Euromillions 12th March

Post by nigel
1,7,11,24,26,30,34,35,49.
Stupid question but is there a formal definition of 'decade' in the
context of lotteries? Is it 1-9 or 1-10 for example? My numbers above
are the dregs where two different underpergorming 'decade' systems disagree.

I always presumed it to be dependent on the first "tens" number. so 1
would be in the 0 decade. 11 in the 1 decade etc etc.

I've not followed the decades but the "units" number I have followed.
My spreadsheet says 64% of the time there are two numbers (at least)
with the same family end digit like 11 or 21.

But that's not really high enough for the Euro. No main pair of no's
(66%), one number wholly divisible by 5 (69%) or wholly divisible by 3
(86%!) score better.

MJ
Now underpergorming - I'm thinking that's a Cate Middleton type of word ;-)

nigel

2024-03-13 13:18:31 UTC

I always presumed it to be dependent on the first "tens" number. so 1
would be in the 0 decade. 11 in the 1 decade etc etc.

So 10 would be in the 1 decade?

Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I've not followed the decades but the "units" number I have followed. My
spreadsheet says 64% of the time there are two numbers (at least) with
the same family end digit like 11 or 21.
But that's not really high enough for the Euro. No main pair of no's
(66%), one number wholly divisible by 5 (69%) or wholly divisible by 3
(86%!) score better.
MJ
Now underpergorming - I'm thinking that's a Cate Middleton type of word ;-)

Indeed!

Marmaduke Jinks

2024-03-13 21:47:43 UTC

I always presumed it to be dependent on the first "tens" number. so 1
would be in the 0 decade. 11 in the 1 decade etc etc.

So 10 would be in the 1 decade?

I've not followed the decades but the "units" number I have followed.
My spreadsheet says 64% of the time there are two numbers (at least)
with the same family end digit like 11 or 21.
But that's not really high enough for the Euro. No main pair of no's
(66%), one number wholly divisible by 5 (69%) or wholly divisible by 3
(86%!) score better.
MJ
Now underpergorming - I'm thinking that's a Cate Middleton type of word ;-)

Indeed!
So 10 would be in the 1 decade?

That's what I am thinking. But I'm not a huge fan of decades.

MJ

nigel

2024-03-14 12:50:42 UTC

Post by nigel
So 10 would be in the 1 decade?

That's what I am thinking. But I'm not a huge fan of decades.
MJ

It just seems a little odd compared to chronological decades. For
example, the 2000's started in 2001 etc.

I'm also wondering about the wisdom of using anthropocentric measurement
criteria. Perhaps using the approximate square root of the number of
balls might be better, so 6/49 would use 7 and 6/59 would use 8. But
then, should the number of balls drawn also count?

Marmaduke Jinks

2024-03-14 22:36:13 UTC

> So 10 would be in the 1 decade?
That's what I am thinking. But I'm not a huge fan of decades.
MJ

It just seems a little odd compared to chronological decades. For
example, the 2000's started in 2001 etc.
I'm also wondering about the wisdom of using anthropocentric measurement
criteria. Perhaps using the approximate square root of the number of
balls might be better, so 6/49 would use 7 and 6/59 would use 8. But
then, should the number of balls drawn also count?

Do you know we talk about that all the time down the pub ;-)

Does someone like Gail Howard have a definition?

MJ

Marmaduke Jinks

2024-03-14 22:45:13 UTC

> So 10 would be in the 1 decade?
That's what I am thinking. But I'm not a huge fan of decades.
MJ

It just seems a little odd compared to chronological decades. For
example, the 2000's started in 2001 etc.
I'm also wondering about the wisdom of using anthropocentric
measurement criteria. Perhaps using the approximate square root of the
number of balls might be better, so 6/49 would use 7 and 6/59 would
use 8. But then, should the number of balls drawn also count?

Do you know we talk about that all the time down the pub ;-)
Does someone like Gail Howard have a definition?
MJ

as an afterthought are you interested in Decades from the point of view of:

a) this decade is "hot" and the next number could come from there; or
b) this decade is "cold" and so the next number is bound to come from here?

MJ

nigel

2024-03-15 16:05:13 UTC

Post by nigel
I'm also wondering about the wisdom of using anthropocentric
measurement criteria. Perhaps using the approximate square root of
the number of balls might be better, so 6/49 would use 7 and 6/59
would use 8. But then, should the number of balls drawn also count?

Do you know we talk about that all the time down the pub ;-)

There's still a pub open where you live?????

Post by Marmaduke Jinks
Does someone like Gail Howard have a definition?

No eye deer

a) this decade is "hot" and the next number could come from there; or
b) this decade is "cold" and so the next number is bound to come from here?

It's not that simple but a) is closer. There is a concept of a decade
being due a certain number of hits but there are all sorts of weird
constraints involved, almost certainly a product of my fervid imaginings.

Marmaduke Jinks

2024-03-15 22:08:42 UTC

Do you know we talk about that all the time down the pub ;-)

There's still a pub open where you live?????

where else would I go for a game of cribbage?

Post by Marmaduke Jinks
Does someone like Gail Howard have a definition?

No eye deer

a) this decade is "hot" and the next number could come from there; or
b) this decade is "cold" and so the next number is bound to come from here?

I see Ion Saliu, late of this parish, has a small monograph on it

https://saliu.com/decades.html

MJ

nigel

2024-03-16 13:51:12 UTC

Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I see Ion Saliu, late of this parish, has a small monograph on it
https://saliu.com/decades.html
MJ

Thank you. His first decade runs from 0-9. I haven't encountered too
many lotteries with a ball 0.

Marmaduke Jinks

2024-03-16 16:39:10 UTC

Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I see Ion Saliu, late of this parish, has a small monograph on it
https://saliu.com/decades.html
MJ

Thank you. His first decade runs from 0-9. I haven't encountered too
many lotteries with a ball 0.

;-)

nigel

2024-03-17 17:49:30 UTC

Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I see Ion Saliu, late of this parish, has a small monograph on it
https://saliu.com/decades.html
MJ

Thank you. His first decade runs from 0-9. I haven't encountered too
many lotteries with a ball 0.

;-)

In view of the subject, Ion Saliu would need six decades to analyse
Euromillions.

1st - 0-9
2nd - 10-19
3rd - 20-29
4th - 30-39
5th - 40-49
6th - 50

That's a strong argument for multiples of 10 being agglomerated into the
decade below IMO.

Marmaduke Jinks

2024-03-18 08:28:32 UTC

Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I see Ion Saliu, late of this parish, has a small monograph on it
https://saliu.com/decades.html
MJ

Thank you. His first decade runs from 0-9. I haven't encountered too
many lotteries with a ball 0.

;-)

In view of the subject, Ion Saliu would need six decades to analyse
Euromillions.
1st - 0-9
2nd - 10-19
3rd - 20-29
4th - 30-39
5th - 40-49
6th - 50
That's a strong argument for multiples of 10 being agglomerated into the
decade below IMO.

unless you notionally attach the "50" to 0 - 9. It's a zero last digit
and we know that 0 on its own does not exist.

MJ

2024-03-25 13:41:28 UTC

Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I see Ion Saliu, late of this parish, has a small monograph on it
https://saliu.com/decades.html
MJ

Thank you. His first decade runs from 0-9. I haven't encountered too
many lotteries with a ball 0.

;-)

In view of the subject, Ion Saliu would need six decades to analyse
Euromillions.
1st - 0-9
2nd - 10-19
3rd - 20-29
4th - 30-39
5th - 40-49
6th - 50
That's a strong argument for multiples of 10 being agglomerated into
the decade below IMO.

unless you notionally attach the "50" to 0 - 9. It's a zero last digit
and we know that 0 on its own does not exist.
MJ

For euromillions only...

1..10
11..20
21..30
31..40
41..50

why complicate it

Marmaduke Jinks

2024-03-28 17:40:03 UTC

Post by NN

Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I see Ion Saliu, late of this parish, has a small monograph on it
https://saliu.com/decades.html
MJ

Thank you. His first decade runs from 0-9. I haven't encountered
too many lotteries with a ball 0.

;-)

In view of the subject, Ion Saliu would need six decades to analyse
Euromillions.
1st - 0-9
2nd - 10-19
3rd - 20-29
4th - 30-39
5th - 40-49
6th - 50
That's a strong argument for multiples of 10 being agglomerated into
the decade below IMO.

unless you notionally attach the "50" to 0 - 9. It's a zero last
digit and we know that 0 on its own does not exist.
MJ

For euromillions only...
1..10
11..20
21..30
31..40
41..50
why complicate it

I'm sure you said this to me a few years ago.

Luckily I'm not a follower of "decades".

MJ

nigel

2024-03-13 13:17:29 UTC