Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 243–277 | Cite as

An Analysis of the Distribution of Combinations Chosen by UK National Lottery Players



This paper is concerned with the behaviour of lottery players when they get to choose their own numbers. Most lotto players do not pick combinations at random, but prefer more idiosyncratic techniques when they fill in the play grid. This is highlighted when the actual distribution of combinations for a single draw in the UK National Lottery is examined. A new model of gambler choice is developed and specified, and the resulting distribution of combinations fitted to the empirical data. Various implications of the model are discussed, such as the expected value of lotto tickets for different types of player.

Lotto lottery 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chernoff, Herman. (1981). “How to Beat the Massachusetts Numbers Game,” Mathematical Intelligencer 3(4), 166-172.Google Scholar
  2. Clotfelter, Charles, and Philip Cook. (1989). Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clotfelter, Charles, and Philip Cook. (1991a). “Lotteries in the Real World,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4(3), 227-232.Google Scholar
  4. Clotfelter, Charles, and Philip Cook. (1991b). “The “Gambler's Fallacy” in Lottery Play,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 3769.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, Philip, and Charles Clotfelter. (1993). “The Peculiar Scale Economies of Lotto,” American Economic Review 83(3), 634-643.Google Scholar
  6. Farrell, Lisa et al. (1996). “It Could be You: Rollovers and the Demand for Lottery Tickets,” Keele University Department of Economics Working Paper No. 96/17.Google Scholar
  7. Greenwood, Major, and G. Udny Yule. (1920). “An Inquiry into the Nature of Frequency Distributions representative of Multiple Happenings with particular Reference to the Occurrence of Multiple Attacks of Disease or of Repeated Accidents,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 83, 255-279.Google Scholar
  8. Haigh, John. (1997). “The Statistics of the National Lottery,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 160, 187-206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halpern, Andrea, and Scott Devereaux. (1989). “Lucky numbers: Choice strategies in the Pennsylvania Daily Number Game,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 27(2), 167-170.Google Scholar
  10. Henze, N. (1997). “A statistical and probabilistic analysis of popular lottery tickets,” Statistica Neerlandica 51(2), 155-163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hougaard, Philip, Mei-Ling Ting Lee, and G. A. Whitmore. (1997). “Analysis of Overdispersed Count Data by Mixtures of Poisson Variables an Poisson Processes,” Biometrics 53(4), 1225-1238.Google Scholar
  12. Langer, Ellen. (1982). “The Illusion of Control.” In Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Riedwyl, Hans. (1990). Zahlenlotto: wie man mehr gewinnt. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
  14. Simon, Jonathan. (1996). “The Expected Value of Lotto when not all Numbers are Equal,” European University Institute Economics Department Working Paper No. 97/1.Google Scholar
  15. Stern, Hal, and Thomas Cover. (1989). “Maximum Entropy and the Lottery,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 84, 980-985.Google Scholar
  16. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1974). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science 185 (September), 1124-1131.Google Scholar
  17. Walker, Michael. (1992). The Psychology of Gambling. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  18. Ziemba, William et al. (1986). Dr. Z's 6/49 Lotto Guidebook. Vancouver and Los Angeles: Dr. Z Investments, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
  1. 1.London EconomicsLondon

Personalised recommendations