[RulerOf]

> 1,2,3,4,5,6 is a terrible selection, for example. Not because it is somehow “less random”, but because you’re guaranteed to be splitting that jackpot with a 1,000 other nerds who were trying to prove a point!

Uh... so at first I saw your point, but if your odds of winning never actually change, how is not winning better than splitting a jackpot?

[function_seven]

I guess if you only play one drawing, you’re right. Winning is always better than losing.

But if you play the lottery week after week, year after year—and you always play the same numbers—then you’re ensuring a mediocre prize should you actually get the jackpot.

Playing the lottery is not a mathematically sound decision in any case, but there’s no reason to make it even worse by chopping your potential jackpot winnings down by over 99%

[bongodongobob]

The odds of winning don't change, the odds of splitting the pot change. Certain numbers are picked more than others so to have the best odds of not splitting the pot, random numbers are best.

[rerdavies]

Numbers greater that 31 are better. Almost 30% better! Because you are less likely to split a pot when you win. But not good enough to make playing a lottery ticket a winning propostition.