I lamely Pit lottery-ticket buyers at convenience stores

[BrainGlutton]

Look, lady, I just wanna buy a can of soda! You think I feel like standing in line five minutes while you fill out that stupid sheet just so you can stupidly waste ten bucks?!

[Hung Mung]

Even more annoying are the clerks who need to be guided to the precise ticket.

"The green one. No, no. Up. Nope, nope. On the left. No, your LEFT. Yeah, gimme ten o' those. Wait, no. Gimme the Cash 5. No, on the bottom..."

It can go on for a while. But hey, them kids gots to go to college somehow!

[Sal Ammoniac]

Look, lady, I just wanna buy a can of soda! You think I feel like standing in line five minutes while you fill out that stupid sheet just so you can stupidly waste ten bucks?!
But wait, she's not finished yet! She still needs to throw her losing scratch tickets on the ground outside the convenience store!

[What Exit?]

A lot of local convenience stores have done away with the lottery machines near where I work. The were too inconvenient for their more profitable customers.

I feel a little sorry for these people getting their gambling fix at a Kwik-E Mart.

Jim

[Jayrot]

Even more annoying are the clerks who need to be guided to the precise ticket.

"The green one. No, no. Up. Nope, nope. On the left. No, your LEFT. Yeah, gimme ten o' those. Wait, no. Gimme the Cash 5. No, on the bottom..."



Yeah this is great! As if the lottery isn't mathematically against you enough as it, it's as though you've somehow got better chances when you're scratching off the little dog bones versus scratching off the American flags.

These are the same people who spends (what feels like) hours considering and laboring over the placement of the cut-card playing blackjack in the casino!

[corkboard]

These are the same people who spends (what feels like) hours considering and laboring over the placement of the cut-card playing blackjack in the casino!
Hey man, everybody knows if you place it in just the right spot, your odds of winning go way up! Sheesh.

[Jayrot]

Hey man, everybody knows if you place it in just the right spot, your odds of winning go way up! Sheesh.

And everybody knows that if you make the wrong decision while playing 3rd base you'll screw the whole table over! :rolleyes:

:D

[aktep]

Yeah this is great! As if the lottery isn't mathematically against you enough as it, it's as though you've somehow got better chances when you're scratching off the little dog bones versus scratching off the American flags.


The dog bones might have overall odds of 1:3.41 and the flags odds of 1:4.04, or differences in available prizes left or something so, yeah, it could matter, if you were obsessed enough.

I once bought 70 scratch offs at the gas station (5 of this kind, 5 of that) and got a moral lecture from a customer in line. The fact that I was buying them as prizes for a weekly bingo game run by my Alpha Phi Omega chapter at a nursing home, and only buying them because the residents chewed out everyone they could find when they weren't on the prize table the week before, didn't seem to matter to her.

[Guinastasia]

I've mentioned that when I was in high school, I worked at a local grocery store. Well, one part of my job was working the service counter/office, and I used to sell lotto tickets. DAMN, some of those people were nuts. They'd spend 50 bucks on tickets, win 25, and think they were ahead. Or they'd have huge checks cashed just to spend on tickets.

The sad thing was, a lot of them were elderly, probably on fixed incomes.

[Will Repair]

They don't seem to realize that their chances of winning are only marginally improved by actually purchasing a ticket.

[BrainGlutton]

Hey man, everybody knows if you place it in just the right spot, your odds of winning go way up! Sheesh.

That is, as a matter of fact, quite true.

Now if only there were some way for the player to know where the right spot is . . .

[Hugh Jass]

They don't seem to realize that their chances of winning are only marginally improved by actually purchasing a ticket.

Their inevitable response? "Well, someone's gotta win."

:rolleyes:

[elbows]

Yeah, but it's also true with scratch tickets, someone has probably already won the big prizes.

But they keep selling the tickets until they're all gone. :dubious:

Sometimes it seems like lotteries are just a way to tax dreams!

[Orual]

Sometimes it seems like lotteries are just a way to tax dreams!

Or rather, they're Stupidity Taxes.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

I saw some stand-up comic on TV when the California lottery was introduced in the '80s say, "Let's play the home version of the California State Lottery!" Then he pulled a dollar out of his wallet, crumpled it up, and threw it over his shoulder.

I got a lottery ticket as a party favor a few months ago and actually won $7. Cashed it in at Sears. It took them about 15 minutes to get me my seven bucks. Thank Og there wasn't a line behind me.

[Sage Rat]

They don't seem to realize that their chances of winning are only marginally improved by actually purchasing a ticket.
And their odds of losing increased even further!

[Jayrot]

I saw some stand-up comic on TV when the California lottery was introduced in the '80s say, "Let's play the home version of the California State Lottery!" Then he pulled a dollar out of his wallet, crumpled it up, and threw it over his shoulder.
There was also the comedian (don't remember who) who said:

"Instead of playing the slot machines at the casino, I like to just spend my whole trip up in my hotel room. I hang out in the bathroom and flush my quarters down the toilet one by one. It's basically the same as playing the slots, except that every now and then the toilet backs up, overflows, and I hit the jackpot!"

[Scissorjack]

Sometimes it seems like lotteries are just a way to tax dreams!

Naw, gambling is just a tax on people who can't count.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

For what it's worth, my parents used to play the California lottery in the 80s and actually won fairly regularly. Never more than about three hundred dollars, mark you, but the number of times we got at least three numbers right (which was five bucks, and as recently as 1986 five bucks was nothing to sneeze at considering it could probably halfway fill the gas tank) was non-trivial.

That said, gah. Back in the day they had a little kiosk. You could fill out the card for however long it took and then carry it up to the register. "One of these and a quick-pick." They were scan-trons, IIRC, and you got a little print-out when you were done. Didn't take that long.

[Guinastasia]

Yeah, but there's a difference between playing just for shits and giggles (like my dad used to do, and my grandmother still does), and actually seriously thinking you're just a ticket away from a jackpot.

Although, when I was little, I thought my dad really WAS going to win someday, and I'd get a horse. Probably because he'd always say, "When I win the lottery" when I'd ask if I could have a horse.

[tashabot]

Yeah, we don't have a state lottery here in NV, but when I go to the California side of Tahoe I've been known to buy a scratch off ticket or occasionally the six-spot when I'm stopping to get a soda. I don't honestly think I'm going to win, it's mostly just for shits and giggles. I have a better chance of winning the nickel machines back home.

Although one time in PA I bought a ticket for a buck at a machine and won like $60. I was like "sweet, carton of cigarettes."

~Tasha

[Nzinga, Seated]

I just mentioned to my best friend yesterday, " I know it is irrational, but everytime I am just trying to get a paper and a pack of gum, and someone in front of me is blowing mad money on lotto, I just have to say something."

I know I shouldn't. And I am usually a very polite person. I swear. But almost every time I am stuck behind a lotto person, I mumble and groan and say flat out, "Grrr. You are NOT gonna win!"

[black rabbit]

Although one time in PA I bought a ticket for a buck at a machine and won like $60. I was like "sweet, carton of cigarettes."


What a waste. You could have re-invested that money. In 60 more tickets.

[interface2x]

I used to work in a convenience store and I had to deal with these people. We finally had to make a rule not to scratch them off right there on the counter by the register, primarily because of one woman who would literally stand there and scratch the damn things off for an hour or more.

One time, she hit a couple hundred bucks on one - over the course of the rest of that day and the next, I watched her buy the entire rest of the roll (300 tickets). Needless to say, she did not profit in the end.

[Mr. Goob]

My last company sent me to training for 6 weeks. The morning lectures were so dull and painful that I started buying $2 bingo scratch off tickets with my coffee each morning.

I could waste an hour taking my time rubbing off a number and looking forward to the antipication of seeing the possibilities of winning.

I hate the mouthbreathers that have no concept of probilities and odds that hold me up getting my paper and coffee in the morning. Buying one of this two of that and forty seven of the other thing. They stand at the edge of the counter partly in the way, scratching off the codes at the edges of the cards just to see if they won or not. To me the fun of a scratch off ticket is the game itself.

[What Exit?]

Although one time in PA I bought a ticket for a buck at a machine and won like $60. I was like "sweet, carton of cigarettes."

~Tasha
I am beginning to feel like my Dad when he tells stories about paying 20 cents for the movies. The last carton of cigarettes I bought was only $4. I cannot comprehend paying $60 on a carton of cigarettes.

Jim

[Caridwen]

I've actually planned what I'd do if I ever won the lottery. The only trouble is I've never once bought a lottery ticket. I've gone in on tickets with people for one of the big jackpots but I've never bought a ticket.

[Sublight]

All through high school and college I had a part-time job a drugstore that sold lottery tickets. The pharmacist/owner appreciated the money it brought in, but thankfully kept it as the bottom priority of the store ("we're here to save lives, not sell lottery tickets"). The cards to fill out were off in the far corner, and the ticket area was separate from the cash register. Otherwise, we'd have had people trying to get medicine stuck behind mooks buying a hundred tickets at a time. Seeing how much money came in and how little money went out cured me of any interest in gambling unless I can be on the house side.

I remember one elderly woman who'd come in every afternoon and spend an hour (and about $20-$50) on scratch tickets. She'd write a check to pay for them, then use the few dollars she'd win plus some of her own cash to buy more, then eventually she'd write a larger check to buy back her original check plus a few more tickets. She'd spend the whole time muttering and giving us dirty looks (because we were obviously keeping the winning tickets for ourselves), and leaving silver shavings over everything. Man, the look she'd give you if anyone else won something while she was playing.

Then there was the guy who always had his stack of daily lottery cards. Hundreds of them, already filled out. At least he was considerate enough to only buy them on Sunday afternoons, when he knew the store would be dead and nobody would be waiting behind him. Nice guy, too.

[ReuvenB]

I always hate it when people rag on lottery players. Mostly because lottery proceeds in my state go towards paying my tuition (Hope Scholarship).

[Sublight]

I always hate it when people rag on lottery players. Mostly because lottery proceeds in my state go towards paying my tuition (Hope Scholarship).
Does it really though? I was under the impression that while lottery proceeds went to education funding, the states then typically reduced education funding from other sources by a similar amount to spend elsewhere.

[Klaatu]

Don't scratch at the fucking register, and don't hand the clerk 20 powerball or whatever tickets and say"Check this for me" when I am trying to buy gas during work.

If you don't know the numbers, you fucking dumbass moron, wait until the clerk is not serving customers who want to get in and out.

And also don't turn in ten bucks of scratchers, and then say "Well let me have one of those, no wait, two of the..no wait, one of the.....

Goddam rude fucks, I am gonna jack one of you lame motherfuckers one of these days.

[Klaatu]

Missed the edit, but wanted to point out that you can get a ticket that shows the numbers for powerball. Ask for that, five seconds, instead of "check these tickets for me"

[DesertDog]

I buy lottery tickets (not the scratchers) when the pool has accumulated enough to be more than the odds of winning. Then I don't feel quite so stupid. I got five out of six once, $1,000. At the rate I'm buying, I'll be playing with the house's money for quite some time.

[bbs2k]

You all sound like a bunch of losers to me.

[DrDeth]

I buy a couple Lotto tickets a week. At that price, the daydreams of "what would I do if I won the Lotto" are worth it. But buying more than a couple is idiocy.

[Darth Nader]

Originally Posted by Camper Van Beethoven
When I win the lottery gonna buy all girls on my block
A color TV and a bottle of French perfume.
When I win the lottery gonna donate half my money to the city
So they have to name a street or a school or a park after me.

..

[Guinastasia]

Missed the edit, but wanted to point out that you can get a ticket that shows the numbers for powerball. Ask for that, five seconds, instead of "check these tickets for me"


What's worse is the dumbasses who never believed you when you told them they weren't winners. "What do you mean-check it again!"

:rolleyes:

[BwanaBob]

The only ones who piss me off are those who buy daily numbers. Instead of filling out a handful of slips beforehand they show up with a hand written list of 20 numbers and make the clerk punch them in one at a time. I once challenged a person on this, asking why they they didn't fill out the slips. The reply was "I don't pick the same numbers everyday". So? Fill out the damn slips, don't waste everyone else's time.

They're just like the bozos inevitably ahead of you on line in a fastfood joint. Standing on line for 10 minutes, it's finally their turn, and then they decide to look at the menu to figure out what they want. Asshats.

[Sailboat]

There's a store I go into solely because it's in the same building in which I work. They sell lottery tickets. The store is small and cramped.

People stand in a long line by the door to get tickets. When they get them, they step out of that line into the only available space -- the entranceway and the path to it -- and start scratching.

Never mind that now no one can enter or leave the store.

When you ask them "excuse me," and politely dip you head to indicate "you are literally playing in traffic -- you're standing in the traffic lane, playing the lottery," they move only grudgingly.

Sailboat

[Otto]

Look, lady, I just wanna buy a can of soda! You think I feel like standing in line five minutes while you fill out that stupid sheet just so you can stupidly waste ten bucks?!
The proper course of action is to walk up to the counter and pay for your soda. She's not in line and she's not being waited on. She's just standing at the counter. If she squawks about it, ignore her. Hand the clerk your money and walk out.

[Will Repair]

I've actually planned what I'd do if I ever won the lottery.
No one buys a ticket without first already having dreamed how they'll spend the winnings.

[BrainGlutton]

Does it really though? I was under the impression that while lottery proceeds went to education funding, the states then typically reduced education funding from other sources by a similar amount to spend elsewhere.

That's how it worked out in Florida, despite contrary promises made when a state lottery was first proposed.

[flight]

No one buys a ticket without first already having dreamed how they'll spend the winnings.
And that is the only valid reason to play. I imagine a ticket in hand lends some feeling of legitimacy to your daydreams.

DrDeth, not to be overly rude, but I think even buying a couple is idiocy. That first one may serve you as fuel for your fantasies, but there is no benefit to the second one.

[What Exit?]

And that is the only valid reason to play. I imagine a ticket in hand lends some feeling of legitimacy to your daydreams.

DrDeth, not to be overly rude, but I think even buying a couple is idiocy. That first one may serve you as fuel for your fantasies, but there is no benefit to the second one.
But it doubles your chances. ;)

[ReuvenB]

No, most of the proceeds from the lottery actually do go towards the Hope Scholarship in Georgia. Probably this is because of the huge uproar that would happen if the funds for it were depleted and the scholarship was eliminated. It's not a risk many politicians are willing to make. In fact, there was a newspaper article yesterday talking about how the funds for the scholarship are increasing because of increased lottery playing. Note, though, that I'm talking about the Hope specifically, not education funding in general.

[fruitbat]

While living in Massachussets I noticed that more people seemed to play the lottery than where I grew up in Virginia. This turned out to be not just my perception, the Boston Globe ran a long series on the people spending money on the lottery and how the poorest locales were the biggest spenders. I was staggered by the numbers.

Check out this link, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1302.html. The average Rhode Islander spends $1,373 annually on the lottery. With the state vig they get back roughly $686 in winnings. So they are volunteering to pay an additional tax to the state of nearly $700 bucks a year. I find it even more frightening when I wonder what the average expenditure is per capita once you exclude people who never buy a ticket. It is just amazing.

I always thought this was dumb, but once I started to play poker seriously I started to understand just how larcenous the lottery is. If you go to a casino the house has an edge that is tiny compared to the state sponsored edge on the lottery. Even the sucker games are excellent bets compared to buying a lottery ticket. When you look at poker it is an even finer line. Good players work on their game relentlessly to squeeze another 1/10 % of advantage from their play. I pay the house (Poker Stars or Full Tilt) around 2% to run the game and make it up from my edge over other players by being more skilled. The lottery player gives a 50% edge to the house with no chance of developing superior skill.

This is why anti-gambling laws are the basest hypocrisy. The state creates a monopoly on gambling and grants itself an unconscionable edge through the use of force and coercion. They are essentially robbing people too stupid to fend for themselves on one hand, and preventing them from being robbed more slowly on the other. If private legal lotteries were allowed I guarantee you the edge would be somewhere around 5%.

[Justin_Bailey]

To all the anti-lottery folks:

FUCK ALL OF YOU. You self-righteous pricks look your noses up at all lottery players whether they buy 200 tickets or 2.

I buy maybe one scratch-off every few weeks and a "Mega Millions" ticket when the jackpot is $150 million +. All told I probably spend around $30 a year. Less than most of you spend on crap I'm sure I disapprove of. But I'm polite enough to know it's your money so it's your business.

So once again, fuck you all, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket during lunch.

[Annie-Xmas]

There is a check cashing place across the street from my office that cashes welfare checks. There is a convenience store down the street from them that sells lottery tickets.

There is a very well worn path between the two places.

[GaryM]

Does it really though? I was under the impression that while lottery proceeds went to education funding, the states then typically reduced education funding from other sources by a similar amount to spend elsewhere.

That's the way it went in Missouri when gambling came in.

Before: 100K from the state to a school district from the general revenue fund.

After: 50K from gambling and 50K from the general revenue fund.

Advertising: Money from gambling goes to support education! :smack:

[What Exit?]

To all the anti-lottery folks:

FUCK ALL OF YOU. You self-righteous pricks look your noses up at all lottery players whether they buy 200 tickets or 2.

I buy maybe one scratch-off every few weeks and a "Mega Millions" ticket when the jackpot is $150 million +. All told I probably spend around $30 a year. Less than most of you spend on crap I'm sure I disapprove of. But I'm polite enough to know it's your money so it's your business.

So once again, fuck you all, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket during lunch.
Well this finally makes it look like a Pit Thread at least and not IMHO.

I do not think many of us would condemn you for the $30 per year. It is more the very poor who spend $30 per week that are being pitted for their stupidity.

I think it is only a few that would condemn you for your very minor purchases. I probably drop $10-15 per year in company mass purchases for huge prizes. That is almost defensive and it is superstitious. I do not want to be the one left behind and I would rather chip in my $2 or $3.

Jim

[Justin_Bailey]

I do not think many of us would condemn you for the $30 per year. It is more the very poor who spend $30 per week that are being pitted for their stupidity.

While very few are coming out and saying any lottery playing is bad. There's enough general condemnation in this thread to piss me off.

I'll let you all know how I do on that lunchtime scratch-off later.

[What Exit?]

While very few are coming out and saying any lottery playing is bad. There's enough general condemnation in this thread to piss me off.

I'll let you all know how I do on that lunchtime scratch-off later.
:D Good Luck.

[flight]

While very few are coming out and saying any lottery playing is bad. There's enough general condemnation in this thread to piss me off.

I'll let you all know how I do on that lunchtime scratch-off later.
You're right, I do look down on you a bit. Much the same way as people who give their money to psychics. Sure, it is completely their right to do it, and it is completely my right to laugh at them for doing so. At least psychics give you a show.

[BrainGlutton]

To all the anti-lottery folks:

FUCK ALL OF YOU. You self-righteous pricks look your noses up at all lottery players whether they buy 200 tickets or 2.

I buy maybe one scratch-off every few weeks and a "Mega Millions" ticket when the jackpot is $150 million +. All told I probably spend around $30 a year. Less than most of you spend on crap I'm sure I disapprove of. But I'm polite enough to know it's your money so it's your business.

So once again, fuck you all, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket during lunch.

How much did you win? :)

[Justin_Bailey]

You're right, I do look down on you a bit. Much the same way as people who give their money to psychics. Sure, it is completely their right to do it, and it is completely my right to laugh at them for doing so. At least psychics give you a show.

So the stack of money I've won from pocket change is somehow analagous to a psychic reading? Once again, it's $30, in an entire year. How much did you spend last weekend at the bar? What about the $60 carton of cigarettes upthread?

The lottery isn't a tax on stupid people, it's a test for a whimsical personality.

Congratulations, you fail.

Oh, and I guess you'll be happy to know I lost $1 on the scratch-off I just bought.

[DrDeth]

And that is the only valid reason to play. I imagine a ticket in hand lends some feeling of legitimacy to your daydreams.

DrDeth, not to be overly rude, but I think even buying a couple is idiocy. That first one may serve you as fuel for your fantasies, but there is no benefit to the second one.

We run several Lottos a week here in CA, I will buy up to one ticket per drawing but sometimes only one ticket a week, and sometimes none. I also like looking through the glossy Real Estate catalog magazines and picking which one I'd buy if I won the Lotto. But that's only when I have run out of real things to read.

[divemaster]

This is why anti-gambling laws are the basest hypocrisy. The state creates a monopoly on gambling and grants itself an unconscionable edge through the use of force and coercion. They are essentially robbing people too stupid to fend for themselves on one hand, and preventing them from being robbed more slowly on the other. If private legal lotteries were allowed I guarantee you the edge would be somewhere around 5%.
This is the thing that gets me about gambling. Most states have all these restrictions on certain types of gambling, but they're running a numbers game! Slots would contribute to all sorts of social ills! Casinos are bad! We'll raid your poker game!

But, hey, we'll sell you numbers at a 50% vig.

Like mentioned upthread, even the absoulte worst bets in a casino are miles ahead of a lottery as far as return to player goes. And I guess that right there is the reason the state wants to maintain its monopoly.

And they use budget concerns as the rationalization. Managing a budget on the backs of the poor and the stupid is morally indefensible (IMHO).

If states really cared about their citizens they would privatize the numbers games (which would, like stated above, run about a 5% vig) and tax the proceeds like any other business.

[Guinastasia]

To all the anti-lottery folks:

FUCK ALL OF YOU. You self-righteous pricks look your noses up at all lottery players whether they buy 200 tickets or 2.

I buy maybe one scratch-off every few weeks and a "Mega Millions" ticket when the jackpot is $150 million +. All told I probably spend around $30 a year. Less than most of you spend on crap I'm sure I disapprove of. But I'm polite enough to know it's your money so it's your business.

So once again, fuck you all, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket during lunch.


Dude, did you even bother to read the thread? Chill. No one is talking about people like you, who buy a ticket every now and then for amusement.

We're talking about people who probably have a serious gambling problem AND who are rude, pushy, and inconvenience others, because of their own selfishness. People who spend almost ALL of their money, money they really can't afford, to buy a whole bunch of tickets.

Now settle down, Beavis.

(Oh, and here in PA, most of the lottery proceeds benefit the elderly. So there is THAT).

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

If private legal lotteries were allowed I guarantee you the edge would be somewhere around 5%.You sure about that? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keno)

I never understood the draw of the scratchers. When I (rarely) buy a ticket, it's always for the biggest payout. Who wants to fantasize about winning $500 when you can fantasize about winning $100 million? And, yeah, I think that the entertainment value of fantasizing is easily worth a few dozen dollars a year. I'd probably buy more than the one or two tickets a year I do buy if it were more convenient for me to do so.

[What Exit?]

Dude, did you even bother to read the thread? Chill. No one is talking about people like you, who buy a ticket every now and then for amusement.

We're talking about people who probably have a serious gambling problem AND who are rude, pushy, and inconvenience others, because of their own selfishness. People who spend almost ALL of their money, money they really can't afford, to buy a whole bunch of tickets.

Now settle down, Beavis.

(Oh, and here in PA, most of the lottery proceeds benefit the elderly. So there is THAT).
Guin, you are mistaken, there are a few condemning lottery playing period. It is only a few and only those few should consider what Justin_Bailey wrote to be directed at them. His post is aimed at the "self-righteous pricks look your noses up at all lottery players whether they buy 200 tickets or 2" not everyone that posted in the thread.

I hope that helps to clarify the confusion.

Jim

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip> I probably drop $10-15 per year in company mass purchases for huge prizes. That is almost defensive and it is superstitious. I do not want to be the one left behind and I would rather chip in my $2 or $3.

Jim
I hate it when the company I work at buys mass lottery tickets. I don't particularly want to spend money on lottery tickets, but it would be very hard to take being the one person left in the office after everyone else wins a million bucks. :D In the interest of partial disclosure, my husband does by tickets when the pay-off is over a certain figure. Like Justin, we spend a handful of dollars on this per year. We spend far more on junk food, I'm sure.

I'm finding it interesting how we have a current thread about spending $65,000 on a wedding, and the majority opinion there is that it is their money, they can spend it how they like, but this thread is almost blanket condemnation of people ... spending their money how they like. Sure, poor people shouldn't waste their money on lottery tickets, but you can't legislate good sense.

(That said, my brother-in-law with the horseshoe up his ass and my sister won a $500,000 house last year on a hospital lottery. I'm not even slightly bitter or jealous. Not even a twinge. Nuh-uh, not me.)

Oh yeah, the OP - buy your shit and get the hell out of the store so I can buy my shit. It must drive the cashiers crazy, too; some person buying lottery stuff for five minutes, while the line of people with slurpees gets longer and longer...

[flight]

So the stack of money I've won from pocket change is somehow analagous to a psychic reading?Yup. In fact, you probably have a better chance making money by following a good (read: one who really gets to know their mark) psychic's advice than by playing the lottery.
Once again, it's $30, in an entire year. How much did you spend last weekend at the bar? What about the $60 carton of cigarettes upthread?But you see, those things actually accomplish their intended purpose, as frivolous as that purpose might be. Psychics don't commune with the spirit world and the lottery isn't going to win you money. Neither accomplish what they are intended to do and that is why the analogy is apt. If you can truly say that you really do not actually believe there is a chance you will win and you just like to scratch off metal foil, then more power to you, but I doubt it.
The lottery isn't a tax on stupid people, it's a test for a whimsical personality.

Congratulations, you fail.Hardly. There are plenty of strange and wonderful things in this world with which to take a flight of fancy... you know, with things that actually work, without the lottery. Oh, and the tax isn't on stupidity, it's a tax on those who are bad at math. There are some otherwise smart people who just can't gauge probabilities.Oh, and I guess you'll be happy to know I lost $1 on the scratch-off I just bought.Not at all. Just humored by the attempt. The outcome is really irrelevant in the short term. It is like watching someone superstitious who "knocks on wood" all the time. It is funny, and a little sad, to watch the compulsion whether or not something good or bad happens immediately afterward.

[Scissorjack]

I'll let you all know how I do on that lunchtime scratch-off later.

Hey, they're your testicles - knock yourself out.

[Justin_Bailey]

But you see, those things actually accomplish their intended purpose, as frivolous as that purpose might be.

But I have won. Or are you now calling me a liar in addition to stupid?

And the intended purpose of a lottery ticket is a chance to think about winning enough money to buy something fun for a few minutes. How do I not accomplish that everytime I play?

When I actually win (and as I've established, I do win on occasion), that's a bonus. And a free dinner for my wife and I. And free food is the best kind of food.

[Leviosaurus]

I used to be one of those "The lottery is a stupidity tax" people too. Now I'm less judgemental. Many people who play the lottery do it for enjoyment, watch the drawings each night and root for their numbers the way any sports fan roots for their team.

So think of it in compairison to being a sports fan. A season ticket holder shells out hundreds (if not thousands) a year for seats, as well as concession fees, tee shirts and hats, etc etc blah blah blah. The return they get is a few hours of distraction and an occasional chance to cheer. A lottery player gets the same thing, but without the watery stadium beer or obnoxious logo crap merchandise. Plus they get a tiny chance of actually winning money, which the sports fan emphatically never gets (unless they gamble, of course.)

So as a hobby, the lottery is really a harmless venture and there's nothing wrong with it. As an income generator for the state, it's certainly more fun than paying taxes.

Now I know there's a problem with promoting gambling, and people who blow way too much money on tickets. I also know there are people going broke buying too much sports team merchandise, not to mention the people going broke blowing all their money on alcohol and smack. Hell, there are even people blowing all their money on subprime mortgages! If your problem is with people who can't handle their money, then why are you focusing on the lottery as a perpetrator? I'm with Justin_Bailey (only not as vehement.) Jump off that moral high horse and leave the lottery alone.


Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win.

[Guinastasia]

You sure about that? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keno)

I never understood the draw of the scratchers. When I (rarely) buy a ticket, it's always for the biggest payout. Who wants to fantasize about winning $500 when you can fantasize about winning $100 million? And, yeah, I think that the entertainment value of fantasizing is easily worth a few dozen dollars a year. I'd probably buy more than the one or two tickets a year I do buy if it were more convenient for me to do so.


Because in a way, it's fun to scratch them off. Not as much fun as bubble wrap, but it's that kind of thing.

[faithfool]

I can never remember to play the lottery, except when I'm waitressing. I have a separate compartment for tips (if there are any) from asshole customers. Then at the end of my shift, I'll take that undoubtedly tiny amount and buy a pick or two. That way, if I ever do win, I can thank the dick who made it all possible. The only time that person will have made the world a better place. :D

[RedRosesForMe]

As a former gas station clerk, I can tell you it's not the people that come in to buy a Quick Pick or two, or the ones that say, Gimme 2 $2 Monopolies (there are like 5 different Monopoly scratch-offs- when they don't specify then I want to punch them).

It's the ones that come in with a stack of tickets to check (instead of looking in the newspaper or catching the drawing on the news- or indeed, asking for the printout of winning numbers) and THEN buying 5 more tickets, none of which are Quick Picks or filled out on a slip so they have to be entered manually, and then buying half a dozen different types of scratch-offs.

An asshole buying lottery can hold up the line for 10 full minutes or more*, and where I worked, I was the only employee there, so there was no option of another cashier ringing up purchases for the folks waiting patiently behind the asshat. It's bad enough to be stuck behind a jackass like that, it's even worse to have to wait on them, and in the 15 minutes it takes to get their lotttery purchases taken care of you have a line forming behind them.

Then there's the idiots that will buy a whole roll of scratch-off tickets ($300) over the course of half an hour, trying to win that top prize. Oh, they'll win $20 or $50 or even $100 sometimes (if you're playing the $20 tickets) but they always come out behind. Usually because they just put that money towards more tickets.

Not that I never buy lottery tickets. On my birthday while working at the gas station, I was going to suggest one of the $20 tickets to a customer unsure of what to buy (she was a regular) but something told me not to. She bought other tickets, and when she left I bought the $20 ticket, and won $40 bucks. I would never normally spend $20 on a scratch-off, but it was my birthday and I had a good feeling.

* if they don't fill out a slip or ask for a Quick Pick. Some people know that lottery takes forever and will let others go first, which is awesome, but most are oblivious to anyone's needs but their own

[JohnT]

Does it really though? I was under the impression that while lottery proceeds went to education funding, the states then typically reduced education funding from other sources by a similar amount to spend elsewhere.

I actually did my senior thesis on this phenomenon back in the early-1990's and in my examples (IIRC, Florida and NY, but it's been a while) and, at the time, this was absolutely true.

However, I have no idea as to whether this continues.

[BrainGlutton]

I never understood the draw of the scratchers. When I (rarely) buy a ticket, it's always for the biggest payout. Who wants to fantasize about winning $500 when you can fantasize about winning $100 million?

The lower the payout, the better the odds.

[Kalhoun]

We might spend $15 per year on lottery tickets. It's an entertaining little moment in dreamworld, as others have said. People who "invest" in Lotto are another story and need gambling addiction help, but for the rest of us, it's fun.

[Asimovian]

The last lottery ticket I bought was at a machine at the bowling alley last week. In California, they're now promoting new scratcher tickets featuring local baseball teams. I got very excited about the fact that there was a Dodger scratcher on display in the machine. Even though it was two dollars instead of one, I'm a die-hard fan, and I figured it was worth the extra buck. Besides, I was guaranteed to win since it was a Dodger scratcher, right???

Fucking machine spit out an Angels scratcher.

And my bitter complaints to management got me nowhere since the bowling alley doesn't technically regulate the machine. So I scratched it. And lost. But only because the Angels are losers. It had nothing to do with the odds.

:)

[yahwc]

You sure about that? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keno)

I never understood the draw of the scratchers. When I (rarely) buy a ticket, it's always for the biggest payout. Who wants to fantasize about winning $500 when you can fantasize about winning $100 million? And, yeah, I think that the entertainment value of fantasizing is easily worth a few dozen dollars a year. I'd probably buy more than the one or two tickets a year I do buy if it were more convenient for me to do so.

I think the appeal is that you learn the results instantly instead of waiting for a drawing.

[Troy McClure SF]

There was also the comedian (don't remember who) who said:

"Instead of playing the slot machines at the casino, I like to just spend my whole trip up in my hotel room. I hang out in the bathroom and flush my quarters down the toilet one by one. It's basically the same as playing the slots, except that every now and then the toilet backs up, overflows, and I hit the jackpot!"
Lewis Black.

"...after a while the toilet back up, and I feel like a WINNER!"

One of my favorite bits of his. You need to hear his inflection, though.

[Frank]

As a former gas station clerk, I can tell you it's not the people that come in to buy a Quick Pick or two,...
Part of my "if I win the lottery" daydream is writing a four or five figure check to the clerk who sold me my two quickpicks. Though it might be more fitting if it went to the guy who programmed the random number generator down at lottery headquarters.

[Shagnasty]

Although one time in PA I bought a ticket for a buck at a machine and won like $60. I was like "sweet, carton of cigarettes."

~Tasha

You must have been the centerfold in the Pennsylvania Department of Taxation monthly newsletter that month.

[Long Time Lurker]

If you can truly say that you really do not actually believe there is a chance you will win and you just like to scratch off metal foil, then more power to you, but I doubt it.
Because nobody has ever won the lottery? Christ, it's a dollar on a whim. Get over yourself.

[Nametag]

I am beginning to feel like my Dad when he tells stories about paying 20 cents for the movies. The last carton of cigarettes I bought was only $4. I cannot comprehend paying $60 on a carton of cigarettes.

Jim
The last time you bought cigarettes was in the '60s?

[What Exit?]

The last time you bought cigarettes was in the '60s?
No, at sea on the USS Ranger in 1986. It was tax free and I got them for my Brother.

Jim

[OtakuLoki]

I'm glad that JohnT spoke up about the mess that the lottery money has led to in NY. Now I can sit back and let him weather the calls for cites, while I simply nod and say what a sage chap he is. :D

AIUI the original arguments in favor of the NYS Lottery were to take the numbers racket out of the hands of the mafia. Because it was a tax on people who couldn't see the odds were poor, and funded things that the majority of the population didn't care about.

Thirty years later, the only thing that's changed, as far as I can see, is that the ones benefiting don't call themselves the mafia. They're the government.


I agree with fruitbat - the state takes a such a fraction of the take that it would be considered criminal if it were being done by a casino. Or when it was done by the mafia. Hell, if the mafia had used the same percentages, I doubt that they'd have been able to get enough tickets sold to make things worthwhile.

I'll admit I buy a ticket when the jackpots get really, really high. But I don't believe that people who buy following that pattern actually are who keep the state run lotteries in business. Look at the number that the Boston Globe article mentioned upthread had: a per capita outlay of over a thousand dollars a year. That's not chump change, even if it is done at only $20 a week.

At this point I am inclined to believe that state-run gambling, like sin taxes, are seen only as ways to increase taxation without having the majority of the electorate realize what's going on.

[RedRosesForMe]

No, at sea on the USS Ranger in 1986. It was tax free and I got them for my Brother.

Jim

Is it possible that there's some confusion here about the quantity of cigarettes purchased? Where I come from, a carton of cigarettes is 10 packs, that's 200 cigarettes.

I started smoking in about 1996, and a carton of name brand cigarettes was about $20. I can't see how the price could have more than quadrupled in a decade, even if the one was tax-free.

[What Exit?]

Is it possible that there's some confusion here about the quantity of cigarettes purchased? Where I come from, a carton of cigarettes is 10 packs, that's 200 cigarettes.

I started smoking in about 1996, and a carton of name brand cigarettes was about $20. I can't see how the price could have more than quadrupled in a decade, even if the one was tax-free.
Nope it was $4 for the complete carton of Marlboros. 10 packs sounds right. Standard carton size. The short time I smoked, I only bought a few packs at a time, but I am pretty sure cartons have always been 10 packs in my lifetime. I think the going price in New Jersey at the time was maybe $12 per carton so my Brother thought it was a huge discount and asked me to pick up a carton for him before I flew home on leave. The Navy price at sea and 50 miles out was that much cheaper than prices at a civilian store.

Jim

[OtakuLoki]

I started smoking in about 1996, and a carton of name brand cigarettes was about $20. I can't see how the price could have more than quadrupled in a decade, even if the one was tax-free.

According to this site (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/services/services_fraud_cigarettes.shtml), the taxes on a single pack of cigarettes sold in NYC comes to $3.00. From state and city, only. For a ten pack carton, that's $30.00 in taxes alone.

And ignores the Federal taxes.

[Kimstu]

And the intended purpose of a lottery ticket is a chance to think about winning enough money to buy something fun for a few minutes.

Cool by me. But I get the same benefit completely free---I daydream about being given a winning lottery ticket or accidentally finding one, so I never need to actually buy a ticket! :)

(I guess that daydream still depends on other people continuing to support the lottery, though. However, I can just substitute in the daydream about an eccentric billionaire randomly deciding to give me lots of money, which is also fun to think about.)

[yahwc]

A friend of mine told me that he's afraid to play the lottery because if he wins big, somebody might be tempted to kidnap his grandchildren. I think he has a point.

Having a healthy, happy child or grandchild is in many ways better than winning $100m in the lottery.

[Klaatu]

What's worse is the dumbasses who never believed you when you told them they weren't winners. "What do you mean-check it again!"

:rolleyes:

Word on that. I seriously wonder if some of these idiots are illiterate, buy quickpicks, and can't even figure the fucking ticket out to begin with.

[Rigamarole]

Y'all who are saying I can't win the lottery are nuts. Lottery tickets are my 401 (k).

[tashabot]

Popping in to talk about my slight hijack on cigarettes:

The carton of cigarettes was only $40. I was just excited because I could actually *get* a carton instead of relying on meager tips to buy them a pack at a time.

The taxes on cigarettes in PA are nuts compared to here. And even worse in Rhode Island, where I forked over $6.50 for a pack of Marlboro No. 27's.

Now that I moved back to NV, taxes have gone up, and I've switched to American Spirit roll your owns. Much, much cheaper, and I don't cough as much.

Back to your regularly scheduled Pit thread.

Whoops. On edit: I play the Lotto for the same reason I play slot machines and blackjack. It keeps me occupied for a few moments of time, and gives me fodder for daydreams when I'm trying to go to sleep at night. I know I won't win, but the "what if?" has a nice ring to it, yeah?

~Tasha

[Klaatu]

I don't think anybody here should feel the need to defend playing the lottery. Unless you are destitute or have a gambling addiction of course.

Hell, I spend maybe thirty bucks a month on powerball and a few scratchers here and there.
That is piss away money to me. It's worth it to me pissing away on the off chance. So fucking what.

My point in this thread, along with many others has nothing to do with whether the lottery is "Good or Bad", but simply bitching about rude people at convenience stores who fuck up the program by taking up time trading in scratchers or asking clerks to check a shitload of tickets because they are too fucking lazy or stupid to do it themselves.

[Duke of Rat]

Cool by me. But I get the same benefit completely free---I daydream about being given a winning lottery ticket or accidentally finding one, so I never need to actually buy a ticket! :)



My niece always gives me and my dad some scratch offs as stocking stuffers at Christmas. I've never won a dime until last year, I won $209.

The people who piss me off are the ones who stand there buying money orders for 6 different bills. It takes a while for each transaction and the clerk can't check out anybody else in the meantime. That, and the guy who needs to write a check or use a credit card to buy a $1 item. Hello, there is a concept know as "pocket change".

[zenith]

I buy a couple Lotto tickets a week. At that price, the daydreams of "what would I do if I won the Lotto" are worth it. But buying more than a couple is idiocy.

I buy a Powerball with Powerplay for each week's Wed. and Sat. drawings.
In any given year, I win about $180 of my $208 back.

My previous vice, old cars, cost me far more. You'll never strip down a lotto ticket and find far more rust in its floors than you anticipated and you'll never scavenger hunt wrecking yards for lotto ticket parts and the more I talk about my former addiction the more drawn I am at this moment to Old Car Trader On Line so I'd better quit.

[flight]

But I have won. Or are you now calling me a liar in addition to stupid?And people have been hit by lightning walking outside on a clear day. You winning money in the lottery is less likely than that poor person getting hit by lightning. The one occurrence does not make walking outside on a clear day a bad idea, and your win does not make playing the lottery a good idea.And the intended purpose of a lottery ticket is a chance to think about winning enough money to buy something fun for a few minutes. How do I not accomplish that everytime I play?In the post of mine you first quoted I specifically said that I imagined a ticket in hand could give you a feeling of legitimacy for having those fantasies, and that that was about the only reasonable reason to play I could think of. Perhaps you missed that. You were already irate by that point so may have overlooked it.When I actually win (and as I've established, I do win on occasion), that's a bonus. And a free dinner for my wife and I. And free food is the best kind of food.So, honestly, how much have you won compared to how much you have spent on tickets? How free are those dinners now?Because nobody has ever won the lottery? Christ, it's a dollar on a whim. Get over yourself.When I go outside on a clear day I do not even consider getting hit by lightning. It doesn't even enter my mind, nor yours I suspect, but yet there is a better chance it will happen than winning the lottery. Perhaps I could get rich by selling one dollar lightning insurance.

On second thought it isn't dramatic enough. It seems to be drama that makes people toss out reason. I need to sell terrorist insurance, that is plenty dramatic and in this country is the same level of probability. Is anyone doing that yet?

[Long Time Lurker]

When I go outside on a clear day I do not even consider getting hit by lightning.
Just about all gambling is statistically stupid. If the person enjoys the experience and has the free capital to indulge, where's the harm? The fact that you don't enjoy it doesn't mean that the people who do deserve your derision and condescension.
Perhaps I could get rich by selling one dollar lightning insurance.
I don't think you have to risk death to receive a lottery payout. Nonetheless, I'll buy your insurance -- I have a golf club and a good sense of adventure.

[aktep]

And people have been hit by lightning walking outside on a clear day. You winning money in the lottery is less likely than that poor person getting hit by lightning.

Me winning the big prize might be less likely, but there's about a 1 in 4 chance I will win something on a scatchoff (most likely just the cost of the ticket back) and the odds of winning the minumum prize on the numbers drawing (usually $3-$5) is somewhere around 1:50 or 1:100 depending on the game. Good odds? No. Will you make money? No. Will you win on a regular basis? Yes.


That, and the guy who needs to write a check or use a credit card to buy a $1 item. Hello, there is a concept know as "pocket change".


I buy just about everything (including a $1 soda) on a checking account linked credit card. I don't regularly carry cash, so there's no such thing as "pocket change" for me.

[Kalhoun]

Is it possible that there's some confusion here about the quantity of cigarettes purchased? Where I come from, a carton of cigarettes is 10 packs, that's 200 cigarettes.

I started smoking in about 1996, and a carton of name brand cigarettes was about $20. I can't see how the price could have more than quadrupled in a decade, even if the one was tax-free.
I pay $42-$45/carton for Benson & Hedges, which never go on sale.

[BrainGlutton]

Is it possible that there's some confusion here about the quantity of cigarettes purchased? Where I come from, a carton of cigarettes is 10 packs, that's 200 cigarettes.

I've heard Canada described as "Bizarro America," where everything is almost the same but not quite. One example: There are 25 cigarettes in a pack. (And you wouldn't believe the tax! Good thing you don't have to pay in real money . . . ;) )

[Duke of Rat]

I buy just about everything (including a $1 soda) on a checking account linked credit card. I don't regularly carry cash, so there's no such thing as "pocket change" for me.

Hey, I was just behind you at lunch! :)

Seriously, it must have been karma for me bitching about it because I got behind a guy who was trying to pay for a coffee and a danish with a credit card on my way back from lunch. The clerk couldn't get his card to read and I was really close to just buying his stuff for him since he was pretty bummed out about it, then I guess he had a debit card or something that he did a swipe on at the terminal for customers and it took that. I paid for my drink with pocket change and was on my way :p

I was really just joking, I'm not going to blow a fuse over a guy paying for stuff with a card. This guy looked like he was travelling on business and was probably trying to use a company card or something, and I would have paid for it had he not been able to find a way to do the transaction.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Nametag
The last time you bought cigarettes was in the '60s?No, at sea on the USS Ranger in 1986. It was tax free and I got them for my Brother.

JimI did that aboard the USS Tautog in 1984. 'Cept it cost me a dollar for a carton of Marlboros. Got 'em from a second-hand cigarette salesman in Olongapo City.

Tasted like I was smoking dirt. And some of the cigs had worms. I didn't smoke those.

[Lissa]

Yeah this is great! As if the lottery isn't mathematically against you enough as it, it's as though you've somehow got better chances when you're scratching off the little dog bones versus scratching off the American flags.

These are the same people who spends (what feels like) hours considering and laboring over the placement of the cut-card playing blackjack in the casino!

Or, how about my grandma in law who honestly believes a $500. dollar winner is in every cash explosion roll of 500 tickets. So she always asks the clerk if the $500. winner has come up. If not, she will buy from that roll. If there are only 40 or 50 tickets left, she will buy out the roll, convinced it is in there.

Regrettably, early in her logical enlightenment, the system actually worked... twice. Thus, she is now hooked and claims the only reason why she is unsuccesful is because different people must win the $500. and then redeem it elsewhere.

Over 10 years she has won $500. dollars about 20-30 times and she uses this as the justification. But, let's put it this way, when someone we knew won big in Las Vegas, they went to her and she could give them $10,000 in losing scratch and win lottery tickets, to cover the tax write off, from the LAST YEAR.

I remember trying to convince her that if the roll has 500 tickets (which I don't know even if they do) and there is a $500. winner in every roll, and the $2.00 dollar ones and the free ticket ones and, maybe, the $50. dollar one, how is it possible they make a profit? She did not have an answer (I felt bad thinking I made her look silly- so I did not push on), but I honestly thought she would reflect on that and stop doing it.

Regrettably, as like most people, anecdote=data, so the 20-30 times she won $500. and all of the little wins, convinced her she was "ahead" of the game.

It does not matter though that she dumps $1,000 a week (at least) into the lottery system . It puts out JUST ENOUGH for her to get that little "treat" so the proverbial rat keeps hitting the bar.

In all, it is harmless because she is richer than the Pope, but if she is any indicator of the behavior, and logic, of lottery aficianados then I completely understand your rant :)

[Plynck]

I buy a Powerball with Powerplay for each week's Wed. and Sat. drawings.
In any given year, I win about $180 of my $208 back. :dubious: That number seems seriously off to me, or I'm doing it wrong. I play as often as you do (2 tickets, twice a week) but I don't win anything close to that.

I dunno, I'm with Justin Bailey I guess. A lot of people spend more for a specialty drink at Starbuck's every morning than I spend in a week on tickets. Good for them*, it's what they want to do. Look at someone who buys a six-pack of beer. You could spend $10 on that, or $10 on the lottery and either way you'll end up with a bucket of piss at the end, but I don't see anyone getting self-righteous in the "What are you drinking?" threads. And we all know that there can be a lot more regret after a six-pack, especially if one is behind the wheel. Or near a phone... ;) Folks can tell me that if I had saved that $200 a year over twenty years I could now have etc. etc. and they're right. Same as if I hadn't gone to that movie, but instead waited for it to come out on TV and put that money in the bank. Or if I hadn't gone out for dinner, but instead cooked for myself and put that money in the bank. We all spend money on ephemera. Where do you draw the line? Why should someone judge how we spend our own money? I'm under no illusions as to my chances, but daydreaming is just as entertaining as any other pastime, especially during a dreary day at work.

It just seems to me that if one is responsible then no harm done, and if one is compulsive then nothing works short of abstinence.

That said - yeah, the OP has a point. I'm in a working class city where lottery tickets are sold in (seemingly) every corner store and they can be good places to avoid on paydays. So perhaps the pitting should really be about why they are called "convenience" stores?

Oh no you don't! You take your Starbucks pitting to another thread right now, do you hear me?

[Justin_Bailey]

You winning money in the lottery is less likely than that poor person getting hit by lightning.

I know someone already explained the odds to you, but are you fucking stupid? Yes, the odds to win the big prize are astronomically high. But winning any prize? That's about 1 in 5.

Here watch this...

So, honestly, how much have you won compared to how much you have spent on tickets? How free are those dinners now?

In January I bought a $1 scratcher and won $10 on it. I proceeded to claim my money and kept $5 and spent $5 on more tickets. I won $8 on those tickets. I did this 50/50 split of keeping and spending over the next several weeks and all told I believe I ended up with $40 profit. All from a $1 scratcher.

In the weeks since I think I've come out roughly even in my playing. Maybe I've lost a few dollars here and there. But I'd say I'm well in the black for the year.

So to answer your question, pretty damn free.

[Shagnasty]

I know someone already explained the odds to you, but are you fucking stupid? Yes, the odds to win the big prize are astronomically high. But winning any prize? That's about 1 in 5.

Here watch this...

In January I bought a $1 scratcher and won $10 on it. I proceeded to claim my money and kept $5 and spent $5 on more tickets. I won $8 on those tickets. I did this 50/50 split of keeping and spending over the next several weeks and all told I believe I ended up with $40 profit. All from a $1 scratcher.

In the weeks since I think I've come out roughly even in my playing. Maybe I've lost a few dollars here and there. But I'd say I'm well in the black for the year.

So to answer your question, pretty damn free.

You have got to be the most stupid person (at least in this respect) to ever grace these boards. I hope you take that as constructive criticism rather than clamming up in a shell and throwing out ignorance like you already have.

You really, really, really, really, need to take a basic course in probability and statistics. Any of them at all should be fine since you suck so bad at it that this isn't affecting just your lottery life but almost certainly your life in any business, banking, and investments. Trust me, your life is really impaired by this type of statement and you don't even know it.

Your post here makes you sound like the biggest denier we have had here in a while. I honestly don't know wrong with you. It could be that you are just stupid in which case I would have some measure of sympathy. It is more likely that you are deluding yourself into being stupid in which case I don't.

Casinos and even worse, lottery tickets take in a certain amount of money and then pay out a certain percentage of that money as a "prize" over the long term (hint: that prize is always less than 100%)

There are two ways that you could beat the lottery theoretically. You could play less than 10 times in your life and come out a ahead or you could be a long-time gambler and hit a massive jackpot more than you ever paid it.

You cannot beat the lottery paying in small amounts of money over time and winning small amounts. No one can: ever, ever, ever. That is how they make money.

My qualifications: Teaching statistics in the Ivy League (Dartmouth).

Please seek help and do not ever post this kind of ignorant shit because you seem more ignorant than a flat-earther mated with a creationist. The only redemption you can seek is to be humble and learn.

[Shagnasty]

I should add that much of the public is as ignorant as Justin_Bailey. It just really upset me that a post like that would be coming from a Doper with over 1,000 posts. I hope that Justin_Bailey asks for help on this board on understanding prob/stat questions because something has gone horribly wrong and his post smacked of ignorance at so many levels that I hoped that someone would never make it that far with such ignorance.

Please ask for help on this topic Justin_Bailey because I have a feeling that you just don't know what you don't know on this topic and it is going to be like revealing evolution to a 5th grader to a child that was brought up under creationism. This type of thing pops up all over and I wouldn't want anyone to be that ignorant of prob/stat. It could have a big impact on your life.

[Stratocaster]

DrDeth, not to be overly rude, but I think even buying a couple is idiocy. That first one may serve you as fuel for your fantasies, but there is no benefit to the second one.Not that I would necessarily describe it as idiocy, but I do agree. When there's a big jackpot, I buy a ticket--one. It's a buck that lets me daydream, and it's worth a dollar to me. Two dollars would not significantly increase my chances, while doubling the cost of my daydreams. No way, man.

When the guy behind the counter asks me how many, and I say one, I generally get a look that seems to say, "One? How the hell you gonna win only buying one?" :)

[Stratocaster]

I've heard people make claims like Justin, and I think they actually believe them. My theory is that they tend to play amounts they don't miss too much over the course of time, then in their memories, they undervalue the amounts they lost (since it doesn't cause a lot of "pain" in any given instance) and overvalue the wins, which create a disproportionate amount of "glee" in that particular moment. They don't mentally keep a running total of their losses. I've heard it from people who have played for years. "You wouldn't believe how much I've won," one will say, nodding wisely. "Definitely more than I've lost." Yeah, you're right, I wouldn't believe it.

Shagnasty, you are obviously correct in your assessment of the statistics here, but IMO you seemed a bit harsh in your delivery, being in the Pit notwithstanding.

[JohnT]

I'm glad that JohnT spoke up about the mess that the lottery money has led to in NY. Now I can sit back and let him weather the calls for cites, while I simply nod and say what a sage chap he is. :D


You want a cite on a 15+ year-old school paper I wrote?

Good luck with that. :D

[flight]

Me winning the big prize might be less likely, but there's about a 1 in 4 chance I will win something on a scatchoff (most likely just the cost of the ticket back) and the odds of winning the minumum prize on the numbers drawing (usually $3-$5) is somewhere around 1:50 or 1:100 depending on the game. Good odds? No. Will you make money? No. Will you win on a regular basis? Yes.Good point. I can see how someone might misinterpret what I said to mean that you never win anything. I was, of course, talking about one of the grand prizes. That seemed to be the major consideration as I am not aware of anyone who plays the lottery and fantasizes about winning two dollars. The small prizes are nice and help people to either delude themselves into thinking that they are not loosing money or to think that winning other larger prizes is more likely, but that is not why people play.

Justin_Bailey, I think Shagnasty met your points quite directly. A bit aggressive, but I don't think anything else would really get through. Scratch that, I doubt it got through either. Anyway, good luck; you'll need it.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

And everybody knows that if you make the wrong decision while playing 3rd base you'll screw the whole table over! :rolleyes:

:DTHAT one drives me fucking bananas. And the people are so self-righteously livid in their dumb-fuckery, too!

[VarlosZ]

In January I bought a $1 scratcher and won $10 on it. I proceeded to claim my money and kept $5 and spent $5 on more tickets. I won $8 on those tickets. I did this 50/50 split of keeping and spending over the next several weeks and all told I believe I ended up with $40 profit. All from a $1 scratcher.

In the weeks since I think I've come out roughly even in my playing. Maybe I've lost a few dollars here and there. But I'd say I'm well in the black for the year.
Shag beat me to it, but oh well.

Every time you play the lottery, you lose money . . . even when you win (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value). Any other outlook represents results-oriented thinking ("it turned out well, therefore I made the right decision").

Granted that it's perfectly reasonable to spend a few bucks so you can enjoy daydreaming about striking it rich for a while, there still wasn't anything in this thread that warranted the attacks in your first post. No offense, but between this and the adulterer threads, you seem like one angry dude.

[Klaatu]

Well shit! I bought a two dollar quickpick tonight and didn't hit the powerball.

Oh well, no shoes for the kids.

[Stratocaster]

Shagnasty, you are obviously correct in your assessment of the statistics here, but IMO you seemed a bit harsh in your delivery, being in the Pit notwithstanding.I just saw Justin's comments in this thread, having only skimmed it previously, so I retract this statement. Tit for tat, and all that.

[SenorBeef]

The lower the payout, the better the odds.

Well, sort of. Depends on what you're calling "odds". The more likely you'll win *something*, yes. But why even play the lottery for small stakes? Would you play a ticket for $1 where you had a 40% chance of winning $2 (including your own dollar) back? There's no chance of winning big there - very low variance, you will most likely quickly and steadily lose money along the predictable lines. You'd basically be systematically giving your money away, without the fantasy benefits of having a shot at the big prize, or whatever.

As far as the odds go, in terms of expected value, paying $1 for a 1/20th shot at $10 is the same paying $1 for a 1/2000000th shot at $1,000,000. Given the choice, though, going for the former just seems even sillier. It negates the whole "hey, I'll take a shot, what the hell" aspect of the big prizes.

We all spend money on ephemera. Where do you draw the line? Why should someone judge how we spend our own money? I'm under no illusions as to my chances, but daydreaming is just as entertaining as any other pastime, especially during a dreary day at work.


I think the difference here is the amount of self delusion and stupidity. If you spend $4 on a cup of coffee, you're fully aware of what you're getting out of the deal, and have decided it's worth it to you.

However, a hardcore lottery player (I'm not talking about the one ticket a week type) is pretty much always delusional. They don't understand what they're buying. They're throwing their money away because they're stupid.

And yes, I'm going to say stupid. Other people in this thread have said "not necesarily stupid, just bad at math" but that's not true. You don't have to understand how to calculate the exact expected value of betting red on a roulette table to understand that multimillion dollar casinos are built on the profit of people doing that very thing, and inherently, it must be designed to work against you. You don't have to understand math to understand that lotteries are a big money maker for the state - why? because they don't pay out nearly as much as they take in.

And so if you buy tickets specifically because you feel like you can somehow win money - by feeling out some set of magic numbers, or whatever, that you can somehow beat the system, that's not only a lack of understanding of the math involved, but that's stupidity.

And the math needed isn't very hard. If you have a "pick four" type lottery - where you picked a number between 0000 and 9999, and if you won, you got $500 (IIRC, that's how it worked in Ohio), it doesn't exactly take a high level of math education to figure out that having a 1/1000 shot at getting 500 if you win is a bad value.

There are people who go to the casinos and gamble with money they can easily spare, and understand that they'll probably lose, but they find it fun, and so the lost money is equivelant to spending money for another form of entertainment. I don't think those people are stupid - they're just spending their entertainment money that way. The same can apply to someone who buys one lottery ticket a week - the entertainment value, the excitement of the drawing, or whatever, might be worth it to them, even if they realize it's not a good bet.

But it's the people who constantly spend money they don't have, who are convinced that they are due, or that they can somehow beat the system, or that magical fairies sprinkled pixie dust out of their ass over their lottery tickets who should legitimately be looked down upon by rational people.


I'm reminded of a joke that went something along the lines of: A devout religious man has struggled financially all of his life. He prays, and says that he's always been a good man, but that he could really use some help with his financial hardships. Nothing happens. For months he prays, and eventually asks God why he hasn't found a way to help him. God responds: "Well help me out here, buy a lottery ticket or something."

As someone earlier in the thread said - that first ticket can buy you some weight to your daydreams. The second ticket has no value.



It's interesting to note that any progressive jackpot system can eventually become profitable - that is, have a positive expected value - for every ticket sold. Ignoring the possibility of splits and taxes for a moment, if you spent a dollar on a lottery where your chances of winning were 1 in a million, but the lottery paid out a million and two dollars, every ticket you bought would, in a sense of probability and expected value, expect to turn a profit. Of course, the variance is extreme. And in practice, you'd have to factor in the likeliness of splitting the prize into the equation, and the profit the taxes would take. But there can be a time when, on average, you're making money.

I remember years ago some sort of company... organization... something tried to capitalize on this very thing. Once the jackpot was high enough, they hired thousands of people to go buy every possible number. I can't recall what ever came of it.


I worked at a gas station for a few years, and had to deal with this stuff all the time. It seems that there's a lot of overlap between people who are hardcore about playing the lottery, and people that are rude as hell. Regular I'd be swamped with people - have a long line, be running around hectically - and the lottery players would demand that I sit there and enter all of their numbers manually into the machine, for several minutes, holding up an entire line of customers. Sometimes when I told them to fill out the scan sheets, they'd act offended, as if I were making unreasonable demands on them. Or they'd give me an entire stack of tickets to run through because they were too lazy to check them. For the most part, the more money they spent on the lottery, and the more picky they were about how it was done, the more rude and obnoxious they were.

Edited to add:

I bought a lottery ticket once. I felt pretty silly doing it.

I can't remember exactly why, but a strange series of coincidences had happened one day, a bunch of "huh, that's weird" type things. And at some point, later in the night, one of the customers recommended I buy a lottery ticket - I can't remember why. Anyway, it was a series of strange coincidences followed by that recommendation, that made me say "hey, what the hell - if magical fairies are trying to shit out fairy dust on me, I'll give it this one shot today" - knowing it was ridiculous, but remembering the joke I just recounted, and figuring what the hell, I could try it once.

Of course, nothing came of it.

[Justin_Bailey]

You are all too stupid for words.

1. No where did I say I had a system to "beat" the lottery. It was just a cheesy game that I was playing with myself to make my winning streak more fun.

2. And that's another thing. I only told that ancedote because flight can't stop prattling on about how IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to win the lottery. I proved it's not impossible to win. THAT'S ALL.

3. I have no delusions that I'm going to win the big money. I know the odds very well thank you and I don't play for the big prize. No one needs to "help me" Shagnasty, and it's rather patronizing to suggest I have some kind of a problem. I don't have a gambling problem and I've never pissed away the rent at the blackjack table.

Here, how's this for patronizing: Shagnasty, your previous posts lead to be believe you have a problem with alcohol. You really, really, really, really, need to take a basic course in human wellness. Any of them at all should be fine since you suck so bad at it that this isn't affecting just your health but almost certainly your life in any relationship (sexual or otherwise) and your employment. Trust me, your life is really impaired by this type of statement and you don't even know it.

Your post here makes you sound like the biggest drunk we have had here in a while. I honestly don't know what's wrong with you. It could be that you are just stupid in which case I would have some measure of sympathy. It is more likely that you are deluding yourself into being stupid in which case I don't.

Now remember that you're chastizing me for spending $2 on lottery tickets every couple of weeks.

I buy $1 scratchers precisely because the odds are better to win $20-$40 on those than on any other lottery game. If I win anything higher (which I've only done once, that's why I barely think about it), it's a bonus.

4. To VarlosZ: I'm pretty angry in this thread because people are calling me stupid for spending POCKET CHANGE on something I think is fun and harms no one. And occasionally I win money. Personally, I feel sorry for the rest of you. Lack of whimsy and all that.

5. To Stratocaster: I do keep track of my winnings and losings. This year I'm up $26 and last year I ended up plus $31. So kindly stick your absolutes in a sack.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

I remember years ago some sort of company... organization... something tried to capitalize on this very thing. Once the jackpot was high enough, they hired thousands of people to go buy every possible number. I can't recall what ever came of it.It was an Australian group, and they did it with the Virginia state lottery when it got big enough in 1992. They actually had a truck (or several) full of pre-filled slips not get entered in time, so they didn't cover every possible ticket.

I can't seem to find a cite online that verifies what happened. I've found one that claims they only got 2.4 million out of 7 million possible, one that says they only got 5 out of 7, and some that say they won, and some that say they didn't. I saw a television show on it in the mid 90s that claimed they did in fact turn a respectable profit on the win (more than planned because they got lucky and the winner was not in the tickets that were too late, and they didn't have to pay for those tickets)

[kidchameleon]

You cannot beat the lottery paying in small amounts of money over time and winning small amounts. No one can: ever, ever, ever. That is how they make money.

My qualifications: Teaching statistics in the Ivy League (Dartmouth).

Wow, when I have kids I'll remind them not to go to Dartmouth; their standards have gone to shit. I'm just a chemist but even I know that "No one can:ever, ever, ever" is incorrect. Improbable, sure, but impossable?



Please seek help and do not ever post this kind of ignorant shit because you seem more ignorant than a flat-earther mated with a creationist. The only redemption you can seek is to be humble and learn.

Physician, heal thyself.

[alphaboi867]

Even more annoying are the clerks who need to be guided to the precise ticket...It can go on for a while. But hey, them kids gots to go to college somehow!

If customers actually mention what tickets they want by name (& the correct name) or just say "Give me a 5$ ticket", we wouldn't need to be guided to the precise ticket. What worse is our corporate policy on dealing with lottery customers. By order of the head office we "can't discriminate against them" :rolleyes: . This meants (true story) that if some old lady comes in and wants 20$ in Powerball and doesn't want computer picks we have to wait on her and ignore the half-dozen people behind her who just want gas/soda/smokes/etc. She can of course volunteer to wait while I wait on other customers (in fairness alot of our lottery regulars are nice that way), but if I ask her and she calls corporate I could loose my job :mad: . But if head office gets a complaint about some "stupid clerk" who let lines back up doing lottery nothing happens. Just yesterday some guy had me check 46 tickets (some from Dec) he "found in his truck"; none of them were winners :D .

[SenorBeef]

Justin, you're psychotically defensive about this.

No one was even really attacking your behavior specifically, until you flipped out in mid-thread. This thread was started about people who made other people wait and were generally rude, rather than people who played the lottery.

My comments were generic - I was not attacking you personally, but rather, as my post made clear, people who were really hardcore about the lottery, thought they had a system, etc.

If you don't fall into that category, and I didn't imply that you did, then why bother to get all upset and offended and write that reply?

It seems like you've voluntarily taken on the duty to defend any kind of lottery player by any kind of attack.

[alphaboi867]

Justin, you're psychotically defensive about this.

No one was even really attacking your behavior specifically, until you flipped out in mid-thread. This thread was started about people who made other people wait and were generally rude, rather than people who played the lottery.

My comments were generic - I was not attacking you personally, but rather, as my post made clear, people who were really hardcore about the lottery, thought they had a system, etc.

If you don't fall into that category, and I didn't imply that you did, then why bother to get all upset and offended and write that reply?

It seems like you've voluntarily taken on the duty to defend any kind of lottery player by any kind of attack.
IMHO most lottery players do not think of playing the lottery as gambling. PA recently legalized casinos and I've have my fair share of people complain about how bad gambling is and how this is going to hurt families and poor people and then buy 30+$ in scratch-offs and pay for their groceries in foodstamps. At least once a week someone will ask me if they can get cast back on EBT Cast; we don't give cash back at all, and we don't accept EBT (foodstamps only). There's a 50/50 chance they'll go outside to our ATM and come back inside, cash in hand, and buy tobacco or lottery.

*

[Shagnasty]

Here, how's this for patronizing: Shagnasty, your previous posts lead to be believe you have a problem with alcohol. You really, really, really, really, need to take a basic course in human wellness. Any of them at all should be fine since you suck so bad at it that this isn't affecting just your health but almost certainly your life in any relationship (sexual or otherwise) and your employment. Trust me, your life is really impaired by this type of statement and you don't even know it.

Your post here makes you sound like the biggest drunk we have had here in a while. I honestly don't know what's wrong with you. It could be that you are just stupid in which case I would have some measure of sympathy. It is more likely that you are deluding yourself into being stupid in which case I don't.

Yes Justin your characteristization is absolutely correct in a way although I have gotten better and your point is a non sequitur. Your sense of parody is off as well. Any problems I had in the past have nothing to do with your statistical and life skills. I never said you were a habitual gambler. It doesn't matter if you have only bought five tickets in your entire life. That doesn't change the fact that you have a fundamental mental and educational deficiency. You aren't the only one. My grandfather and my childhood best friend are compulsive gamblers. They are smart and can even go through the intracicies of different bets yet they have never taken the leap that you always lose in a lifetime and they try to rationalize it in front of people like me that can clearly see through it.

[Stratocaster]

5. To Stratocaster: I do keep track of my winnings and losings. This year I'm up $26 and last year I ended up plus $31. So kindly stick your absolutes in a sack.I don't believe you. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying based on how you're coming off in this thread that the likeliest circumstance is that you're flailing to prove you're not one of the lotto dunces. Again, I'll consider the probabilities here and say, I give as much credibility to your claim as I do to all the other "No, really, I do come out ahead, year after year" folks I have encountered. If you are, in fact, someone who has beaten the odds, count your money and chuckle over my ignorance. You'll have the satisfaction that comes from being both a winner and right. But I don't think so.

[Shagnasty]

Wow, when I have kids I'll remind them not to go to Dartmouth; their standards have gone to shit.

Somehow I doubt things would ever come to that.

I'm just a chemist but even I know that "No one can:ever, ever, ever" is incorrect. Improbable, sure, but impossible?

We are talking about real world things here. If there are 6 billion people in the world and a given probability is 1 in 20 billion then I will say it is impossible in the same way that a Death Star may spontaneously spring up above the earth. The fact is that gamblers weasel out of this realization by assuming the nearly impossible will apply to them and we might as well close that hole.

[robby]

Nope it was $4 for the complete carton of Marlboros. 10 packs sounds right. Standard carton size. The short time I smoked, I only bought a few packs at a time, but I am pretty sure cartons have always been 10 packs in my lifetime. I think the going price in New Jersey at the time was maybe $12 per carton so my Brother thought it was a huge discount and asked me to pick up a carton for him before I flew home on leave. The Navy price at sea and 50 miles out was that much cheaper than prices at a civilian store.

Jim
Just to corroborate What Exit, I saw cartons of Marlboros on sale on the USS Truxtun (CGN 35) in 1987 for $5. A pack of Marlboros was 50 cents.

They were completely tax-free if bought outside of U.S. territorial waters.

[BobPi]

Here's my 2 cents, which is more than I've ever spent on a lottery ticket.

I have no problem with people who play the lottery with discretionary money. My dad did this for years, spending significant money on it. He was buying dreams, and for him it was worth it.

I even have no problem with people who spend their sustenance money on the lottery, as long as it's only themselves that will end up going hungry. I do think such people are a justification for teaching good money management in school, because they are being stupid, but hey, it's their life.

If kids, spouses or others are deprived because of their gambling, that's another matter. Since it's not illegal, I'll confine my feelings to a lack of respect if the deprivation is mild, and contempt if it's more extreme. Again, I suspect a lack of education is a big factor here, but it could also be from a personal failing.

I do have a big problem with the state that runs and promotes the lottery. If a private concern ran a game with such a low payout, the state would prosecute them as criminals. There's no moral justification for the state legislators considering themselves above the law, which is what's really happening. And the state not only runs the lottery, even worse they advertise it to promote unrealistic expectations, knowing full well that a significant percentage of the people who play the lottery cannot afford to lose the money they inevitably will.

Not only that, but the big winners hardly even get what they're promised. A million dollar winner may get fifty grand in annual payments over twenty years. The state basically gets to keep all of the money, and the prize is only the interest that money gets. Request a lump sum payment, and they'll be handed a lot less than the million. And then they get to pay taxes to the state (and feds) on it.

The game is rigged, and criminally in my opinion. But it's the state committing the crime, not the players.

[kidchameleon]

We are talking about real world things here. If there are 6 billion people in the world and a given probability is 1 in 20 billion then I will say it is impossible in the same way that a Death Star may spontaneously spring up above the earth. The fact is that gamblers weasel out of this realization by assuming the nearly impossible will apply to them and we might as well close that hole.

Odds of being struck by lightning: 576000 to 1
Odds of being struck by lightning 7 times: 1.6e+25 to 1
Roy Sullivan (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061201.html)

Guess he didn't get hit 7 times, that's even less remote than your 1 in 20 billion. :rolleyes:

[Justin_Bailey]

No one was even really attacking your behavior specifically, until you flipped out in mid-thread. This thread was started about people who made other people wait and were generally rude, rather than people who played the lottery.

If you don't fall into that category, and I didn't imply that you did, then why bother to get all upset and offended and write that reply?

This thread has become a breeding ground for people that think ALL lottery players are stupid, deluded, addicted or some combination therein. It's an attitude that I've noticed is very common around here and I'm sick of it. I'm upset precisely because I'm not stupid, deluded or addicted and I take offense when people imply as such.

I don't believe you. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying based on how you're coming off in this thread that the likeliest circumstance is that you're flailing to prove you're not one of the lotto dunces. Again, I'll consider the probabilities here and say, I give as much credibility to your claim as I do to all the other "No, really, I do come out ahead, year after year" folks I have encountered. If you are, in fact, someone who has beaten the odds, count your money and chuckle over my ignorance. You'll have the satisfaction that comes from being both a winner and right. But I don't think so.

And once again, I'm a liar. I don't appreciate being called a liar and I'm sick of that as well.

That doesn't change the fact that you have a fundamental mental and educational deficiency. You aren't the only one. My grandfather and my childhood best friend are compulsive gamblers. They are smart and can even go through the intracicies of different bets yet they have never taken the leap that you always lose in a lifetime and they try to rationalize it in front of people like me that can clearly see through it.

So since I'm so dumb, can you explain this "fundamental mental and educational deficiency" to me in plain English? Because the way I see it, I'm spending a few dollars every few weeks on something harmless that you disapprove of and now I have some kind of mental disorder. Please explain how that works.

And how's this for some parody? I disapprove of your latte. I disapprove of your beer. I disapprove of your weed. I disapprove of your cigarettes. I disapprove of your porn. And I disapprove of your groceries. All of them. I think the food you buy is shitty. The money you spend on shit that I think is stupid disgusts me.

Have I hit a nerve yet? Dumbass "intellectuals" such as yourself are dreaded by librarians such as myself.

And thanks to kidchameleon for posting that he (she? I'm not really sure) sees through your bullshit too.

[Klaatu]

Why in the fuck are some of you so freaked out that some of us play the fucking lottery?

You don't think we know the odds of hitting the jackpot? Almost astronomical. So what.
You might piss away a few bucks a week on songs from Itunes. Or spend a buck a day on a soda. Or drop two bucks in the juke at the bar. Who gives a flying fuck.

We might spend a few bucks a week on a scratcher or a powerball ticket. And as has been said, you fucking can win a few bucks here and there. And even if not, again, so what?

I don't like the seeming generalization from some posters that all lottery players are compulsive gamblers and dumbass idiots. Damn, people, we can piss away a few bucks on whatever the fuck we want.

Now, you will say in your self-righteous tone "Well, we piss our money away on tangible things." or "You are an idiot, because you will never win."

I don't care. Most of us here don't live in a homeless shelter, or on the street. We have a little money to burn. I could say people that spend thirty bucks a month playing stupid online games like say Everquest are idiots too, but I won't.

So lighten the fuck up, damn.

[Klaatu]

I will amend that to say I guess online games are closer to ten bucks a month maybe, but that still doesn't change my point.

[Rigamarole]

Well put Klaatu, although the "fucks" may be a little excessive but points for enthusiasm.

Hey, it's renting a dream.

[Klaatu]

Thanks. I tend to use too many "fucks" and derivatives thereof when I am irritated here in the Pit, but I am fucking working on it.

[dnooman]

I had a friend with a scratch off addiction. I told him numerous times that his odds over time sucked. He always told me that he either came out a little ahead, or maybe lost "a few bucks". Whatever, it's his money right?

So, one day he says "I did it." "Did what?" "I won $10,000!"

That shut my mouth. The facts were still facts, and he got really lucky.

The really sad thing was seeing him with a fistful of scratch offs the very next day. If it happened once... :rolleyes:

[Klaatu]

I had a friend with a scratch off addiction. I told him numerous times that his odds over time sucked. He always told me that he either came out a little ahead, or maybe lost "a few bucks". Whatever, it's his money right?

So, one day he says "I did it." "Did what?" "I won $10,000!"

That shut my mouth. The facts were still facts, and he got really lucky.

The really sad thing was seeing him with a fistful of scratch offs the very next day. If it happened once... :rolleyes:

That's cool. I was sitting in the bar one day, just me, my buddy the bartender and one of the regular old farts. I said maybe I'll buy a one dollar scratcher, oh never mind, so the old fart buys that ticket and hit $7500 :smack:

The bartender had picked the ticket for the dude, and he tipped him a buck.

That ain't right.

[tashabot]

Watching all of this blow up is making me realize that I love living in Nevada, where there's no lottery and instead you can pump your spare change into the nickel machine to the side of the register instead of backing up a line full of angry customers.

They might have a problem, but at least they aren't getting in the way.

~Tasha

[SenorBeef]

Can we have more people jump into the hyper-defensive-against-characterizations-that-weren't-even-made bus? All of this crazy overreaction and frothing at the mouth is funny.

[SenorBeef]

Watching all of this blow up is making me realize that I love living in Nevada, where there's no lottery and instead you can pump your spare change into the nickel machine to the side of the register instead of backing up a line full of angry customers.

They might have a problem, but at least they aren't getting in the way.

~Tasha

Actually, that's really depressing.

Ever roll into a 7-11 at 3am, and see a bunch of people, tired, hagard, looking like they've been there for the last 12 hours, pumping quarter after quarter into a video poker machine at a fucking convenience store at 3am?

That shit is depressing.

[Justin_Bailey]

Can we have more people jump into the hyper-defensive-against-characterizations-that-weren't-even-made bus? All of this crazy overreaction and frothing at the mouth is funny.

So I'm overreacting to someone calling me stupid and telling me I have a "mental deficency?"

Come on, Shagnasty is trying to be as insulting as possible and as Klaatu just put it, it's a few dollars.

People are always getting angry at the folks who "buy a latte a day" and then complain they have no money. This lottery-angst (including insulting comments on my mental stability) is like getting angry at some who buys one latte a month and is perfectly happy with the decision.

And these characterizations were made and who know it. So continue being a fucking coward and hide behind other people's posts while you thinly imply you think we're just as stupid as Shagnasty does.

[flight]

And how's this for some parody? I disapprove of your latte. I disapprove of your beer. I disapprove of your weed. I disapprove of your cigarettes. I disapprove of your porn. And I disapprove of your groceries. All of them. I think the food you buy is shitty. The money you spend on shit that I think is stupid disgusts me.

Have I hit a nerve yet? Dumbass "intellectuals" such as yourself are dreaded by librarians such as myself.It is hard to be insulted by someone who's opinion you don't really respect. Not to mention that your comparisons rather dumb and ham-fisted.I don't care. Most of us here don't live in a homeless shelter, or on the street. We have a little money to burn.That is it. You have nailed my thoughts here exactly. I think people playing the lottery more than an occasional one-ticket-at-a-time as people who burn their money for entertainment (fine enough as it is), but do so hoping that millions of dollars will burst forth from the ash. It is amusing to me.

[flight]

So I'm overreacting to someone calling me stupid and telling me I have a "mental deficency?"Though I have not called your lottery habits (as I understand them) overly stupid, your behavior in this thread certainly has been.

[Justin_Bailey]

It is hard to be insulted by someone who's opinion you don't really respect. Not to mention that your comparisons rather dumb and ham-fisted.

Why are those comparisons dumb? What benefit do you get from any of those things that it is impossible to get from a lottery ticket?

I'll ask you the same as I've asked Shagnasty, can you articulate, in plain English what is so wrong about spending a few dollars every couple of weeks on lottery tickets as opposed to something equally as superficial?

[SenorBeef]

So I'm overreacting to someone calling me stupid and telling me I have a "mental deficency?"


People started this thread talking about the RUDE PEOPLE who demand their lottery playing come before all else in stores.

Eventually, some people ragged on stupid people who habitually play lottery money too much - with money they don't really have.

You apparently don't fall into any of these two categories, and yet you responded as if people were bashing you personally - totally foaming at the mouth with defenses of attacks that no one made.

From there on out, you were a dick to everyone, and made some pretty stupid statements that indicate that you might lack understanding on the issue. After that, people bashed you for that. But when you entered the thread, you were responding to attacks that no one ever made, and responding with a level of nastiness that the thread hadn't come close to reaching.

So yeah, way overreacting and frothing at the mouth, definitely.


So continue being a fucking coward and hide behind other people's posts while you thinly imply you think we're just as stupid as Shagnasty does.

What? Coward? What have I done to be a coward?

I've said a few things in this thread.

1) Rude people who refuse to fill out scantrons and stuff and demand that you have to check all their tickets while customers are waiting, etc. suck.

2) People who buy substantial amounts of lottery tickets with money who can't afford it are stupid.

3) Some people in this thread (mostly you) way overreacted, and to insults that weren't even being made.

I didn't call you stupid, though you aren't making a good case for yourself there, but I wasn't going out of my way to insult your intelligence. You're seeing attacks where they're not, but you're pretty fucking dense and stupid if you're interpreting what I've said in this thread as cowardly.

[SenorBeef]

Why are those comparisons dumb? What benefit do you get from any of those things that it is impossible to get from a lottery ticket?

I'll ask you the same as I've asked Shagnasty, can you articulate, in plain English what is so wrong about spending a few dollars every couple of weeks on lottery tickets as opposed to something equally as superficial?

Are you responding to an argument that anyone actually made?

For instance, this is what I said:

"There are people who go to the casinos and gamble with money they can easily spare, and understand that they'll probably lose, but they find it fun, and so the lost money is equivelant to spending money for another form of entertainment. I don't think those people are stupid - they're just spending their entertainment money that way. The same can apply to someone who buys one lottery ticket a week - the entertainment value, the excitement of the drawing, or whatever, might be worth it to them, even if they realize it's not a good bet."

So I've specifically said that casual lottery playing just for entertainment isn't stupid. I said that spending a ton on the lottery, because you think you can win, is indeed quite stupid.

And you put yourself in the former group - a casual player. I don't think anyone here has actually insulted that casual player. They've only insulted the idiots who think they can win long term. Now, if you don't put yourself in with the hardcore lottery type, but rather the casual type, then why are you getting defensive about people bashing the group that doesn't include you?

[Justin_Bailey]

Eventually, some people ragged on stupid people who habitually play lottery money too much - with money they don't really have.

You apparently don't fall into any of these two categories, and yet you responded as if people were bashing you personally - totally foaming at the mouth with defenses of attacks that no one made.

There were several "all lottery players are stupid" posts noticed by others as well as myself. Near the end of page 1 or the beginning of page 2 I believe.

That's what prompted my "crazy" response. I don't like being called stupid. Gee, I wonder why. And Shagnasty has taken it to a whole different level that I think says much more about him than it does about me.

[Plynck]

Aww, crap. Every time I defend someone's position on general principles, I find rather large bite marks on my backside.In the weeks since I think I've come out roughly even in my playing. Maybe I've lost a few dollars here and there. But I'd say I'm well in the black for the year.Justin, if you say that this is so, then I won't question you further. But recognize that you are (by far) the exception rather than the rule.

Although (I can't quite believe that I'm going to say this), in your defense the general tone of posts #14 and #43 could be inferred to be a general condemnation of any lottery purchases and the intelligence of the player, rather than what might be considered excessive lottery playing. Those posters clearly feel that any lottery purchase is excessive, and that is where I will disagree.I think the difference here is the amount of self delusion and stupidity. If you spend $4 on a cup of coffee, you're fully aware of what you're getting out of the deal, and have decided it's worth it to you.

However, a hardcore lottery player (I'm not talking about the one ticket a week type) is pretty much always delusional. They don't understand what they're buying. They're throwing their money away because they're stupid.Point taken. However, I'll agree with delusional, but not stupid; I'd substitute compulsive instead. There are some very intelligent people who get sucked into gambling. OTOH, it's hard to get that compulsive over a cup of coffee.I do have a big problem with the state that runs and promotes the lottery. If a private concern ran a game with such a low payout, the state would prosecute them as criminals.I'll quibble. The state would condone it if they got their cut, or at least if some pol got greased. How else do we explain the laws against usury while welcoming credit card companies with their 20+% interest rates?Why in the fuck are some of you so freaked out that some of us play the fucking lottery?

...

So lighten the fuck up, damn.That's what I'm talkin' about! :D

[flight]

Although (I can't quite believe that I'm going to say this), in your defense the general tone of posts #14 and #43 could be inferred to be a general condemnation of any lottery purchases and the intelligence of the player, rather than what might be considered excessive lottery playing. Those posters clearly feel that any lottery purchase is excessive, and that is where I will disagree.Hardly. You had it right at first. In my first post (#43 that you mention) I specifically stated that the first ticket buys the fantasy, the rest are just silliness. Perhaps some people took that to mean once in a lifetime, but that is an odd reading of the post.Why are those comparisons dumb? What benefit do you get from any of those things that it is impossible to get from a lottery ticket?

I'll ask you the same as I've asked Shagnasty, can you articulate, in plain English what is so wrong about spending a few dollars every couple of weeks on lottery tickets as opposed to something equally as superficial?Lets take the first half of the last sentence first. I have been more condemnatory of you than I would of lottery players in general, but that is mostly because you have acted in such a nasty and irrational manner in your posts in this thread. As I have said, buy a ticket if you need it to fantasize, but don't expect to win*. That particular point is one I have had no problem with. It is that second, or third, or fortieth ticket you** buy at a time that is stupid. While I don't have a problem with buying the occasional ticket for fantasy purposes, you*** do seem somewhat delusional about your odds and I am frankly quite skeptical**** about your reported win/loss ratio. As has been said, people don't tend have a good perspective on these things unless they actually write down every purchase and how they did.

Now for the first part of the above quote and the last part of the last sentence. First, many of the things you quoted are not superficial, but tangible and of obvious benefit. This would include food/groceries. Everyone needs to eat and everyone has different tastes, so it is expected that some people will not like what you eat. Thus it is stupid to compare a basic necessity of life to a frivolous expense with no tangible benefit.

Lattes, beer, weed, and cigarettes are closer to a reasonable argument, but still not there yet. They are all ingested substances that significantly alter the body's chemistry. None of them are necessary, but all (for the people who go for them) provide a distinctly pleasurable and tangible effect. Again, not really comparable to the intangible benefit of enabling fantasies.

With porn you actually have the beginnings of a decent argument, but you seem to have hit that with a shotgun blast at justification rather than any sort of logical reasoning. Blind squirrel and all. With porn you are providing something to fuel your fantasies and produce pleasure, much the same way that that first lottery ticket helps you to think about what you will do with your millions. Buying several lottery tickets would be the equivalent of buying more porn than you could ever watch in the hopes that the actresses will magically jump out of the magazine to pleasure you in real life.

Now, I have ragged on you a bit more than you may deserve based on your stated rate of playing because of your attitude and because of your financial justifications of your hobby. You don't really seem to accept that you will lose over time, but rather that you have, and by my impression of your state of mind, will continue to have a net profit. This is most likely (but not absolutely) delusional regarding your past and just silly with regard to the future.


*Win significant money, not a couple bucks here and there. As I said, no one fantasizes about winning $2.

**General you, not Justin_Bailey specifically.

***Justin_Bailey specifically.

****Skeptical in the prosaic sense, rather that the technical definition (in case Liberal is reading).

[Justin_Bailey]

You don't really seem to accept that you will lose over time, but rather that you have, and by my impression of your state of mind, will continue to have a net profit. This is most likely (but not absolutely) delusional regarding your past and just silly with regard to the future.

When do I do that? I'm very aware that I won't win all the time, but I believe I have good luck with lottery, so I continue to buy them. Again, you can act like a condescending prick all you want, but you're still very wrong.

*Win significant money, not a couple bucks here and there. As I said, no one fantasizes about winning $2.

Why the fuck not? Winning anything is fun and expecting to win the big money is crazy. Winning little amounts is EXACTLY what I hope for.

And, for the last fucking time, I am acting this way because so many people feel the need to insult lottery players (all of them, regardless of what they spend) just because they think they're better than lottery players.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Sorry. I am posting at work, and got a little lost...I see I wasn't the one to say I have nappy hair and am proud. But I DO! And I am proud that I have the kind of hair that can get nappy.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Oops. wrong thread. Ignore me and my kinky fro! I really am lost!

[flight]

Why the fuck not? Winning anything is fun and expecting to win the big money is crazy. Winning little amounts is EXACTLY what I hope for.Well now I understand why we were having a disagreement. I was making assumptions about you that are completely baseless. You are... unique.

By the way, after those requests for rebuttal on your arguments, I expected some sort of response to why I considered them so inapt and inept.

[kidchameleon]

Oops. wrong thread. Ignore me and my kinky fro! I really am lost!

Just as long as you don't try and buy any lotto tickets here. We don't want you holding up flamefest, mister!

:p

[Indistinguishable]

Of course, in the long run, if you keep buying lottery tickets, the odds approach 1 that you'll end up somewhat worse off than if you never played the lotto (though there are small chances of ending up astronomically better off), and it is to be hoped that players would understand this. But then, it seems to me the same is true of purchasing insurance; insurance is a business just like the lotto, and so it needs to be designed so that the expected value of purchasing insurance is a positive to the insurance company (and thus a negative to the insurance purchaser). So, for those, if any, who feel that way, why is playing the lottery necessarily a stupid decision ("you lose money... even when you win") while purchasing insurance is, presumably, not so stupid?

Indeed, on an expected value basis*, playing the lottery might even be wholly rational, going by the expected value for one's happiness rather than the expected value of one's money, as long as the appropriate sort of non-linear relationship holds between happiness and money. For example, maybe a man's happiness doubles with each dollar he makes, being equal to 2^M, where M is the amount of money he owns. Then a (contrived but reasonable enough) lottery with half a chance of losing him two dollars and half a chance of gaining him one dollar would be a losing game in terms of expected shift in money (-$0.50), but always a winning game in terms of expected shift in happiness (at a time when a player has M dollars, the expected happiness shift from the lottery would be +M/8).

It basically seems to me the most common and glib argument against the rationality of playing the lottery is based off the negative expected monetary value. But, because of the above two points, I don't think this is enough to really condemn it. I'm not saying it would be intelligent to sell your house and gamble the proceeds, or anything. But as to the sort of person who spends a small and affordable amount regularly on lottery tickets, even if we can all reasonably tolerate this as harmless frivolity, must we also consider it necessarily irrational frivolity? I don't think so.


*: As it happens, I have my doubts in the general case about the meaningfulness of cardinal utility, and thus the application of expected value reasoning to decision-making. (You could say I'm skeptical of the utility of cardinal utility and the value of expected values). But I'm pushing that all to the side for now.

[Long Time Lurker]

Well spoken, Indistinguishable. In my opinion, that was the second wisest post in this thread, second of course to:
Sorry. I am posting at work, and got a little lost...I see I wasn't the one to say I have nappy hair and am proud. But I DO! And I am proud that I have the kind of hair that can get nappy.
Sorry, Nzinga :)

[Indistinguishable]

Thanks, Long Time Lurker. Which, as a new poster, I suppose I am obligated to mention I am.

Just to pedantically correct a minor point from my previous post, I had said "the odds approach 1". By "odds", I meant, as should be clear from the context, "probability", and not the technical term odds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds) .

[SenorBeef]

Of course, in the long run, if you keep buying lottery tickets, the odds approach 1 that you'll end up somewhat worse off than if you never played the lotto (though there are small chances of ending up astronomically better off), and it is to be hoped that players would understand this. But then, it seems to me the same is true of purchasing insurance; insurance is a business just like the lotto, and so it needs to be designed so that the expected value of purchasing insurance is a positive to the insurance company (and thus a negative to the insurance purchaser). So, for those, if any, who feel that way, why is playing the lottery necessarily a stupid decision ("you lose money... even when you win") while purchasing insurance is, presumably, not so stupid?



The lottery is a luxury with an extremely unlikely impact of ever positively affecting your life.

Insurances are generally designed to prevent unexpected, catastrophic losses that are far more likely to affect one's life (car crash, medical problem, etc) than it is likely that one would win the lottery.

Strictly looked at as a gamble, insurance is, indeed, -EV, for most people (not everyone - improperly assessed high risk people might find insurance +ev) but it provides utility. You are guarded against life-shattering financial situations that you would otherwise not be able to financially meet. That utility provides value - and so in exchange for the money you lose on the expectation on your monthly insurance payment, in return, you receive a valuable service. So, essentially, the lost value of an insurance "bet" is payment for services rendered. Not so with the lottery, where lost value is simply lost value.



Indeed, on an expected value basis*, playing the lottery might even be wholly rational, going by the expected value for one's happiness rather than the expected value of one's money, as long as the appropriate sort of non-linear relationship holds between happiness and money. For example, maybe a man's happiness doubles with each dollar he makes, being equal to 2^M, where M is the amount of money he owns. Then a (contrived but reasonable enough) lottery with half a chance of losing him two dollars and half a chance of gaining him one dollar would be a losing game in terms of expected shift in money (-$0.50), but always a winning game in terms of expected shift in happiness (at a time when a player has M dollars, the expected happiness shift from the lottery would be +M/8).



This is true, but you could also say that in some utilitarian manner, if someone got huge thrills in life by burning stacks of hundred dollar bills, then that's a +ev decision for them. But you can still question the rationality of it.

And that's sort of the point I was making earlier - if it makes somehow happy to buy a lottery ticket, for the fantasy value, or whatever, then the added happiness can offset the loss of value. But is it rational for that second lottery ticket to have the same happiness value? If the magical fairies are sprinkling their dust on you, or you have some numerology system, or whatever, you should only need one ticket, right?

When does buying tickets become irrational? Two tickets? 10? 1000?

That was my point - I don't pass judgement on people who throw away a little bit of money on the lottery here and there. But the people who buy 20 tickets a week, or get lucky and win $100 and then buy 100 tickets?

[Indistinguishable]

I don't find what you're saying unreasonable or anything, SenorBeef, but I'm not convincingly swayed from my lottery apologetics. To some extent, I am perhaps just arguing useless academic points from the ivory tower, but that is my nature.

The lottery is a luxury with an extremely unlikely impact of ever positively affecting your life.

Insurances are generally designed to prevent unexpected, catastrophic losses that are far more likely to affect one's life (car crash, medical problem, etc) than it is likely that one would win the lottery.

Do you think we can say "Insurance is more likely to be good than the lottery, therefore it's better" and just ignore the actual monetary rewards and prices attached? I wouldn't think that's how most people approach it, which is why I looked at the expected values involved, but perhaps your approach is different.

The catastrophic loss aspect is indeed the big key to why people buy insurance, I agree; on a strictly monetary basis, it doesn't seem worth it, but the happiness loss from scrambling to pay for medical services outweighs the happiness loss from having to pay for insurance, to an extent greater than would be predicted if happiness just scaled linearly with money. (Also an element: positive utility of risk-aversion ). But, then, there could be a "catastrophic windfall" aspect to playing the lottery too, for the right sort of person, in the right sort of mindset, for whom winning a hajillion bucks really would be the sort of nirvana-esque bliss that would make it all worthwhile, more than compensating for the likely insignificant losses. (Also conceivably an element: positive utility of risk-taking [the thrill of gambling] and, as you mentioned, of the fantasizing it enables, though I'd like to say the lottery could be rational even for one who derived no entertainment from the process).

Strictly looked at as a gamble, insurance is, indeed, -EV, for most people (not everyone - improperly assessed high risk people might find insurance +ev) but it provides utility. You are guarded against life-shattering financial situations that you would otherwise not be able to financially meet. That utility provides value - and so in exchange for the money you lose on the expectation on your monthly insurance payment, in return, you receive a valuable service. So, essentially, the lost value of an insurance "bet" is payment for services rendered. Not so with the lottery, where lost value is simply lost value.

In what, precisely, is the utility of the insurance located? The reduction of uncertainty, specifically, or just in the fact that the loss of money you might suffer without insurance has such a huge effect on happiness as to overpower the insignificant loss from paying for insurance, or in something else? And could not the duals of these provide utility too to players of the lottery [people enjoying risk, or feeling, dually to "Going near-broke is awful, just awful", that "Breaking the jackpot is awesome, just awesome"]?

(I'm not asking these questions to be rhetorical and snarkily back-handed; I'm genuinely not clear on and curious about what it is that you're pointing out here as justifying your last two sentences, about the lost value of insurance being redeemed, but the lost value of the lottery being simply lost)


This is true, but you could also say that in some utilitarian manner, if someone got huge thrills in life by burning stacks of hundred dollar bills, then that's a +ev decision for them. But you can still question the rationality of it.

It would seem that at least associating increasing happiness with increasing money (and other goods) should do a lot to shield one's "happiness function" from derision as irrational, but your point here is pretty good; even if a person did genuinely get ridiculously large thrills out of certain things, I guess we can still criticize them as ridiculous, and call irrational the very fact that they feel so happy about those situations. This seems to me the best line of attack on the rationality of the lottery-player's action: not that isn't in accord with their happiness, but that, if it is, their very views on happiness are warped.

And that's sort of the point I was making earlier - if it makes somehow happy to buy a lottery ticket, for the fantasy value, or whatever, then the added happiness can offset the loss of value.

Well, like I said before, I hoped my arguments from my last post could attempt to show the conceivable rationality of playing the lottery, [I]even if one derived no thrill from the process itself; i.e., rationality on the risk-vs.-reward basis alone.

But is it rational for that second lottery ticket to have the same happiness value? If the magical fairies are sprinkling their dust on you, or you have some numerology system, or whatever, you should only need one ticket, right?

Well, the rational lottery player, in my account, is not in it because of delusions about magical fairies and inflated chances, but rather knows the odds and still finds it worthwhile. So to him, yeah, that second lottery ticket might well be worthwhile; it increases the odds of winning just as much as the first.

When does buying tickets become irrational? Two tickets? 10? 1000?

That was my point - I don't pass judgement on people who throw away a little bit of money on the lottery here and there. But the people who buy 20 tickets a week, or get lucky and win $100 and then buy 100 tickets?

I suppose the only account I can come up with for why buying a few tickets on risk-vs.-reward basis might be rational, but buying lots might be irrational, is the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" response: people should have some risk-aversion at low levels of money, I suppose, and thus diversify their portfolios, so to speak. And obviously the risk/uncertainty goes up with the number of tickets bought. But this then is also a good argument for the anti-lotto crowd, to suggest that one's risk-aversion in those situation should, for some reason, be so large as to preclude even purchasing small numbers of tickets. So... food for thought for me (and hopefully I've provided some food for thought for others as well).

[Klaatu]

Well shit, I certainly didn't expect a Great Debate to spring from this thread.

[kidchameleon]

Well shit, I certainly didn't expect a Great Debate to spring from this thread.

NOBODY expects Great Debates. Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and facts.

[Shirley Ujest]

NOBODY expects Great Debates. Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and facts.


Facts?


We don't need no stinkin' facts.




What we need is a winning lottery ticket.

[flight]

Interesting post, Indistinguishable, let me look at it out of order if you don't mind....the rational lottery player...This phrase made me chuckle. I think the problem is that you are attempting to rationalize an intrinsically irrational decision.

I agree that there is a potential for an individual's Personal Pleasure Function (PPF) to skew so highly that money spent on the lottery is so little valued and money won is so highly valued that it makes sense to purchase many lottery tickets. I also think that the coefficients in order to make the math on that work out would have to be so extreme as to be considered pathological. I think it is likely people have a model of their own PPF in their head that they use, without consciously realizing it, when making their lottery purchase that is significantly off of their real PPF. They may be able to gauge how much they mind losing (likely, since they will lose fairly regularly) and winning (less likely, since it would be very rare to win anything significant enough to get a good handle on this), but I think they do not internalize the odds of winning vs losing. Without that last bit of information it is impossible to be able to rectify these numbers into an accurate PPF, and people are notoriously poor at gauging risk. This leads them to make what are poor choices for them.

I will address the interesting question of insurance later. Thank you for joining this thread, it is nice to see some rational arguments against my side.

On Edit: And welcome to the boards, I hope you stick around. Play the lottery and it is virtually certain you will win enough for the registration fee within the first couple hundred tickets.

[dmatsch]

The sad thing was, a lot of them were elderly, probably on fixed incomes.

How is it that the elderly are the ones on fixed incomes and the rest of us schmucks earning salaries are not?

[Shagnasty]

How is it that the elderly are the ones on fixed incomes and the rest of us schmucks earning salaries are not?

That is one of the finest points I have heard in quite a while and very true in the vast majority of cases. I am going to use that at every opportunity from now on. Hell, my family and I have just gone on a "fixed income" in hushed tones because I just figure out where to get anymore right now.

[SenorBeef]

I don't find what you're saying unreasonable or anything, SenorBeef, but I'm not convincingly swayed from my lottery apologetics. To some extent, I am perhaps just arguing useless academic points from the ivory tower, but that is my nature.



Do you think we can say "Insurance is more likely to be good than the lottery, therefore it's better" and just ignore the actual monetary rewards and prices attached? I wouldn't think that's how most people approach it, which is why I looked at the expected values involved, but perhaps your approach is different.



I should've stated it a different way. My point wasn't that the different likelinesses inherently made them different.


The catastrophic loss aspect is indeed the big key to why people buy insurance, I agree; on a strictly monetary basis, it doesn't seem worth it, but the happiness loss from scrambling to pay for medical services outweighs the happiness loss from having to pay for insurance, to an extent greater than would be predicted if happiness just scaled linearly with money.


It's a little too dry and theoretical to talk about this in terms of relative levels of happiness.

Buying insurance is essentially a variance reduction measure. You might live a life without having anything worse than a cold, and therefore require no real medical expenditure. You might never crash a car in your life.

Or you may get cancer and die, without insurance. You might total your car, be broke, and lose your livelihood.

Most people aren't content to leave things that would completely destroy their lives (and even end them) up to random chance like this.

Insurance is a method for reducing the variance on these risks by spreading the costs over a large group. Because this process requires organization, effort, and profit, you have to give up some degree of expectation to pay for that variance reduction. The variance reduction is essentially a service, and you rent it with an insurance payment.

Lottery, on the other hand, is completely a luxury. Not buying a lottery ticket will not be detrimental to your life in the same way risking going without insurance could be.

You could argue that the people running the lottery is a service that you pay for, but it's hard to say you really get the same sort of value for that "service", especially given that the actual -ev nature of the lottery is so high - often on the order of 50%+.


(Also an element: positive utility of risk-aversion ). But, then, there could be a "catastrophic windfall" aspect to playing the lottery too, for the right sort of person, in the right sort of mindset, for whom winning a hajillion bucks really would be the sort of nirvana-esque bliss that would make it all worthwhile, more than compensating for the likely insignificant losses.



This is true, in some sort of theoretical sense that's completely detached from reality where we can precisely quantify happiness - but you have to wonder how extreme the numbers would have to be to add up to this. For a poor person buying 30 lottery tickets per week, the happiness they'd have to derive from winning the lottery would have to be something like a 600 year orgasm to properly balance out.

But even if you accept that, you can still question whether the person is rational for having those particular values for what makes them happy.




(Also conceivably an element: positive utility of risk-taking [the thrill of gambling] and, as you mentioned, of the fantasizing it enables, though I'd like to say the lottery could be rational even for one who derived no entertainment from the process).



Do you mean to say that someone could rationally accept losing value on the chance of being the beneficiary of variance (that is, winning the lottery) without deriving any entertainment value out of it? I guess I see what you mean - kind of a weird way to think about it though. In a way, the person who doesn't get entertainment value would strictly be playing the lottery for the monetary aspect, and as a rational person, would understand the long term -ev losing nature of it.

But I suppose you could make a case for someone's personal preference valuing the variance itself. For instance - if someone could take their life savings and put them on a roll of the dice - paying 5 to 1 - that would be a completely EV-neutral bet. Variance would be the only factor. A rational person, if their views/preferences/whatever decided on that bet, it wouldn't inherently be irrational... maybe.

So what if it becomes 4.99:1? Now you're losing value very slighty, but the risk of benefiting from that variance might suit your preferences enough to offset the loss in value. Does that change the rationality of it?

In the same way, a person could accept the loss in value because they believe that the variance itself has some value - the chance to win big, even if it's a long term loser, has value above and beyond the expectation.

I'm not sure, though, if I would consider that viewpoint entirely rational. I'd have to think about it.

I'm really rambling now so I'm not sure if I made much of a cohesive point.



In what, precisely, is the utility of the insurance located?




As I said, it's essentially paying for variance reduction. You could say "Well, I'll take the chance on getting cancer and dying" and not buy insurance (high variance) or take the insurance, and risk never needing it, but not risking catastrophic loss if you do. Going uninsured is a high variance bet - you may benefit from never paying insurance if you spend your whole life healthy, or you may die. So much variance that paying for the service of reducing that variance via the loss of expected value inherent for most people in insurance premiums is worthwhile.


The reduction of uncertainty, specifically, or just in the fact that the loss of money you might suffer without insurance has such a huge effect on happiness as to overpower the insignificant loss from paying for insurance, or in something else?


More or less, yes. If you decide not to "gamble" on insurance and lose, you may very well be dead. If you decide not to play the lottery.. well, you just didn't play the lottery.


And could not the duals of these provide utility too to players of the lottery [people enjoying risk, or feeling, dually to "Going near-broke is awful, just awful", that "Breaking the jackpot is awesome, just awesome"]?



This sounds more like a compulsive gambling disorder than what most people would consider rational.


(I'm not asking these questions to be rhetorical and snarkily back-handed; I'm genuinely not clear on and curious about what it is that you're pointing out here as justifying your last two sentences, about the lost value of insurance being redeemed, but the lost value of the lottery being simply lost)


I hope I've cleared up what I meant about insurance providing a value to offset the loss of expectation. I understand your points, but I don't really see the similarities to insurance and lottery that you do.


It would seem that at least associating increasing happiness with increasing money (and other goods) should do a lot to shield one's "happiness function" from derision as irrational, but your point here is pretty good; even if a person did genuinely get ridiculously large thrills out of certain things, I guess we can still criticize them as ridiculous, and call irrational the very fact that they feel so happy about those situations. This seems to me the best line of attack on the rationality of the lottery-player's action: not that isn't in accord with their happiness, but that, if it is, their very views on happiness are warped.


That is part of it. Another aspect is that we're dealing with a hypothetical of a super-rational lottery player which... is probably not very likely. More likely, the person doesn't fully think through the full consequences of their actions.

If a person would get a million happiness units from winning the lottery, but their chance was one in a million, every ticket they purchase would be equivelant, in expected value, to one happiness unit. But what if spending the money on something else - a tv, a nice dinner, whatever, brought the person 5 happiness points for the same cost as a lottery ticket? Then they're losing net happiness by leaps and bounds. And as poor people seem to be the most common lottery players, this scenario I'm guessing would be very common - that a lot more happiness would be provided by that extra $1000 that they didn't spend on the lottery every year than on the (unlikely) chance to win the lottery.

So if we have some sort of super rational person who analyzes their personal values and decides that the chance of getting favorable variance overcomes the loss in value, you might sort of have a rational person. But that's an extreme case. Most people play the lottery without a rational analysis - they don't really understand what it costs them, and they don't really understand how unlikely it is that they'd win.


Well, like I said before, I hoped my arguments from my last post could attempt to show the conceivable rationality of playing the lottery, [I]even if one derived no thrill from the process itself; i.e., rationality on the risk-vs.-reward basis alone.


Well, the rational lottery player, in my account, is not in it because of delusions about magical fairies and inflated chances, but rather knows the odds and still finds it worthwhile. So to him, yeah, that second lottery ticket might well be worthwhile; it increases the odds of winning just as much as the first.



How does this scale, I wonder? If the first ticket was a rational purchase, and the second was a rational purchase - where's the stop point? Should that person spend every free dollar on a lottery ticket?


I suppose the only account I can come up with for why buying a few tickets on risk-vs.-reward basis might be rational, but buying lots might be irrational, is the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" response: people should have some risk-aversion at low levels of money, I suppose, and thus diversify their portfolios, so to speak. And obviously the risk/uncertainty goes up with the number of tickets bought. But this then is also a good argument for the anti-lotto crowd, to suggest that one's risk-aversion in those situation should, for some reason, be so large as to preclude even purchasing small numbers of tickets. So... food for thought for me (and hopefully I've provided some food for thought for others as well).

It seems to me that every additional purchase has less value.

If I accept the view of the rational lottery player, they're essentially giving up expectation because they find value in the variance. I'm not conceding that's a rational view - I'd have to think about it - but even if that's the premise, the more tickets someone buys, the closer they get to the actual expected value. As there are more trials, the variance goes down.

And so if someone bought 1000 tickets per week, rather than one, their variance would be much lower, and their results would more closely follow their expectation. They're in it for the variance, but with every ticket purchased, that variance is reduced.

So the maximum value from that viewpoint would be only to buy one lottery ticket, ever. That's the maximum variance solution.

Does that make sense?

[kidchameleon]

How is it that the elderly are the ones on fixed incomes and the rest of us schmucks earning salaries are not?

Well, I suppose you could get a raise, they can't.

[Nava]

Is it possible that there's some confusion here about the quantity of cigarettes purchased? Where I come from, a carton of cigarettes is 10 packs, that's 200 cigarettes.

I started smoking in about 1996, and a carton of name brand cigarettes was about $20. I can't see how the price could have more than quadrupled in a decade, even if the one was tax-free.

Over 90% of the price of cigarettes in Spain is taxes. And back when the only company that could sell tobacco was Tabacalera, it was government-owned...



One of the things I dislike about working in Spain is the Christmas lottery. Eeeeeeevery single company buys company tickets. Eeeeeevery store, bar, sports association, fan club buys group tickets. Stores give away tickets (based on the amount you purchased) for a "Christmas basket," whomever got the same number that won the national lottery gets the basket of food goodies. Parishes do the same, but they charge you for the tickets (it's for charity!). And of course the line everybody uses is "but, what if it wins and you're the only one who didn't buy it?"
And the thing is, it's the one prize that's "traditional" and which has fame outside our borders, but it isn't even that big!

I play lottery sometimes, on a whim (biggest win, 15000 pta on a private-lottery ticket which had cost 100pta). But I like doing it on a whim, not because everybody spends a month nagging me to do it :p

[Indistinguishable]

First off, thanks to flight for the welcome. I'll respond to your post in a bit, though perhaps I should wait for your follow-up on insurance. For now, I'll just give a small response to SenorBeef's.

Buying insurance is essentially a variance reduction measure.
...
Because this process requires organization, effort, and profit, you have to give up some degree of expectation to pay for that variance reduction. The variance reduction is essentially a service, and you rent it with an insurance payment.

Fair enough. I did mention that risk-aversion was one good reason to buy insurance. It seems a little odd, though, to me, to believe that risk-aversion is rational but risk-taking is necessarily irrational (the very standard wording, of course, works against me. One must keep in mind that risk-aversion is reward-aversion and risk-taking is reward-seeking).

Lottery, on the other hand, is completely a luxury. Not buying a lottery ticket will not be detrimental to your life in the same way risking going without insurance could be.

You could argue that the people running the lottery is a service that you pay for, but it's hard to say you really get the same sort of value for that "service", especially given that the actual -ev nature of the lottery is so high - often on the order of 50%+.

Well, sure, not buying a lottery ticket will never be detrimental to your life, except in terms of opportunity cost when compared to the possible huge beneficial effect you are turning your back on. People aren't playing the lottery out of fear of the consequences if they don't, they're playing out of hope for the consequences if they do. I don't know why it matters that the lottery is a luxury; you can happily get away with not playing it, sure, but you're giving up something in so doing, something which you might actually want. And if you don't think people should want the rewards so badly, I think there's a burden which falls upon you to demonstrate why they shouldn't.

This is true, in some sort of theoretical sense that's completely detached from reality where we can precisely quantify happiness...

Yeah, like I said, I have my doubts about the very meaningfulness of cardinal utility/talk of happiness ratios/etc., but it's a useful approximation to the uncontroversial actual facts, that a gamble changes from an undesirable one to a desirable one at some level of increase in the desirability of the rewards.

- but you have to wonder how extreme the numbers would have to be to add up to this. For a poor person buying 30 lottery tickets per week, the happiness they'd have to derive from winning the lottery would have to be something like a 600 year orgasm to properly balance out.

But even if you accept that, you can still question whether the person is rational for having those particular values for what makes them happy.

Certainly. I thought this was an interesting and insightful point for you to bring up last time, and conceded it as your best point of attack on the rationality of lottery players. Though, for me to really buy it in full generality, and agree with condemnation of lottery players, I'd need to see it more fleshed out as to just why the happiness valuations necessary are irrational.

Do you mean to say that someone could rationally accept losing value on the chance of being the beneficiary of variance (that is, winning the lottery) without deriving any entertainment value out of it?

Yes, I do, most of my arguments have been in support of this (though see below for my updated viewpoint). Because whether the lottery has losing value or winning value is very much dependent on how you measure value, as illustrated before with the happiness vs. money thing. What's true is that if you keep playing the lottery forever, probability approaches 1 for it not having been a net positive for you, but this, like I said, holds true of insurance as well, in the sense that it too has negative expected monetary value which will come to dominate in the long run. So this probabilistic long-term analysis doesn't seem to be enough for condemnation of the lottery, since it doesn't differentiate between the lottery and insurance.

I guess I see what you mean - kind of a weird way to think about it though. In a way, the person who doesn't get entertainment value would strictly be playing the lottery for the monetary aspect, and as a rational person, would understand the long term -ev losing nature of it.

But I suppose you could make a case for someone's personal preference valuing the variance itself. For instance - if someone could take their life savings and put them on a roll of the dice - paying 5 to 1 - that would be a completely EV-neutral bet. Variance would be the only factor. A rational person, if their views/preferences/whatever decided on that bet, it wouldn't inherently be irrational... maybe.

So what if it becomes 4.99:1? Now you're losing value very slighty, but the risk of benefiting from that variance might suit your preferences enough to offset the loss in value. Does that change the rationality of it?

In the same way, a person could accept the loss in value because they believe that the variance itself has some value - the chance to win big, even if it's a long term loser, has value above and beyond the expectation.

I'm not sure, though, if I would consider that viewpoint entirely rational. I'd have to think about it.

Yeah, this would be getting a thrill from risk-seeking behavior, which I saw as the dual to finding insurance useful for its risk-reduction. When I say I'd like to argue that the lottery could be rational even without entertainment value, I mean purely on the risks and rewards alone, which (though I think I may not have been fully aware of this myself as I was writing out previous arguments) includes the ability to account for risk-seeking and risk-aversion, since they are parts of the risks and rewards. I was thinking this "risks and rewards basis alone" approach was throwing out the ability to consider benefits from fantasizing and "entertainment value". Though, now, as I ponder it, the ability to fantasize is really just something that arises from the risks and rewards anyway, as is the "entertainment value", in a way. So I'm not sure the distinction is so important anymore. But, at any rate, my viewpoint is that one could soberly, knowingly, rationally choose to play the lottery specifically because of its particular risks and rewards, without having to harbor any delusions about the exact numbers involved, or be unable to get a proper perspective on them.

More or less, yes. If you decide not to "gamble" on insurance and lose, you may very well be dead. If you decide not to play the lottery.. well, you just didn't play the lottery.

I basically responded to this above, but you seem to think it important enough to repeat, so I'll repeat the gist of my response. You aren't gonna die from not playing the lottery, but you'll live a boring life if you only act to avoid death. There's the opportunity cost of what you give up, which can be significant.

I hope I've cleared up what I meant about insurance providing a value to offset the loss of expectation. I understand your points, but I don't really see the similarities to insurance and lottery that you do.

You certainly did clear it up, thanks. It's all about variance-reduction. But what's intrinsically good about risk-and-reward-aversion and intrinsically bad about risky reward-seeking?

That is part of it. Another aspect is that we're dealing with a hypothetical of a super-rational lottery player which... is probably not very likely. More likely, the person doesn't fully think through the full consequences of their actions.

If a person would get a million happiness units from winning the lottery, but their chance was one in a million, every ticket they purchase would be equivelant, in expected value, to one happiness unit. But what if spending the money on something else - a tv, a nice dinner, whatever, brought the person 5 happiness points for the same cost as a lottery ticket? Then they're losing net happiness by leaps and bounds. And as poor people seem to be the most common lottery players, this scenario I'm guessing would be very common - that a lot more happiness would be provided by that extra $1000 that they didn't spend on the lottery every year than on the (unlikely) chance to win the lottery.

So if we have some sort of super rational person who analyzes their personal values and decides that the chance of getting favorable variance overcomes the loss in value, you might sort of have a rational person. But that's an extreme case. Most people play the lottery without a rational analysis - they don't really understand what it costs them, and they don't really understand how unlikely it is that they'd win.

I'm not sure why you can leap to these conclusions. What's inherent about poor people being the most common lottery players that allows you to infer that they're probably not playing rationally, or that even though the lottery might provide happiness for them, a fancy dinner would be even happier? (I suppose being poor is itself some sort of evidence of poor financial skills..., is that it?) When people toss around blanket assertions like "Most people play the lottery without really understanding the costs and chances", I want to ask "Cite?".

How does this scale, I wonder? If the first ticket was a rational purchase, and the second was a rational purchase - where's the stop point? Should that person spend every free dollar on a lottery ticket?

Well, I outlined a risk-aversion based argument for diversification, and thus for not buying lots of tickets. [I had typed a long thing here about the paradox of decision theory that individually rational one-shot games can be strung into a clearly irrational infinite chain, and described the problem as perhaps a soritical situation, where each new ticket purchase is itself reasonable, though eventually the combined result is somehow unreasonable compared to the start, but deleted it, for fear it would only lead to embarrassment as way too head-in-the-clouds theoretical about this.] But I should say it's not important to me that the second ticket have the same desirability as the first; I had said it would, if the player were employing purely expected value based reasoning, instead of some more subtle analysis of risks and rewards, but since I don't really care for purely expected value based reasoning, it's not important to me that the second be as desirable as the first.

If I accept the view of the rational lottery player, they're essentially giving up expectation because they find value in the variance.

Don't think of it as giving up expectation, because expectation is a very poor, scale-dependent measure (happiness vs. money again). Depending on what you're looking at, they might actually be gaining expectation. And the value isn't purely in the variance, per se (since there are some variance increases [negative payout lotteries, say] which they'd surely turn down), but in some sort of analysis of risks and rewards which may occasionally happen to favor risk-taking.

I'm not conceding that's a rational view - I'd have to think about it - but even if that's the premise, the more tickets someone buys, the closer they get to the actual expected value. As there are more trials, the variance goes down.

And so if someone bought 1000 tickets per week, rather than one, their variance would be much lower, and their results would more closely follow their expectation. They're in it for the variance, but with every ticket purchased, that variance is reduced.

So the maximum value from that viewpoint would be only to buy one lottery ticket, ever. That's the maximum variance solution.

Does that make sense?

It's not necessarily the case that buying more tickets reduces variance. Obviously, when you've bought them all, you've reduced variance down to 0. And when you've bought none, variance is also at 0. So it rises and then falls in the middle, but not necessarily with the peak at 1 ticket. We can measure variance in a million different ways (standard deviation, VARIANCE variance [standard deviation squared], various schemes based off of Shannon entropy, etc.), and depending on how you measured it, the peak would be at a different number of tickets. But, even disregarding all that, like I said, the lottery player isn't playing purely to increase variance, but just has some method of evaluating risks and rewards in mind, which needn't be just the "Look at the expected monetary value" method. The method they have in mind could favor buying 8 tickets but not 9, who knows? I just don't think the method has to be the "Look at the expected monetary value, and maybe also apply some risk-aversion" method to be considered rational, and that there's room for rational analysis of risks and rewards that condones buying several tickets regularly.

[jali]

It's not really logical to drink a flavored beverage (soda) when water is available. I don't get irrationally pissed off at the cola drinkers ahead of me in line.

It's not really logical to drink any type of alcoholic beverage at all since our perceptions are changed by alcohol. I don't grumble in line behind the beer or wine buyer in the supermarket.

I don't understand the real dislike of lottery players. It's fun to dream - maybe not at all logical, but it's fun. Why all the anger?

[Justin_Bailey]

It's not really logical to drink a flavored beverage (soda) when water is available. I don't get irrationally pissed off at the cola drinkers ahead of me in line.

It's not really logical to drink any type of alcoholic beverage at all since our perceptions are changed by alcohol. I don't grumble in line behind the beer or wine buyer in the supermarket.

I don't understand the real dislike of lottery players. It's fun to dream - maybe not at all logical, but it's fun. Why all the anger?

I think that's the most sensible thing I've seen in the entire thread.

And I'm well aware of the fact that my anger has basically prevented me from saying the same thing even though this is exactly how I feel.

And all I drink is water. All you pop drinkers disgust me. ;)

[Nzinga, Seated]

I don't grumble in line behind the beer or wine buyer in the supermarket.

But they don't hold up the line for a long ass time. That is my gripe with lotto players.