
So the "would have had to spend hundreds of millions of $ on tickets to have a 1:10000 chance of winning that much" is probably about the best they could do in the absence of data on how much the subject did spend or what the total ticket sales were: it is clearly unlikely that even a "serious player" would spend that much - and even less likely that enough billionaire scratchcard addicts exist to make the appearance of such a winning streak unremarkable.
I think its OK provided nobody claims to have proven anything and the conclusion is simply "more investigation required" or "shouldn't lottery organisers - who actually have access to the data - be monitoring results for suspicious blips?"
I mean, to start with, nobody who can afford to buy $300,000,000 worth of scratchcards got where they are to day by paying for shit with their own money. :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @04:34PM
And how long would it take to scratch off 10 million tickets? You could also ask him what he did with all of the losers and check the land fill.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @06:11AM (8 children)
That woman just pulled out her boob at the dinner table, clamped her baby to it, and it just went sucking away -- it was "underly" disgusting to those of us without crumb-snatchers of our own.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Sunday September 17 2017, @08:26AM (5 children)
OK, who spam modded the breast-feeding? Fess up! Confess! We need to know who throws these things, so we can, um, have a better, uh, moderation system, um, in the future. Seriously
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @04:22PM
Oh christ! Are you gonna start up with that crap again? It's not funny anymore...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tfried on Sunday September 17 2017, @07:27PM (3 children)
Um, look. You do you have a point, and the time will come to make it at large. Many will follow you in that battle. Picking on every little corner case does not help, though. And this is not even a good example: The post is worthy of being punished for excess stupidity, and this being an AC post, the punishment is not even all that severe.
But my larger concern is that this petty feud is making you sound bitter and hurt, where your forte is the jesting stride. Please get back to picking your fights, rather than letting yourself get dragged down to the bottom. It feels so ... geocentric.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @07:52PM (2 children)
Do you understand that the OP was pointing out a misspelling in the summary?
(Score: 2) by tfried on Sunday September 17 2017, @07:58PM (1 child)
Alright, touché. Strike the "excess stupidity" (or attribute it elsewhere), but keep the rest of my comment.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday September 17 2017, @08:39PM
I, for one, am "udderly" shocked by the whole development.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @08:30AM (1 child)
Note to self, be less obleek.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @12:15PM
WTF is obleek? Did you just forget how to spell oblique? FFS, are we all supposed to stick our heads up your ass, and read your mind to figure out what you meant to say?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Sunday September 17 2017, @06:52AM
Made me think of ringworld.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday September 17 2017, @02:57PM
A prize of a mere $500 is enough to bring out the worst conduct. Unsporting behavior, demands for application of creative interpretation of rules on opponents, playing slowly and yelling for a call or a judge every 30 seconds to further drag things out, turn the game into a stamina contest, try to bully a tired opponent into conceding, and many other things that while technically not cheating, spoil the fun. Then there's actual cheating.
When it's millions at stake, half the professional cheaters in the nation will be constantly searching for angles, and hustling and working the ones they have, if any. Endless vigilance is necessary to keep the con artists and thieves from stealing the lottery. Preventing cheating is the biggest part of running a lottery. Preventing the inside job is a very hard problem. Any lottery operation that pretends not to understand that could be staffed by imbeciles, but much, much more likely is treating the public to a steaming pile of manure in a blatant attempt to distract people from some ongoing theft. Just honest luck, yeah, right. Does the Pennsylvania Lottery think the citizens who are paying attention were all born yesterday? Probably not, but they hope this feeble excuse will play well enough anyway. Would serve them right if all their players quit.