Everyone always says that in lotto the odds of 1,2,3,4,5,6 coming out is the same as 1,9,13,34,36,43, for example. But although that may be mathematically true, surely there is a far greater chance of a random set of unconnected numbers coming out rather than a consecutive set of numbers?
Just as a matter of interest I saw a program on TV last year about lotteries
and they said that the line 1-2-3-4-5-6 is the most bet on combination but
has never come out in any lottery worldwide, they also said that if it did come out in
the UK national lottery the prize would be so small that it would not be worth winning (because of so many people using that line)
Imagine that instead of 49 numbered balls we had 49 different coloured balls. All combinations of colours are equally likely. It's the same with numbers.
Yes, of course, with numbers the permutations mean you are very unlikely to get a consecutive set of numbers. But the odds of any particular set of consecutive numbers (e.g. 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6) are exactly the same as the odds for a specified set of non-consective numbers (e.g. 1,9,13,34,36,43)
The odds of any set of six numbers coming out is always just over 13 million to one ( including six consecutive).
There are always more winners when the drawn numbers are all below 32 as a lot of people use birthday dates as their numbers. If you want to be a sole winner always include some numbers above 31 in your choices.
I wouldn't bother doing numbers one to six consecutively on the lottery as 2 million people do it regularly each draw. This would mean that with a jackpot of say, 7 million, each ticket holder would only get £3.50 and if you're in a syndicate of 10 people at work well, I'm sure you can do the maths.