| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"=?iso-8859-1?B?TeFyaW9WaWN0b3I=?=" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2007 10:47:04 AM |
| Object: |
The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
INTRODUCING THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PLAYERS ASSOCIATION - NALOPA
So far lottery players had no voice. We intend to be a channel to
speak for the players. Would you like to end computerized lottery
drawings? Would you like to have less taxation on lottery prizes?
Would you like to have a hundred chances of winning a jackpot instead
of one for the money you put on lotteries? Would you like to
participate in state decisions that affect the lotteries you play?
Would you like to have lotteries in the state that you live? Would you
like the lottery industry to hear you? JOIN THE ASSOCIATION!
NALOPA LOTTERY JACKPOT SURVEY: two options - three simple questions
OPTIONS:
A) On one hand you have a lottery game that costs $1.00, you pick 6
numbers, and you have ONE CHANCE of winning a hundred million dollars
jackpot.
B) On the other hand you have a lottery game that costs $1.00, you
pick 6 numbers, and you have ONE HUNDRED CHANCES of winning one
million dollars jackpot.
QUESTIONS:
The 1st question: In which lottery game do you prefer to play, A or
B?
The 2nd question: You pay $1.00 to play the "A" lottery game. Would
you pay $1.00 to play the "B" lottery game?
The 3rd question: Would you like to have a game like the "B" in your
jurisdiction?
What if lottery players could have both prizes at the same time? Both
games at the same time? Both options, both games both chances
together
in the same playslip?
JOIN THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PLAYERS ASSOCIATION NOW!
www.nalopa.org
www.nalopas.org
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
05 Sep 2007 12:02:28 PM |
|
|
MárioVictor <mvsmuniz@gmail.com> said:
<...>
NALOPA LOTTERY JACKPOT SURVEY: two options - three simple questions
OPTIONS:
A) On one hand you have a lottery game that costs $1.00, you pick 6
numbers, and you have ONE CHANCE of winning a hundred million dollars
jackpot.
B) On the other hand you have a lottery game that costs $1.00, you
pick 6 numbers, and you have ONE HUNDRED CHANCES of winning one
million dollars jackpot.
QUESTIONS:
The 1st question: In which lottery game do you prefer to play, A or
B?
Insufficient information. If the your percentage of total chances that
have been sold compared to the total that have been sold to all buyers
is the same, there is no difference.
JOIN THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PLAYERS ASSOCIATION NOW!
The name should be THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PATSIES ASSOCIATION.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
05 Sep 2007 01:46:07 PM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 10:02 am, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
Insufficient information. If the your percentage of total chances that
have been sold compared to the total that have been sold to all buyers
is the same, there is no difference.
Nonsense. Your chance of winning at least $50,000, for example, is
much higher in lottery B. To some people, for good, rational reasons,
that might be important.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
05 Sep 2007 03:43:15 PM |
|
|
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> said:
On Sep 5, 10:02 am, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
Insufficient information. If the your percentage of total chances that
have been sold compared to the total that have been sold to all buyers
is the same, there is no difference.
Nonsense. Your chance of winning at least $50,000, for example, is
much higher in lottery B. To some people, for good, rational reasons,
that might be important.
The setup is not about $50,000. Here's what was said:
OPTIONS:
A) On one hand you have a lottery game that costs $1.00, you pick 6
numbers, and you have ONE CHANCE of winning a hundred million dollars
jackpot.
B) On the other hand you have a lottery game that costs $1.00, you
pick 6 numbers, and you have ONE HUNDRED CHANCES of winning one
million dollars jackpot.
Now obviously, the total number of $1.00 lottery tickets sold has to
be above 100 million, if the lottery is to pay its expenses and make
profits, so the expectation of any rational bettor, given these
expenses and profits, is to lose money in either case.
But let's say it is a square lottery that returns all moneys bet, and
it is $100 million that is bet. In option A, your expected return is
(1/100 million) times 100 million = $1.00. In option B, it is 100
times (1/100 million) times one million = $1.00. No difference.
And the probability in either case, is vanishingly small. Somebody
will win, but don't place any side bets on it being you, unless you
can get better odds than are against you in the lottery.
And then there are the taxes.
So, rational analysis of parting with one dollar does not support
parting with it in a lottery, no matter whether A or B is chosen.
Don't gamble in lotteries for the returns, do it for the thrill.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
06 Sep 2007 10:55:58 PM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 1:43 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> said:
On Sep 5, 10:02 am, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
Nonsense. Your chance of winning at least $50,000, for example, is
much higher in lottery B. To some people, for good, rational reasons,
that might be important.
The setup is not about $50,000. Here's what was said:
Umm, what? That's a total non-sequiter.
So, rational analysis of parting with one dollar does not support
parting with it in a lottery, no matter whether A or B is chosen.
Don't gamble in lotteries for the returns, do it for the thrill.
Consider the following situation:
A person's wife is in serious danger of dying. Medical care to save
her will cost $30,000. Without her, life is barely worth living. You
have no source of income other than the lottery.
A rational person in such a situation may well play the lottery, since
that at least gives him *some* chance of saving his wife. For such a
person, lottery B is a much better deal, since his chance of saving
his wife's life is about 100 times greater.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
07 Sep 2007 01:31:01 AM |
|
|
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> said:
On Sep 5, 1:43 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> said:
Pity that you keep snipping the setup out. Why is that?
On Sep 5, 10:02 am, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
Nonsense. Your chance of winning at least $50,000, for example, is
much higher in lottery B. To some people, for good, rational reasons,
that might be important.
The setup is not about $50,000. Here's what was said:
Umm, what? That's a total non-sequiter.
You fail to see that your mention of $50,000 and my mention of it are
in succeeding paragraphs?
So, rational analysis of parting with one dollar does not support
parting with it in a lottery, no matter whether A or B is chosen.
Don't gamble in lotteries for the returns, do it for the thrill.
Consider the following situation:
OK, you are adding hypotheticals. We can play that way.
A person's wife is in serious danger of dying. Medical care to save
her will cost $30,000. Without her, life is barely worth living. You
have no source of income other than the lottery.
If person buys a ticket in lottery A, his uncle gives him a billion
dollars, but if he buys in lottery B, the uncle kills the wife. How's
that for adding a hypothetical?
A rational person in such a situation may well play the lottery, since
that at least gives him *some* chance of saving his wife. For such a
person, lottery B is a much better deal, since his chance of saving
his wife's life is about 100 times greater.
Lottery A, with the uncle, is far better.
Now.
Back to the real world.
Nobody should think their return will be better under B.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
08 Sep 2007 03:47:48 AM |
|
|
On Sep 6, 11:31 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
Lottery A, with the uncle, is far better.
If you aren't interested in reasoning, you can just say so. No need to
waste everyone's time and bandwidth.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
08 Sep 2007 10:09:24 AM |
|
|
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> said:
On Sep 6, 11:31 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
Lottery A, with the uncle, is far better.
If you aren't interested in reasoning, you can just say so. No need to
waste everyone's time and bandwidth.
DS
I understand and agree with your point that a situation can be
imagined in which a rational person will opt for the lower payoff,
higher odds bet. You example is sound. So is my counterexample, for
the opposing bet.
How's that?
However, my point is that the expected return of the bets, in the
example given is the same. THe "expected return" of saving the wife by
betting is vanishingly small in either case, but you are right, if is
higher if the lower payoff, higher odds bet is made -- if the uncle is
kept away.;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
08 Sep 2007 07:10:45 PM |
|
|
On Sep 8, 8:09 am, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
I understand and agree with your point that a situation can be
imagined in which a rational person will opt for the lower payoff,
higher odds bet. You example is sound. So is my counterexample, for
the opposing bet.
Your counterexample is nonsense. You can always argue that A is better
than B by assuming that if you choose A, something outside the example
will give you a reward the exceeds the value of choosing B over A. If
that something is reasonable, the argument is reasonable. If it's not,
it's not.
How's that?
So an argument can be both sound and unreasonable?
However, my point is that the expected return of the bets, in the
example given is the same.
Your argument is incorrect because it assumes that the value of a
dollar is constant. It is not. A million dollars is not worth twice as
much as $500,000 but in most cases, much less than that. For example,
both a million dollars and $500,000 will permit me to extinguish all
my debt and own my house free-and-clear. That's a significant load off
my mind that's worth way more than the difference an extra $500,000
would make.
THe "expected return" of saving the wife by
betting is vanishingly small in either case, but you are right, if is
higher if the lower payoff, higher odds bet is made -- if the uncle is
kept away.;-)
The point is that dollars are not the right units in which to measure
human happiness or utility, and what matters to a reasonable person is
expected happiness or utility. You cannot compute the happiness or
utility by multiplying odds by dollars. Your method of analysis is
simply fundamentally incorrect. There may be a very small number of
people it applies to, but it doesn't apply to most normal people.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
08 Sep 2007 07:58:33 PM |
|
|
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> said:
On Sep 8, 8:09 am, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
I understand and agree with your point that a situation can be
imagined in which a rational person will opt for the lower payoff,
higher odds bet. You example is sound. So is my counterexample, for
the opposing bet.
Your counterexample is nonsense. You can always argue that A is better
than B by assuming that if you choose A, something outside the example
will give you a reward the exceeds the value of choosing B over A. If
that something is reasonable, the argument is reasonable. If it's not,
it's not.
THat's true. We can imagine cases where B is a more rational choice
than A, and vice versa. My counterexample was intentionally unlikely.
How's that?
So an argument can be both sound and unreasonable?
I was asking how's that for not being a waste of time and band width.
Evidently, it's not a waste.
However, my point is that the expected return of the bets, in the
example given is the same.
Your argument is incorrect because it assumes that the value of a
dollar is constant. It is not. A million dollars is not worth twice as
much as $500,000 but in most cases, much less than that. For example,
both a million dollars and $500,000 will permit me to extinguish all
my debt and own my house free-and-clear. That's a significant load off
my mind that's worth way more than the difference an extra $500,000
would make.
That depends on your debt. It the mafia wants 2mm and you win 1mm, you
are still dead.
However, you neglect the fact that your chances are still vanishingly
small. If it is the mafia, it is best to buy whatever ticket might
return enough to pay off the debt, *and* get out of town.
THe "expected return" of saving the wife by
betting is vanishingly small in either case, but you are right, if is
higher if the lower payoff, higher odds bet is made -- if the uncle is
kept away.;-)
The point is that dollars are not the right units in which to measure
human happiness or utility, and what matters to a reasonable person is
expected happiness or utility. You cannot compute the happiness or
utility by multiplying odds by dollars. Your method of analysis is
simply fundamentally incorrect. There may be a very small number of
people it applies to, but it doesn't apply to most normal people.
Quite the opposite is true. You are presenting a hypothetical
self-interested rational person, not rational people as they are. The
payoff for rational people as the are is clearly, the thrill involved
in fantasizing about the huge payoff. It's worth the miserably low odd
of actually winning.
Given the odds of winning in either of the two examples that were
given, my method applies to almost everyone who actually exists. Very
few people are in the situation you describe when they buy lottery
tickets; I dare say the order of magnitude is the same as those having
the evil uncle I describe. How do you know the utility curve of
lottery participants? Isn't it expressed by the facts? Don't you think
lotteries' payouts are designed to maximize income to the lottery?
It's a market-driven situation. If payout of lower amounts, to more
people, maximized lottery profits for those running them, why do we
have lotteries going in the other direction?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
10 Sep 2007 02:12:18 PM |
|
|
On Sep 8, 5:58 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
Given the odds of winning in either of the two examples that were
given, my method applies to almost everyone who actually exists. Very
few people are in the situation you describe when they buy lottery
tickets; I dare say the order of magnitude is the same as those having
the evil uncle I describe. How do you know the utility curve of
lottery participants? Isn't it expressed by the facts? Don't you think
lotteries' payouts are designed to maximize income to the lottery?
It's a market-driven situation. If payout of lower amounts, to more
people, maximized lottery profits for those running them, why do we
have lotteries going in the other direction?
I don't think you can get an answer unless you hypothesize a "rational
lottery player" and ask how he would compare the value of the two
payoffs. Lotteries are likely not tuned to such a rational player, so
you can't assume that the lotteries that actually exist are the ones a
rational player would prefer. Rational players probably wouldn't play
any lotteries at all.
You need an unusual situation for it to be rational to play in a
lottery. So you can do one of two things. You can analyze what
irrational lottery players should prefer, an exercise is insanity and
frustration, or you can hypothesize a rational lottery player. You
seem to prefer the former, myself the latter. ;)
DS
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
10 Sep 2007 05:02:07 PM |
|
|
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> said:
On Sep 8, 5:58 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:
Given the odds of winning in either of the two examples that were
given, my method applies to almost everyone who actually exists. Very
few people are in the situation you describe when they buy lottery
tickets; I dare say the order of magnitude is the same as those having
the evil uncle I describe. How do you know the utility curve of
lottery participants? Isn't it expressed by the facts? Don't you think
lotteries' payouts are designed to maximize income to the lottery?
It's a market-driven situation. If payout of lower amounts, to more
people, maximized lottery profits for those running them, why do we
have lotteries going in the other direction?
I don't think you can get an answer unless you hypothesize a "rational
lottery player" and ask how he would compare the value of the two
payoffs. Lotteries are likely not tuned to such a rational player, so
you can't assume that the lotteries that actually exist are the ones a
rational player would prefer. Rational players probably wouldn't play
any lotteries at all.
You need an unusual situation for it to be rational to play in a
lottery. So you can do one of two things. You can analyze what
irrational lottery players should prefer, an exercise is insanity and
frustration, or you can hypothesize a rational lottery player. You
seem to prefer the former, myself the latter. ;)
Sort of. ;-) I thought i was dealing only with the expected *dollar*
return aspect of the options, to eliminate one potential source of
irrational thinking.
The "rational person" you are hypothesizing is someone who feels a
compelling desire (that we can relate to) that has a 10 to the -8
chance of being satisfied by option A, and a 10 to the -6 chance of
being satisfied by option B. If having the trivially more probable
chance B to save his wife makes him feel better (more dutiful, etc.)
than having chance A, and also better than having the dollar, and if
feeling better is what he wants, then it is rational for him to bet on
B.
But one thing that all such examples must acknowledge is that the
rational thought process is in service of a desire. I assume you do
not call a lottery player irrational merely on the basis of what he
desires; but would call him irrational if his reasoning out how
maximize the odds of satisfying that desire is faulty. I wanted to
point out that any reasoning under which A or B was considered to have
the greater expected *dollar* return, is faulty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
05 Sep 2007 10:51:51 PM |
|
|
MárioVictor <mvsmuniz@gmail.com> said:
INTRODUCING THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PLAYERS ASSOCIATION - NALOPA
INTRODUCING THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PATSIES ASSOCIATION - NALOPA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
05 Sep 2007 08:00:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:47:04 -0700, MárioVictor <mvsmuniz@gmail.com>
wrote:
INTRODUCING THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PLAYERS ASSOCIATION - NALOPA
So far lottery players had no voice.
Lotteries are a Stupidity Tax.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
05 Sep 2007 10:50:31 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> said:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:47:04 -0700, MárioVictor <mvsmuniz@gmail.com>
wrote:
INTRODUCING THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PLAYERS ASSOCIATION - NALOPA
So far lottery players had no voice.
Lotteries are a Stupidity Tax.
I saw a person going back again and again to the lottery machine
today. Probably spending his government check.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
10 Sep 2007 05:56:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:30:27 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:47:04 -0700, MárioVictor <mvsmuniz@gmail.com>
wrote:
INTRODUCING THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PLAYERS ASSOCIATION - NALOPA
So far lottery players had no voice.
Lotteries are a Stupidity Tax.
I nearly won last week.
I was only four white and one red ball shy ;-)
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The chances of winning a lottery jackpot |
10 Sep 2007 05:54:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:47:04 -0700, MárioVictor <mvsmuniz@gmail.com>
wrote:
INTRODUCING THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PLAYERS ASSOCIATION - NALOPA
So far lottery players had no voice. We intend to be a channel to
speak for the players. Would you like to end computerized lottery
drawings? Would you like to have less taxation on lottery prizes?
Would you like to have a hundred chances of winning a jackpot instead
of one for the money you put on lotteries? Would you like to
participate in state decisions that affect the lotteries you play?
Would you like to have lotteries in the state that you live? Would you
like the lottery industry to hear you? JOIN THE ASSOCIATION!
NALOPA LOTTERY JACKPOT SURVEY: two options - three simple questions
OPTIONS:
A) On one hand you have a lottery game that costs $1.00, you pick 6
numbers, and you have ONE CHANCE of winning a hundred million dollars
jackpot.
B) On the other hand you have a lottery game that costs $1.00, you
pick 6 numbers, and you have ONE HUNDRED CHANCES of winning one
million dollars jackpot.
One hundred chances in how many millions?
Given the actual odds the suggestion seems a bit deceptive.
You can in fact "increase your odds" of winning one million dollars by
choosing the power play option and paying two dollars rather than one
but your odds haven't really increased enough to make it worthwhile.
To even call it an increase in your odds of winning is almost silly.
QUESTIONS:
The 1st question: In which lottery game do you prefer to play, A or
B?
And:
http://powerball.com/pb_contact.asp
"We do get mail from persons offering ideas that promise to double or
triple our sales in the game.
We also get a lot of mail that starts - "Everyone I talk to agrees
that Powerball should pay more and smaller prizes, who needs $XXX
million!!!"
After players told us that in focus groups, we actually started that
game.
No one played.
Lotteries need to create a variety of games that appeal to different
players.
Powerball is a game that appeals to those players who want to play for
large jackpots.
There are other games that offer better odds (and so, lower jackpot
amounts).
Sales for a Powerball drawing can vary from $16 million to $200
million.
You might guess which jackpot levels bring the most sales.
Players vote with their dollars on the jackpot levels they prefer and
we must listen to our customers.
Powerball is actually two games in one – a big jackpot game and a big
Cash 5 game.
By adding the Power Play option, a player can even increase the Cash 5
part of the game to a $1 million cash prize. Players who want to play
for that prize level – at much better odds – can do that in Powerball
and, with the Power Play, can actually redesign the prize structure to
fit their wishes."
The 2nd question: You pay $1.00 to play the "A" lottery game. Would
you pay $1.00 to play the "B" lottery game?
The 3rd question: Would you like to have a game like the "B" in your
jurisdiction?
What if lottery players could have both prizes at the same time? Both
games at the same time? Both options, both games both chances
together
in the same playslip?
JOIN THE NORTH AMERICAN LOTTERY PLAYERS ASSOCIATION NOW!
www.nalopa.org
www.nalopas.org
How much to join?
Your chances of getting what you want are about as good as my chances
for winning Powerball.
I would rather spend the money on tickets.
Pretty soon I should have enough to paper my bedroom.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
If the flying chances can slide nevertheless, the remarkable hope may sigh more norths.
Zogby, Bush Helped DEFEAT GOP VA Election Chances (GOP, The Party of Treason)
Uh, "Dr" Jason, Wouldn't It Help Your Election Chances If Your Name Were Actually *On* The Ballot?
Re : : Even Kenny-Boy doesn't like Bush's chances
OT: After Dinner Down Under, Chances Are It'll Be a 'Sticky'
Abortion Triples Chances of Future Low Birthweight Babies New Study Confirms
What are the chances...?
China Sees Chances for Fun and Profit Offshore
| Postal Lottery: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEED
The Lottery - an idea worth disussing?
Wicca teacher claims 1 Mega Lottery ticket
Postal Lottery: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEED
~~ Mega Millions lottery winner made pact with Wiccan gods ~~
Intelligent Lottery Winning Force
OT: Harmless Thread Attempt! What would you do if you won the lottery?
|
|
|
