It's called a slow news day. So let's talk about the lottery. If it is true that there are 10,000 people with the numbers 1-6, do we have stats on how many have other obvious combinations. Difficult to comment on the stupidity or otherwise of these 10,000 without this. And another thing .. no, you're right, Romsey. There is only so much you can say about the Lotto which goes to show how bored we all are with waiting the grand unveiling of the third choice left back from Limerick, bought in for £5,000 and a packet of crisps. Supporting Saints, eh. Why didn't my mother warn me?
Everyday l check BBC EPL sports page at around 5.30am; then it seems every 2-3 hours until about 11.00pm to see it we have either sacked MP2 or involved in some transfer rumour but always left underwhelmed. I feel myself inwardly take a deep breath as the page uploads only to be left with a sense of disapointment. I am often left of late feeling underwhelmed by our lack of transfer activity but this must be the worst in recent memory because we all see so much that needs to be rectified.
Why have we got all these "Saint Leo, Tim, Cristiano", or whatever their names are when the players have not even boarded the plane yet? If I see another before pen is put to paper, I'll start a "Saint Oscar" thread.
I wasn't thinking of him! I was thinking of my friend's dog, chunky but fast, and she is definitely not a football fan.
Someone told me a while ago that if the lottery numbers are all 31 or lower then you always have multiple winners as a lot of people just pick birthdays as their numbers. Seemed logical so never bothered finding out if it was true. As for me if I play which is pretty rare I always do a lucky dip. Pretty sure I’d be suicidal if I always picked the same numbers and they came in when I wasn’t playing. Transfer rumours - we aren’t signing Promes. Getting Wayne Routledge on loan, as long as Swansea pay his wages
Yep, the clock did have their own team a few years back and were half decent i think.... i miss pub footy.
Surely all numbers have the same chance, so although I wouldn't pick those numbers, they are as likely to come up as any other six. If I remember correctly, the earliest (or one of the earliest) lottery winners did pick some strange numbers....with 3 consecutive ones (I may have made that up).
Well whilst we're all waiting for the first rumour with any actual substance or evidence, here's that lottery article I read: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...tery-numbers-20-years-katie-price-win-jackpot
It's definitely stupid for prizes that are shared, so if you're dreaming on that 100m, good luck. At the same time, I appreciated the logic of the person who played those numbers at the convenience store where I worked as a teenager. Basically, it's easy to convince yourself that you were "so close" to a payout when you get one number right, and you were only off by one here, and only off by two on a couple more, etc, when in reality 32 is no closer to 31 than any other number in a random draw. So they played 1-2-3-4-5-6 on the occasions where they played because it kept them realistic about their chances of winning anything (the lottery in question was a guaranteed $1m CAD, so the only ones suffering if those numbers hit would be the government that would suddenly have to dole out hundreds of millions).
