My favourite line in the whole article was about the way he alerted the lottery board:
"The package was sent at 10 am. Two hours later, he received a call from Zufelt. Srivastava had correctly predicted 19 out of the 20 tickets. The next day, the tic-tac-toe game was pulled from stores."
I know that we're supposed to be fascinated by the statistical work done cracking the code, but my real sympathy is for the head of security that received that package. How do you react in such a situation?
As an aside, the statistician seems really cool too - it's a very forthright interview and the article's much better than I expected. Both the statistician and the author seem to be very surprised by the lack of concern shown for the apparent evidence of security breaches. This, of course, has a direct analogue with the way large multi-nationals treat computer security. I was only surprised to get to the end of the article and not find that the statistician had been threatened with prosecution or similar.
"I found it hard to believe that only this tic-tac-toe game was flawed. What were the odds that I just happened to stumble upon the only breakable game the very first time I played the lottery? Of course, I knew it was possible that every other scratch game was totally secure. I just didn’t think it was very likely."
The cynical bastard in me thinks that There Is A Chance To Beat The Lottery is the best headline a lottery PR team could ever hope for. It is like card counting in Vegas: a problem if and only if you can do it well.
Except "counting the cards" in the lottery version is trivial compared to doing it for real. Like the article said, he taught it to his eight year old daughter.
Right: that is the perfect target for the math abilities of the average lottery player. Do a controlled loss on one game, receive PR bonanza and watch as millions of lottery winners learn how to "outsmart" the lottery, introduce Game 2 with the same mechanic and cards which are countable in a fashion which is not exploitable, and watch as ticket sales soar.
This would be evil, of course, but if you're running a lottery your entire business is stealing money from poor people.
or people well assume it's an inside job from the start. That the majority of winning tickets are snatched up before they ever show up at the gas station.
buy a corner store or gas station with other clean(er) money, and become a lottery ticket merchant. place winners on your customers to keep people coming back.
the hunch is that it will pay out, but not how much. what if this woman in texas had 5 marked "winners" from a dirty merchant "placed" on her when she bought it to avoid a misplaced accusation?
I'm very surprised that he wasn't arrested, prosecuted, served with an injunction not to talk about this and have all his computers confiscated.
The lottery commission in BC is on it's Nth major criminal investigation - but the trick here seems to be the simpler method of the shop stealing winning tickets from customers.
"The package was sent at 10 am. Two hours later, he received a call from Zufelt. Srivastava had correctly predicted 19 out of the 20 tickets. The next day, the tic-tac-toe game was pulled from stores."
I know that we're supposed to be fascinated by the statistical work done cracking the code, but my real sympathy is for the head of security that received that package. How do you react in such a situation?
As an aside, the statistician seems really cool too - it's a very forthright interview and the article's much better than I expected. Both the statistician and the author seem to be very surprised by the lack of concern shown for the apparent evidence of security breaches. This, of course, has a direct analogue with the way large multi-nationals treat computer security. I was only surprised to get to the end of the article and not find that the statistician had been threatened with prosecution or similar.