[2011-Dec-04]

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2011-Dec-04]

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by Mr. Coffee » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:16 pm

msg wrote:While the expected value may be negative it doesn't mean that purchasing a lottery ticket is not rational.

As an extreme example suppose you need $1,000,000 to pay off the mob otherwise they come and kill you. If you don't buy the ticket you're going to die where as if you do buy the ticket you might not. More generally it's naive to suggest that the value of money to an individual is a linear function.
Why not cut out the middleman and have someone threaten to kill you if you don't purchase a ticket?

There is a threshold, probably before you hit the million, where you can leverage the money to evade the mob. Whatever money you could spend on lottery tickets would give a much better return spent trying to either hide or move out of reach. Granted a few dollars wouldn't do much, but anything is more useful weighed against the absurdly low chance of winning the lottery. Point is, the scenario needs to be absolute for the purchase to be practical and reality is never such.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by smiley_cow » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:13 pm

Ah, OK, that makes more sense. In skimming the thread the argument seemed to come out of nowhere.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by DonRetrasado » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:59 pm

smiley_cow wrote:
DonRetrasado wrote:Well do you know anyone who has lost everything to gambling? Your experience might be limited here. Personally I haven't known anyone who went up to me and said "I have a gambling problem" but I know pretty well they exist.
I'm confused by the gambling addict argument in general. I'm not sure how it's relevant. Everybody who smokes is putting themselves at risk of serious disease. Not everyone who plays the lottery has a gambling problem. Even considering addicts, it doesn't make the two comparable. Not to mention if we were to assume this comic was specifically about people with an addiction instead of the people who tend to just buy one ticket every once in a while for fun: there's problematic issues involved in saying you disapprove of the behaviour of addicts, as though they're being immoral instead of real people who need real help.

Also it would be like if Zach if had made a comic demonizing all alcohol and saying he disapproved of anyone who drank it and when people objected pointing out alcoholics. It's not really that simple.
It was more like I didn't like Zach going "everyone who buys a lottery ticket is a moron" or people going "playing the lottery never hurts anyone". Neither of those are actually true.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by smiley_cow » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:26 pm

DonRetrasado wrote:Well do you know anyone who has lost everything to gambling? Your experience might be limited here. Personally I haven't known anyone who went up to me and said "I have a gambling problem" but I know pretty well they exist.
I'm confused by the gambling addict argument in general. I'm not sure how it's relevant. Everybody who smokes is putting themselves at risk of serious disease. Not everyone who plays the lottery has a gambling problem. Even considering addicts, it doesn't make the two comparable. Not to mention if we were to assume this comic was specifically about people with an addiction instead of the people who tend to just buy one ticket every once in a while for fun: there's problematic issues involved in saying you disapprove of the behaviour of addicts, as though they're being immoral instead of real people who need real help.

Also it would be like if Zach if had made a comic demonizing all alcohol and saying he disapproved of anyone who drank it and when people objected pointing out alcoholics. It's not really that simple.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by Felstaff » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:30 pm

It's called Gambler's Fallacy.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by LORD RACIST SATAN » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:20 pm

I feel like there is something wrong with thinking of buying a second ticket after you've lost the lottery as being better in terms of odds than buying the second ticket before you lost with the first one.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by Eisbreaker » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:54 pm

Jiro wrote:I'll buy you all a house.
Fine. If you insist, I will allow it this time. But don't get used to it.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by Jiro » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:46 pm

Where can I find a $1 lottery. Seriously you can maybe buy a raffle ticket to win a $20 meat tray at the local rsl for a dollar. It costs way more than that to play the lottery.

Also I've already won the british lottery seven times according to my emails. I'll buy you all a house.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by Guest12345 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:46 am

The comic is obviously wrong: "Summing up our conclusions, it's much better to play in a week with a big jackpot than a small one (duh!) but even in a week with a near record jackpot (second largest in history) the lottery is only almost but not quite a break even proposition."

That being said, while your odds of winning the lottery improve significantly when going from zero tickets to one ticket, no significant increase in odds occurs with each additional ticket.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by FUCK YOU THAT'S WHY » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:52 am

Gangler wrote:
DonRetrasado wrote:Yes, but most people buy more than one ticket.
I've actually never known anyone who does. I mean with two tickets your chances are about as miserable as with one. Surprises me that this would be at all commonplace.
I've never known someone to own a snake.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by Gangler » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:43 am

Well yeah, of course my experience is limited. I'm in my twenties and large chunks of my life have been spent as a near-shut in. Not saying you're wrong at all, just saying it surprises me. All the people I know who partake in the lottery either buy a ticket every paycheck, or just grab one once in a blue moon when they're feeling down. Then there's the people who just chip in for their work pool, but I'm not really sure if they count.

As far as addiction goes though that seems a little off-track though. I have known a few addicts, though no gambling addicts, and their behavior was decidedly exceptional. Wouldn't think they represent most people so much as they represent a specific debilitating dysfunction.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by DonRetrasado » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:06 am

Well do you know anyone who has lost everything to gambling? Your experience might be limited here. Personally I haven't known anyone who went up to me and said "I have a gambling problem" but I know pretty well they exist.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by Gangler » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:24 am

DonRetrasado wrote:Yes, but most people buy more than one ticket.
I've actually never known anyone who does. I mean with two tickets your chances are about as miserable as with one. Surprises me that this would be at all commonplace.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by Oldrac the Chitinous » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:08 am

I had no idea SMBC was so big with lottery commissioners.

Re: 2011 Dec 4

by DonRetrasado » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:00 am

Yes, but most people buy more than one ticket.

Top