Stories of Lottery “Mathematical Winners”
The Stefan Mandel saga: how one man beat the system (almost)

Who Is Stefan Mandel?
Stefan Mandel is a Romanian-Australian economist who became famous for winning the lottery 14 times—not by luck, but by mathematics and logistics. His approach wasn’t based on predicting lucky numbers—it was based on buying every possible combination in lotteries where the jackpot exceeded the cost to do so.
The 6-Step System
Mandel developed a step-by-step method:
- Calculate possible combinations, e.g. 6 numbers from 1–40 equals 3,838,380 combinations
- Target lotteries where the jackpot was at least three times the cost to cover all combinations
- Raise funds by forming a syndicate of investors, such as his International Lotto Fund
- Generate and print tickets, often at home using custom software when allowed
- Purchase tickets en masse right before the draw, coordinating with retailers
- Win—and distribute the prize, usually pocketing a small cut after investor payouts
This wasn’t hypothetical—it worked. Mandel won twice in Romania, 12 times in Australia, and once in the U.S.—including a massive $27 M jackpot in Virginia in 1992
The Fallout: Rule Changes & Scrutiny
Mandel’s massive sweeps didn’t go unnoticed. He faced investigations by the FBI and CIA, although authorities eventually found nothing illegal. However, his exploits triggered regulatory changes:
- Australia and U.S. states banned bulk ticket purchasing and home-printed tickets
- Most lotteries now cap ticket purchases per person or require in-store transactions.
This effectively closed the loophole Mandel exploited.
Legacy: Math vs. Chance
Mandel’s story is one of brilliance and opportunism—and a reminder that systems can be gamed when when rules allow. His method relied on:
- A deep understanding of combinations
- Strategic fundraising and syndicate creation
- Clever use of legal gaps before regulators responded
In today’s heavily regulated lotteries, his approach is no longer viable—but his saga remains a classic case of method vs. chance.