Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This is dealing with lottery odds.
For instance random numbers, any order, in picking 6 numbers out of 49 numbers 6/6 is 1 in 13,983,816 odds =COMBIN(49,6) Numbers in order or in sequence: However, in sequence, of 4 numbers in a row, such as 1 2 3 4 x x out of 49 numbers. what are the odds for this calculation, and how would you calculate this in Excel. Further, if this sequence is at the beginning of 49 numbers would the odds be any different than 4 number in sequence at the end, such as x x 46 47 48 49 With Thanks |
#2
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 14, 12:22*pm, smandula wrote:
For instance random numbers, any order, in picking 6 numbers out of 49 numbers [...] is 1 in 13,983,816 odds =COMBIN(49,6) [....] However, in sequence, of 4 numbers in a row, such as 1 2 3 4 x x out of 49 numbers. The number of such sequences is 46*COMBIN(45,2) Explanation.... There are 49-4+1 combinations of 4 contiguous numbers, i.e. 49 48 47 46, 48 47 46 45, ..., 4 3 2 1. That leaves 45 numbers from which any 2 are chosen at random. smandual wrote: Further, if this sequence is at the beginning of 49 numbers would the odds be any different than 4 number in sequence at the end, such as x x 46 47 48 49 No. I hope that is apparent from my explanation. |
#3
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The number of such sequences is 46*COMBIN(45,2) To clarify: any of 4 contiguous numbers will have the same odds, regardless of where being located sequentially at the beginning, middle, or end of a number series 1 to 49 as in Lotto 6/49. Result: =46*COMBIN(45,2) --- 1 to 45540 odds It's hard to believe. I would think, that beginning contiguous numbers would be lower odds, as opposed higher numbers which would have higher odds. I have nothing to base this thought on. With Thanks |
#4
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 14, 6:28*pm, smandula wrote:
To clarify: any of 4 contiguous numbers will have the same odds, regardless of where being located sequentially at the beginning, middle, or end of a number series 1 to 49 [....] Result: =46*COMBIN(45,2) --- 1 to 45540 odds Right. But that is the number of combinations with a consecutive sequence of __at_least__ 4. If you want the number of combinations with a consecutive sequence of __exactly__ 4, the formula is: 2*COMBIN(44,2)+44*COMBIN(43,2) = 41624 Explanation.... For the sequences 4-3-2-1 and 49-48-47-46, only 44 of the remaining 45 can be used for the remaining pair; we must exclude 5 for the sequence 4-3-2-1, and we must exclude 45 for the sequence 49-48-47-46. For the 44 remaining sequences, only 43 of the remaining 45 can be used for the remaining pair; we must exclude the numbers before and after the sequence. smandula wrote: I would think, that beginning contiguous numbers would be lower odds, as opposed higher numbers which would have higher odds. Wrong. But what can I say to convince you? Do you think the numbers care whether they are high or low? Is there a greater chance of selecting 49 than selecting 1 because 49 is higher? (No and no.) As I noted above, when counting combinations of sequences of __exactly__ 4, there is a difference between "end sequences" and "middle sequences" because there is only one way to extend "end sequences" v. two ways to extend "middle sequences". But there is no difference between the "low end sequence" (4-3-2-1) and the "high end sequence" (49-48-47-46). And there is no difference among the "middle sequences". But you did not ask: what are the odds of selecting an "end sequence" v. a "middle sequenece"? You asked: what are the odds of selecting any sequence? Perhaps an excercise with 4 dice will help you understand. There are 6-2+1 = 5 sequences of 2, namely: 6-5, 5-4, 4-3, 3-2 and 2-1. The number of combinations with a sequence of __at_least__ 2 is 5*COMBIN(4,2) = 30. The number of combinations with a sequence of __exactly__ 2 is 2*COMBIN(3,2)+3*COMBIN(2,2) = 9. We can enumerate the 9: end sequences: middle sequences: 6-5-3-2 5-4-2-1 6-5-3-1 6-5-2-1 4-3-6-1 2-1-6-5 3-2-6-5 2-1-6-4 2-1-5-4 ----- The VBA macros below count all the possible combinations with a consecutive sequence of at least and exactly 4. The output from atleast4() is: 4: 990 45540 Interpretation.... For the sequence starting with 4 (4,3,2,1), there are 990 combinations. The same for all other sequences, since no others are shown. The total number is 45540. The output from exactly4() is: 4: 946 5: 903 49: 946 41624 Interpretation.... For the sequence starting with 4 (4,3,2,1) and 49 (49,48,47,46), there are 946 combinations each. For the sequence starting with 5 (5,4,3,2), there are 903 combinations. For all other sequences, the number of combinations is the same as for 5,4,3,2 (903), since no others are shown. The total number is 41624. ------ Option Explicit Sub atleast4() Dim i As Long, j As Long, k As Long, n As Long Dim m As Long, m0 As Long, s As String 'n counts total combinations n = 0: m0 = 0 For i = 4 To 49 'the consecutive sequence is i-3 to i 'm counts combinations for each sequence m = 0 For j = 1 To 48 If j < i - 3 Or j i Then For k = j + 1 To 49 If k < i - 3 Or k i Then n = n + 1: m = m + 1 Next End If Next 'm0 is the previous m If m < m0 Then s = s & i & ": " & m & Chr(10) m0 = m Next MsgBox s & n End Sub Sub exactly4() Dim i As Long, j As Long, k As Long, n As Long Dim m As Long, m0 As Long, s As String 'n counts total combinations n = 0: m0 = 0 For i = 4 To 49 'the consecutive sequence is i-3 to i 'm counts combinations for each sequence m = 0 For j = 1 To 48 If j < i - 3 Or j i Then For k = j + 1 To 49 If k < i - 3 Or k i Then 'exclude consecutive sequences 4 If Not (j = i - 4 Or k = i - 4 Or _ j = i + 1 Or k = i + 1) _ Then n = n + 1: m = m + 1 End If Next End If Next 'm0 is the previous m If m < m0 Then s = s & i & ": " & m & Chr(10) m0 = m Next MsgBox s & n End Sub |
#5
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 14, 9:33*pm, joeu2004 wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:28 pm, smandula wrote: I would think, that beginning contiguous numbers would be lower odds, as opposed higher numbers which would have higher odds. [....] Perhaps an excercise with 4 dice will help you understand. There are 6-2+1 = 5 sequences of 2, namely: 6-5, 5-4, 4-3, 3-2 and 2-1. The number of combinations with a sequence of __at_least__ 2 is 5*COMBIN(4,2) = 30. To demonstrate that the number of combinations for each sequence is the same for high-, middle- and low-numbered sequences, here is an enumeration of the 30 combinations. 6-5-4-3 4-3-6-5 3-2-6-5 6-5-4-2 4-3-6-2 3-2-6-4 6-5-4-1 4-3-6-1 3-2-6-1 6-5-3-2 4-3-5-2 3-2-5-4 6-5-3-1 4-3-5-1 3-2-5-1 6-5-2-1 4-3-2-1 3-2-4-1 5-4-6-3 2-1-6-5 5-4-6-2 2-1-6-4 5-4-6-1 2-1-6-3 5-4-3-2 2-1-5-4 5-4-3-1 2-1-5-3 5-4-2-1 2-1-4-3 |
#6
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Errata....
On Jun 14, 9:33*pm, joeu2004 wrote: But you did not ask: *what are the odds of selecting an "end sequence" v. a "middle sequenece"? *You asked: *what are the odds of selecting any sequence? Sorry, I might have misinterpreted your original question. On Jun 14, 12:22 pm, smandula wrote: However, in sequence, of 4 numbers in a row, such as 1 2 3 4 x x out of 49 numbers. The number of combinations with __any_particular__ consecutive sequence of __at_least__ 4 is COMBIN(45,2) = 990, as demonstrated by the atleast4() macro that I posted previously. Thus, the probability of 1-2-3-4-x-x is 990/13,983,816. The number of combinations with __a_particular__ consecutive sequence of __exactly__ 4 is COMBIN(44,2) = 946 for 4-3-2-1-x-x and 49-48-47-46- x-x, and it is COMBIN(43,2) = 903 for all other sequences. That is demonstrated by the exactly4() macro. smandula wrote: if this sequence is at the beginning of 49 numbers would the odds be any different than 4 number in sequence at the end, such as x x 46 47 48 49 No, not for 49-48-47-46. But for __a_particular__ sequence of __exactly__ 4, yes, the odds are different for the "middle sequences" -- any sequence other than 4-3-2-1-x-x and 49-48-47-46-x-x. But the odds are the __same__ for __all__ "middle sequences". smandula wrote later: It's hard to believe. I would think, that beginning contiguous numbers would be lower odds, as opposed higher numbers which would have higher odds. It does not matter whether the numbers are higher or lower. For sequences of __exactly__ 4, it __does__ matter whether the sequence is at the end (4-3-2-1 and 49-48-47-46) or in the middle. However, note that the odds for __a_particular__ end sequence of __exactly__ 4 is higher, not lower, than for __a_particular__ middle sequence. And again, also note that there is __no_difference__ in the odds for __a_particular__ sequence of __at_least__ 4. |
#7
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 15/06/2011 02:28, smandula wrote:
The number of such sequences is 46*COMBIN(45,2) To clarify: any of 4 contiguous numbers will have the same odds, regardless of where being located sequentially at the beginning, middle, or end of a number series 1 to 49 as in Lotto 6/49. Result: =46*COMBIN(45,2) --- 1 to 45540 odds It's hard to believe. I would think, that beginning contiguous numbers would be lower odds, as opposed higher numbers which would have higher odds. The lottery depends only on the number of distinct symbols being sampled - the tags on the balls are only there to make each one unique. National Lotteries are a voluntary tax on the innumerate poor. *Except the early version of the Irish Lottery which through a design flaw of having too many small prizes was defeated by a syndicate. I have nothing to base this thought on. That is because it it wrong. The thing that is true is that if you choose numbers that are mostly above 31 you are more likely to avoid sharing your winnings with a thousand other birthday date sucker bets. Tracking number of winners against numbers 31 and including 13 is amusing. 42 is also best avoided for similar reasons. Regards, Martin Brown |
#8
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thank You for your Tremendous response.
I appreciate and never expected such a detailed explanation. Again, With Thanks |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
math problem. | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Excel Solver / Math Problem | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
More math than excel, but a fun problem | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
Excel Math problem | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
I have a math problem in Excel. | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) |