Viewing last 25 versions of post by Ereiam in topic Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

[@Khamzat Chimaev](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5297777#post_5297777)
Apparently, the explanation is that the numbers that came up were all multiples of 9 (an unlikely event, but it had the same odds of happening as literally any other number sequence), and thus luck simply favored those who used that pattern to fill their grid.

It isn't the first time something like that happened too: in 2016 in UK, there were more than 4000 lucky Lotto punters who had picked the winning sequence of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 (all multiples of 7).

That's the inconvenient with picking lottery numbers through a simple pattern that anyone else could use: the only guarantee ithey gives you is that you'll have to share your prize with all those who did the same if you win.

[@Khamzat Chimaev](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5297777#post_5297777)
Apparently, the explanation is that the numbers that came up were all multiples of 9 (an unlikely event, but it had the same odds of happening as literally any other number sequence), and thus luck simply favored those who used that pattern to fill their grid.

It isn't the first time something like that happened too: in 2016 in UK, there were more than 4000 lucky Lotto punters who had picked the winning sequence of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 (all multiples of 7).

That's the inconvenient with picking lottery numbers through a simple pattern that anyone else could use: the only guarantee they gifve you win,s expecthat you'll have to share your prize with all those who did the same if you win.

[@Khamzat Chimaev](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5297777#post_5297777)
Apparently, the explanation is that the numbers that came up were all multiples of 9 (an unlikely event, but it had the same odds of happening as literally any other number sequence), and thus luck simply favored those who used that pattern to fill their grid.

It isn't the first time something like that happened too: in 2016 in UK, there were more than 4000 lucky Lotto punters who had picked the winning sequence of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 (all multiples of 7).

That's the inconvenient with picking lottery numbers through a simple pattern that anyone else could use: if you win, expect to share your prize with all those who did the same.

[@Khamzat Chimaev](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5297777#post_5297777)
Apparently, the explanation is that the numbers that came up were all multiples of 9 (an unlikely event, but it had the same odds of happening as literally any other number sequence), and thus luck simply favored those who used that pattern to fill their grid.

It isn't the first time something like that happened too: in 2016 in UK, there were more than 4000 lucky Lotto punters who had picked the winning sequence of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 (all multiples of 7).

That's the inconvenient with picking lottery numbers through a simple pattern that anyone else could use: if you win, expect to share your prize with all those who did the same.

[@Khamzat Chimaev](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5297777#post_5297777)
Apparently, the explanation is that the numbers that came up were all multiples of 9 (an unlikely event, but it had the same odds of happening as literally any other number sequence), and thus luck simply favored those who used that pattern to fill their grid.

It isn't the first time something like that happened too: in 2016 in UK, there were more than 4000 lucky Lotto punters who had picked the winning sequence of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 (all multiples of 7).

[@Khamzat Chimaev](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5297777#post_5297777)
Apparently, the explanation is that the numbers that came up were all multiples of 9 (an unlikely event, but it had the same odds tof happening as literally any other number sequence), and thus luck simply favored those who used that pattern to fill their grid.

It isn't the first time it happened too: in 2016 in UK, there were more than 4000 lucky Lotto punters who had picked the winning sequence of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 (all multiples of 7).

[@Khamzat Chimaev](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5297777#post_5297777)
Apparently, the explanation is that the numbers that came up were all multiples of 9 (an unlikely event, but it had the same odds than literally any other number sequence), and thus luck simply favored those who pickused that pattern to fill their grid.

It isn't the first time it happened too: in 2016 in UK, there were more than 4000 lucky Lotto punters who had picked the winning sequence of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 (all multiples of 7).

[@Khamzat Chimaev](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5297777#post_5297777)
Apparently, the explanation is that the numbers that came up were all multiples of 9 (an unlikely event, but it had the same odds than literally any other number sequence), and thus luck simply favored those who picked that pattern.

It isn't the first time it happened too: in 2016 in UK, there were more than 4000 lucky Lotto wipunnters who had picked the winning sequence of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 (all multiples of 7).

[@Khamzat Chimaev](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5297777#post_5297777)
Apparently, the explanation is that the numbers that came up were all multiples of 9 (an unlikely event, but it had the same odds than literally any other number sequence), and thus luck simply favored those who picked that pattern.

It isn't the first time it happened too: in 2016 in UK, there were more than 4000 lucky Lotto winners who had picked the winning sequence of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 (all multiples of 7).