Winner data since 1997 attached for anyone interested. Any suggestions about extracting notable order from the data set would be much appreciated
How about putting less money into the analysis department and more money into the department usually responsible for coming up with buzzwords? Even if you could get a statistical increase in win chance by 1%, what does that mean if you can't communicate it to the consumers? And trust me, unless you tell them what a freaking awesome deal they're making by buying your overpriced resale tickets - they won't know!
And this is kinda sort of reverse engineering. Once you know how to market the awesome-o deal to the consumers, does it really matter if the
MAXED OUT CHANCE TO WIN BILLIONS[sub](over several rounds - each round is for millions only)[/sub]!!one1 [sub]is actually within the "margin of error"[/sub]
Yes, I'm aware of most countries having laws against fraud, regulations regarding marketing etc, but if you take the remaining funds left for the analysis department and instead throw them into the renowned Department of Law... Why, you might even win a court case vs the state by arguing that there really is no reason to prove anything in order to impose a "stupid tax" on people. No government has to prove the reason for their taxes, they just impose them. And while you certainly have no right to impose stuff on people, this is after all "stupid tax by consent". Additionally, that it is a "stupid tax" can be considered empirically proven post facto
Err, what were we supposed to be proving to begin with anyway?