http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strang ... 0165?f=rss

Erm, time for an investigation I think

The chances of winning a fourth time are exactly the same as winning for the first time, it isn't cumulative odds.

Yes - and no.

Once you have won 3 times, the probability of the fourth win is the same as that of the first.

However, the probability of winning a first time AND and a second time AND and a third time AND and a fourth time is:

P (4xwin) = (P (win)) AND (P (win)) AND (P (win)) AND (P (win))
P (4xwin) = (P (win)) * (P (win)) * (P (win)) * (P (win))
P (4xwin) = (P (win)) ^ 4

Which means that they've got their sums wrong - by their reckoning, the odds of a single win are 119/1. I want to enter that lottery!

The odds of a single win for the Texas State Lottery are stated as 25,867,165 / 1. This means that the odds of a quadruple win are actually (4.47708493383 x 10^29) / 1.

Time to investigate I think.

She is clearly from the future and is trying to win enough money to build her own time machine to get back home.

watch out to see if she is mysteriously ravaged in a "dog" attack. Which is infact a hellhound.

Yet the probability of a quadruple win will also depend upon how many tickets she has bought...
Seeing as I dont actually have a clue how these scratchcards work (chances are a £1.3million win are higher than a £6.6million win). Although obviously the odds arent cumulative they will still vary after numberous scratchcards.
Say there is a 0.1 chance of winning something, each time it is independant probability of the last.
So on the first time the probability of a loss is 9/10
The second time the probability of a loss is 9/10
The third time the probability of a loss is 9/10
and so on and so on.

So say you buy 50 scratchcards the probability of losing every time is 9/10 to the power of 50.

So in the instance of her buying these scratchcards, the more she bought, the more likely she should be to have a win. Which is why i think the value of:



Is probably a much too low probability.

Anyway, you will hopefully get where this is aimed (it isnt actually suggesting the earlier P working was in any way wrong, just didnt consider all her fails.