Its a ratio. 2:175 mil is equivalent to 1:87.5 mil. You can look at it in fraction form if you wish: 2/175 mil = 1/87.5 mil. If you wanted to cover the bases and buy every combination, you would reach 175 mil/175 mil. This is equivalent to 1 or 100%. So either way of looking at it works the same. It can appear deceiving if you normalize the numbers, but that's a matter of perception, not math. More sobering might be converting each into percentages (I rounded to 175 million):Bubba1 wrote:A lot of people get it wrong, but that's okay.
Think of it this way.
If you buy 1 ticket, the odds are 1 in 175 million of matching every single number
If you buy two, the odds are 2 out of 175 million.
Technically, you do improve your odds by buying additional tickets but that improvement is so microscopic, the odds of you winning it all effectively don't change.
Ahh yess I see your point.BusyBadger wrote:This is incorrect.
The odds haven't changed, for the actual odds to change the amount of combinations would have to be changed by increasing or decreasing the numbers drawn from the pool and/or the amount of numbers required to win.
If you buy two tickets the odds of each ticket do not change! Instead of dropping to 1:87.5 million, what you have instead is two chances at 1:175 million, these are not the same thing.
Historically the S&P 500 returns about 9.3% a year...DJBeasy wrote:Im buying one for sure. Although that much money would scare me a bit.
DJBeasy wrote:Yeah,then imagine living in fear when your loved ones go to buy a gallon of milk.
Both are accurate as they are mathematical representations. Again, its an issue of perception. If you view it as a fraction the number is still the same and both represent the same percentage of chance of matching the numbers. If you want to calculate the number of combinations of numbers there are, then 175 million is absolute. Look at it this way. 175/175 is still one or 100%. 87.5/175 is 1/2 or 0.5 or 50%.DJBeasy wrote:I dont think that is accurate.
Ratios are meant to show relationships to one another, not odds and probabilities.
If you say that a 2/176M is the same as a 1/87.5M, then it implies that there are only 87.5M probabilities or possible outcomes in the second scenario. However, there are in fact 176M probabilities, and your chance for that particular ticket from the lot of 2 is still 1/176M.
Indeed. I'd go to Vegas and use one of those high-end car rental services for a week at a time. All the thrills without the hassle. After all, no one marries a hooker.alms24sebring wrote:Same here. But for home home (which would be within 15 miles of my home now), the very first thing I would ever buy with the money is a GTR, probly white.
I would never buy a Veyron or an Enzo either just fyi, altho I would like to drive both very much.
I wouldn't buy those cars, either. I'd buy an MP4-12C, and F12 Berlinetta, an FF, and an XJL Supersport for my beater.alms24sebring wrote:I would never buy a Veyron or an Enzo either just fyi, altho I would like to drive both very much.
But buying 2 tickets does not increase your odds of winning to 1/2 or 50%. It increases them to 2 out of 176 million.C-Kwik wrote:Both are accurate as they are mathematical representations. Again, its an issue of perception. If you view it as a fraction the number is still the same and both represent the same percentage of chance of matching the numbers. If you want to calculate the number of combinations of numbers there are, then 175 million is absolute. Look at it this way. 175/175 is still one or 100%. 87.5/175 is 1/2 or 0.5 or 50%.DJBeasy wrote:I dont think that is accurate.
Ratios are meant to show relationships to one another, not odds and probabilities.
If you say that a 2/176M is the same as a 1/87.5M, then it implies that there are only 87.5M probabilities or possible outcomes in the second scenario. However, there are in fact 176M probabilities, and your chance for that particular ticket from the lot of 2 is still 1/176M.
I was really hoping for this! It would have been absolutely ridiculous...hannibal wrote:If there's not a winner, maybe we'll see a $1 billion prize for next Tuesday.
As info, this months Hemmings has an article about the 250GTE. It's value is climbing and accelerating. They're averaging $155K now. A pristine one might fetch $250K. Not bad for a small 4 seater that sold for $12,500 in 1961.MinisterofDOOM wrote: And of course I would hunt down a mint-condition silver 250 GTE.