Announcement

**Rufus T. Firefly** · November 6, 2002, 01:52

Originally posted by Sava

Ignorance should be punished at every opprotunity.

Lotteries don't punish ignorance, they encourage it; far from being clear about the unlikely nature of winning, lottery ads tend to obscure them, instead urging people on with slogans like "You can't win if you don't play."

Now, you could say believing advertising is just another form of ignorance that should be punished. But that's not the point. The point is, the State -- my state -- should not be deliberately using dubious rhetoric to lure its own citizenry into games of chance. If Bally's Casinos want to do so, that's one thing, however lamentable. But that is absolutely NOT what a government should be doing in a democratic society.

**David Floyd** · November 6, 2002, 01:55

The point is, the State -- my state -- should not be deliberately using dubious rhetoric to lure its own citizenry into games of chance.

But it's OK for them to use men with guns to force you to pay property taxes, abide by drug laws, and any number of other INVOLUNTARY measures?

That's doesn't make any sense at all.

**Ramo** · November 6, 2002, 02:03

The reasoning that because the state does one immoral thing, having it do other immoral things is ok doesn't make sense at all.

Yes, stupid people. Not ignorant people. Unless they are retarded, in the literal sense, they have the capacity to understand that the lottery does not have good odds of winning.

Being stupid implies that they don't have such a capacity. And "good odds of winning" is not as the same as "reasonable odds of winning" which I don't think is totally trivial.

**David Floyd** · November 6, 2002, 02:06

The reasoning that because the state does one immoral thing, having it do other immoral things is ok doesn't make sense at all.

OK, but I'm not sure I see how it is immoral for the state to provide a VOLUNTARY program that allows one or more people to become wealthy, and also provides a good amount of tax revenues for the state.

Hell, I'd support a NATIONAL lottery as a revenue raiser.

Being stupid implies that they don't have such a capacity.

Call it willfully blind, then. Semantics aside, it's an emminently logical fact that EVERYONE has at least some inkling of the odds involved with the lottery.

And "good odds of winning" is not as the same as "reasonable odds of winning" which I don't think is totally trivial.

Not sure I see your point.

**JohnT** · November 6, 2002, 02:09

"Imminently", David. And how is it logical?

**Lefty Scaevola** · November 6, 2002, 02:10

His point is that he buys lottery tickets and does not think of himself as stupid. Let us just say then that he bought them for the entertainment value associated with gambling, rather than as a meas to increase his net worth; that would be rational.

**Ramo** · November 6, 2002, 02:14

DF, let's say there's a lottery with 6 spots that each can be 0-9, but the numbers must be distinct. What do you (no one else answer) think is the probability of getting the right sequence?

OK, but I'm not sure I see how it is immoral for the state to provide a VOLUNTARY program that allows one or more people to become wealthy, and also provides a good amount of tax revenues for the state.

Do you think it's moral for the government to deal cocaine?

**JohnT** · November 6, 2002, 02:15

Edited out as per Ramo's request.

**Ramo** · November 6, 2002, 02:19

Only David can answer.

**David Floyd** · November 6, 2002, 02:38

DF, let's say there's a lottery with 6 spots that each can be 0-9, but the numbers must be distinct. What do you (no one else answer) think is the probability of getting the right sequence?

I'm bad at math. But without having a clue as to the answer, logic suggests that lotteries do not exist so that a lot of people can win. If something seems too good to be true, it damn well is.

However, that does not seem to be something that is too good to be true. Guessing a six digit number? I mean, the odds of guessing a two digit number are around 1%. Even on 1% odds it's not smart to play the lottery, as simple logic suggests. I can only imagine how bad the odds would be if you go another four exponents down the line.

If you want a guess, I'd guess that the odds of correctly getting a 6 digit number correct are along the lines of about 1 in 1 million. While that answer could very well be wrong, gambling on even such an "optimistic" estimate is not logical, as anyone can plainly see.

I would not buy a lottery ticket for anything other than idle entertainment know matter how attractive the odds seemed to be, because I use my head.

**Rufus T. Firefly** · November 6, 2002, 02:40

Originally posted by David Floyd

But it's OK for them to use men with guns to force you to pay property taxes, abide by drug laws, and any number of other INVOLUNTARY measures?

That's doesn't make any sense at all.

Property taxes are voluntary, David; nobody said you had to own property.

Seriously, though, yes, it's okay. We don't live under a King (yet

); we have constitutions that provide for state power of taxation, the ability to make regulatory laws, an dthe ability to enforce both. The processes that establishe dsuch constitutions are actually reasonably democratic, moreso that most US govt. activity. So I can live with that.

I can also live with the state making money off of gambling -- but gambling itself should be a private activity, not something run by the state (this would usually be your line, you know).

And if you want a tax on stupidity, I'm all for raising cigarette taxes to Canadian levels and slapping a surcharge onto SUV purchases. Hell, I'll even stand for increased alcohol taxes; my beer consumption alone would fund an entire elmentary school. But I stand bu the idea that the state shouldn't be trying to deliberately, aggressively, hoodwink its own citizenry, in this or any other matter.

**Ramo** · November 6, 2002, 02:47

I mean, the odds of guessing a two digit number are around 1%.

Why do you think so?

Even on 1% odds it's not smart to play the lottery, as simple logic suggests.

On the contrary, it's EXTREMELY SMART to play the lottery at 1% odds (unless the prize is really small or the ticket price is really high).

I can only imagine how bad the odds would be if you go another four exponents down the line

Why do you think it's so much worse when you go on down the line?

BTW, you're almost off by an order of magnitude in predicting my lottery.

**JohnT** · November 6, 2002, 02:49

Well, since David couldn't answer, I will. 1:150,000 (appx.)

**David Floyd** · November 6, 2002, 02:51

On the contrary, it's EXTREMELY SMART to play the lottery at 1% odds (unless the prize is really small or the ticket price is really high).

Not unless you can afford and are willing to buy more than a few tickets. Yes, if I had a 1% chance to win the lottery off of a single $1 lottery ticket, I would probably go buy 100 lottery tickets, if my guaranteed prize was over $100.

Of course, lotteries don't work that way - any fool can see that.

Also, why do you think it's so much worse when you go on down the line?

Erm, because it is. You surely aren't going to try to tell me that your odds for winning the lottery IMPROVE as more digits are added to your number guess, are you?

BTW, you're almost off by an order of magnitude in predicting my lottery.

Well, I never claimed to be a mathematician. That actually proves my point, though - even my ignorant, haven't had a math course since 9th grade high school, back of the envelope GUESS showed that it's stupid to buy a lottery ticket for anything other than entertainment.

**Ramo** · November 6, 2002, 02:51

That's right. 1/151200 to be precise.

Announcement

Floyd, you asked me why I was against the lottery. Here's why:

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment