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

[David Floyd]

I play the lottery from time to time (a few tickets a year, if that). To me it's just entertainment, a minute Vegas vacation if you will. I don't think it's stupid, anymore than any luxury or entertainment is. I understand the odds perfectly.

As do I, and as does virtually everyone. Just because we either don't know or can't be arsed to learn the math doesn't mean we can't reason that the odds are very poor.

[David Floyd]

Oh well, who cares I'm going to bed...too tired for this **** right now I'm just mainly rambling anyway...

[Ramo]

So I misspelled a word at 1 am. Get over it.

I wasn't making fun of you. I was only trying to find a statement asserting that it's "obvious."

And my answer will simply be common sense. Maybe you need something else in order to justify not playing the lottery. I don't, though.

Common sense? Most people don't usually deal with events that are totally improbable (i.e. having odds of happening in the 1/billions), and certainly they don't usually deal with numbers associated with them. Most common sense isn't applicable.

And saying that something's obvious requires a lot more justification.

If the odds of guessing a one digit number are 10%

Why do you think that's true?

the odds of guessing a two digit number are 1%,

Why do you think this trend holds? Why isn't it 9%?

Yes, that's true, but everyone who guesses the right number have to share the prize. I said MY PERSONAL prize, not the overall prize.

Common sense says that it's much more. Since you see in the news all the time about people becoming millionares after guessing the lottery correctly.

Lotteries don't exist to lose money, now do they?

I see. So people should expect that the government is ****ing them over in your ideal government?

What lotteries do you know that offer a 1% chance of winning any sort of substantial individual prize?

The ignorant person wouldn't know whether one is 1% or not.

[Ramo]

You're saying that your gut reaction to a six digit number is to think you have a GREATER chance than 150,000? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

Why not? I'd have to know some math to determine it.

First of all, poor people are not necessarily ignorant, just as rich people are not necessarily intelligent.

The poor tend to be more ignorant than the rich.

[David Floyd]

Dammit this is my last post! I need sleep!

Why do you think that's true?

One in ten means 10%. Granted, I have to know math to understand the concept of 10%, but I don't have to know math in any advanced, post-9 year old way to know that if I will win something 1 out of 10 times, I will also lose 9 out of 10 times. I'd venture to say that EVERY adult, with a "normal" IQ, can subtract 1 from 10.

Why do you think this trend holds? Why isn't it 9%?

If you can count from 0-99, you can make the connection. It's not a difficult concept, and if a reasonable adult claims to not understand it, then they aren't trying.

Since you see in the news all the time about people becoming millionares after guessing the lottery correctly.

Common sense also suggests that most people don't become millionaires. Otherwise a)people wouldn't be on the news, and b)there would be no lotteries.

I see. So people should expect that the government is ****ing them over in your ideal government?

Certainly not.

In my ideal society, government's only function is the protection of individual rights. To do this, government requires limited funding. The trick is to find a non-coercive way of providing that funding. One non-coercive way is a lottery. No one's getting ****ed except those who voluntarily allow themselves to.

The ignorant person wouldn't know whether one is 1% or not.

No, but even an ignorant person knows that if there are 100 people in the room and only enough cocaine for one person, they are not likely to get the cocaine.

Why not? I'd have to know some math to determine it.

Not really, you'd have to simply expand your mind a little bit. Adults understand the difference between 10 and 100,000, don't try to tell me otherwise.

[JohnT]

"Secondly, I maintain my statement that any reasonable person KNOWS playing the lottery is inherently stupid, if they think about it for even two seconds."

The dichotomy you have is that your political philosophy has, as one of its assumptions, that all (wo)men are reasonable, rational beings. Since you admit that playing the lottery is an irrational act, you thereby admit that not all people are rational, which makes your political philosophy false.

See? I thought there was a flaw in your arguments!

[Ramo]

If you can count from 0-99, you can make the connection. It's not a difficult concept, and if a reasonable adult claims to not understand it, then they aren't trying.

Exactly. Many people don't try to understand. They simply say, "wow 6 spots with 10 possibilities and a prize of a million, I might be able to win that even if it's somewhat unlikely." It's not totally obvious that the probability is 1/151,200.

Common sense also suggests that most people don't become millionaires. Otherwise a)people wouldn't be on the news, and b)there would be no lotteries.

Of course. But why isn't it 1/100,000 instead of 1/151,200? If that were true, and the prize is $100,000, the expected profit is greater than 0, making it rational to participate.

Meaning, if someone was on the same order of magnitude as the real answer (while you were off by one), it would be rational to participate.

In my ideal society, government's only function is the protection of individual rights. To do this, government requires limited funding. The trick is to find a non-coercive way of providing that funding. One non-coercive way is a lottery. No one's getting ****ed except those who voluntarily allow themselves to.

People can be ****ed over voluntarily if they are ignorant and/or addicted. Are people not ****ed over by crack dealers?

No, but even an ignorant person knows that if there are 100 people in the room and only enough cocaine for one person, they are not likely to get the cocaine.

Sure. But why is it 1% instead of 9%?

Not really, you'd have to simply expand your mind a little bit. Adults understand the difference between 10 and 100,000, don't try to tell me otherwise.

You're exaggerating the difference. I said two or three orders of magnitude. Meaning around 10000 or 1000. Remember, you were off by an entire order of magnitude; why would one more be over the line?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Advertisements do just that - advertise. Beer commercials don't show people throwing up if they drink too much, or dying if they drive drunk. But everyone knows that both things happen - common sense and experience.

So we're not obliged to hold our government to a higher standard than we hold beer companies to? Maybe in your ideal society, but not mine. Not by a long shot.

[Ramo]

I'd like to repeat a point I made in my previous post because I fear it will be buried. If Joe Average estimates the probability in my lottery wrongly by a factor of 2/3, it would be rational to participate. Floyd was off by an order of magnitude.

[Mihai]

People love gambling

I don't know how is in USA, but in Romania the most succesful lotery isn't the one with best odds, but the one with biggest prize. Usually people doesn't think what the odds are, they play because they belive/hope that they are/will be lucky.

People gamble even if is illegal. It is better to be legal and taxed.
If I feel like gambling, I play on my PC Gold Casino. I usually give up after a lose several hundreds of thousands.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by JohnT


You also misused it:

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary...query=imminent

That depends on whether he meant 'imminent' or 'eminent'.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=eminent

from the context this seems more likely.

[Lefty Scaevola]

You do not need probabilities caculations to know that lotto is a bad investment. Only that exspenses are taken out and that the state skim some for taxes. That tells anyone that the players get out less than they put in. Its a simper calculation if say 25% goes to expenses and state skim, then a $1.00 ticket is only worth .$75, and each time you buy one, you are losing a quarter.

[Dauphin]

I don't see why people getting hett up about the actual odds involved in the lottery - be they good or bad. What you should be looking at is the actual odds in relation to the offered odds. I gamble on the odd occasion, not on who I think will win a match, but on who I think is mis-quoted in terms of odds.

The lottery here gives odds of a few million to one - the actual odds are 13 million to one. A disparity of risk to return of about 6-1. Given that an intelligent person at a bookies can find near parity risk/return, and at games of skill rather than chance - better than parity odds, I think the lottery is a form of gambling that is way off on the risk return stakes.

[Japher]

hehe

I think DF is right in stating that everyone knows the odds of the lottery... If not, who cares.

As for the lottery, why is any one against it?

-Gambling should not be used to finance education.

Why not? What will? More of my tax dollars? No thanks. Maybe they can teach the ignorant ppl the actuall odds of winning.

-Government componsates their budget on education for the lottery.

Really. I am sure they do. Yet, I would rather have a guarenteed fund for education than to rely on the idiots some ppl elect into office, or for some bond to pass so that my kid can get a history book that was printed post WWII. I really don't care if it is 100% or 1% of the actuall money coming from the lottery, yet as long as it is 100% of the money being contributed. Really.

-Only stupid/ignorant/ or uneducated ppl play lottery.

What a blanket statement. I play every week. I know the odds. I don't think I will win, but someone does. So, why not me? If I feel that MY money is better spent on a lottery ticket than on a six pack of beer, a stupid video game, or sitting in a savings account doing nothing to help society this does not make me stupid, ignorant, or uneducated. I think it makes me and my money better spent (even if only 1 cent per dollar actually makes it way to the classroom).

My unselfish reason (the one I tell myself) for playing the lottery is none of the above. I play because of the "why not me" attitude. It makes me dream, it accents my goals, and in the end it makes me happy. Is that wrong? Is that ignorant? Is that stupid? Everyone lies to themselves to feel happy, the do it all the time! Besides, as the lottery, it does what it sets out to do... support education. By me dreaming I become reflective on myself, and makes me want to better myself. It also makes me more aware of those who have not, and those other ppl who dream... mainly the children who need the education. It is rather encouraging.

PS

John-T: Ever hear of not beating a dead horse? Leave DF alone for misspelling or missusing a word, or whatever, we all (even you) got what he meant. If not than ask to clearify instead of picking on someones simantics, it so childish.

The dichotomy you have is that your political philosophy has, as one of its assumptions, that all (wo)men are reasonable, rational beings.

hehe, you said "dich". By the way I can't find "(wo)men" in the dictionary. Is that even a word?

Also, can rational people do irrational things? Is that even possible? Are all people who gamble irrational? Maybe they just want to have fun?

You proved nothing.

[David Floyd]

Exactly. Many people don't try to understand. They simply say, "wow 6 spots with 10 possibilities and a prize of a million, I might be able to win that even if it's somewhat unlikely."

OK, but they are still responsible for their own decisions.

Of course. But why isn't it 1/100,000 instead of 1/151,200? If that were true, and the prize is $100,000, the expected profit is greater than 0, making it rational to participate.

That's only true if you can afford to buy 1000 tickets per percentage point. That is, if you want a 1% chance of winning, you have to buy 1000 tickets. That's quite a hunk of change, and you're theory becomes ridiculous when applied to reality.

Are people not ****ed over by crack dealers?

No. Crack dealers are simply providing a product that is demanded. They aren't doing anything wrong by the act of dealing drugs.

You're argument here could easily be extended to indict coffee makers, Coca-Cola, etc., to say nothing of alcohol. Those people capitalize on addictions to make money. So what? They aren't forcing anyone to use their product, and neither are drug dealers.

I mean, drug dealers aren't gonna kill you if you don't buy from them. Him: "Hey man wanna score some crack?" Me: "Nahhh, I'm good." He doesn't give a ****, you don't have to sell drugs - they sell themselves. Someone else will come along and want some crack, sure as ****.

Sure. But why is it 1% instead of 9%?

What's your point? The only one I can discern is that of percentages being based upon knowing math, and I thought I answered it by bringing up a real life example that poor ignorant people can probably relate better to.

You're exaggerating the difference. I said two or three orders of magnitude. Meaning around 10000 or 1000. Remember, you were off by an entire order of magnitude; why would one more be over the line?

Of course I was off by an order of magnitude. But my answer appears to be right to someone who doesn't know math. Hell, I don't even know why my answer was wrong (nor do I care, so don't explain it to me). This is an example of the most obvious answer being wrong, but if it's the most obvious answer, I fail to see why other ignorant people wouldn't come to the same conclusion.