I must have been massively unclear. I am not talking about on-line games, I am saying that one could do a scratch off game in which the number of winners is not pre-determined, but randomly assigned to each ticket based on probability. That way knowing the fate of previous tickets gives you no additional information.
As for Lotto, I see no relationship at all to the current topic unless Lotto means something different in your area.
Yes, but in the case of scratch-offs, and my scenario, one DOES know the state of the game. That is the basis of the objection to the sale of tickets after the big prize is no longer available.
Does anybody know what the margin of error is on Fortune Cookies? I’d really like to sue some Chinese restaurants for saying those numbers are lucky and giving me misleading information on personal issues.
I understood the difference. With a scratch-off, since there is usually some game play of some sort, it would be not be possible to change the value of a ticket. What you are describing can only be achieved with an online game of some sort. ( Ticket/Voiucher/Game piece printed on the fly ) There are states with immediate win online games. Those can be configured to have fixed odd regardless of the previous sales. These are not scratch-off / instant games ( same thing, different name depending on the area of the country )
We might be using different meanings here. Is a prize no longer available from the time it is sold?
Or the time it is cashed?
The state has a definitive idea when a ticket is cashed. They have no idea when an instant ticket is sold. No one can tell you if the winners got shipped to Joe’s Bait and tackle on the 21st. The really do not know if Joe has sold 10 tickets or all 300 in the book of tickets. They might know that 5 2$ winners have been cashed that originated from a book sold by Joe, but that’s it.
Since a lot of places have cashing periods of six months to a year, it is quite possible that they will pull a game due to poor sales before they have any idea if the big winners have even been sold. average street life on an instant game is maybe four months.
Some states actively choose to NOT know what tickets have been cashed. They know the total amount paid out due to that game to date, but now how that value is built up. 10$ is 10$ whether is comes from 1 payout or 5.
Probably pretty bad. They either print number from a smaller pool than is available in a particular area, or a larger on. Neither of these improve your odds of winning. I suggest you contact the maker of the Fortune Cookies, find out what range of number they are using, and then sue your local lottery agency for not conforming to the same matrix, thereby depriving you of any chance of winning the top tier, and greatly reducing your chance of winning one of the teaser prizes.
I’d like to report that the Wonton Food Co. of Brooklyn, NY provides the right quantity (6) of lucky numbers, and that they are apparently distributed across the range (01-49) used to play New Jersey Pick 6.
A lawsuit has been avoided.
And my fortune is “Do not let great ambitions overshadow small success.” Which seems strangely appropriate for this thread.
(Welcome to the dope, gnome42. Thanks for the input!)
Well following this to its logical conclusion, then the only “fair” way to run a scratch off Lottery would be to make the biggest prize the very last ticket sold state wide.
It will be left as an exercise to the student as to how to make this happen. Also how to sell the first 99.99 Bazillion tickets out of the 10 Bazillion printed, will present a few problems.
So how are you going to solve this issues?
If you change “previous five” to “previous four,” then absolutely: they each had a 0% chance of losing, whereas, I also have a 0% chance of losing, since the gun was in the fifth chamber. It wasn’t 1/6 in each chamber. When the fifth guy shot himself, 1/6 of a bullet didn’t magically disappear out of the sixth chamber.
You’re right that they were ignorant of their real odds, and so they had to rely on probability theory, whereas I have more information with which to decide whether to play the game. I’m in better shape, not worse shape, than them.
If I choose not to avail myself of the information that’s out there, then I’m no better or worse off than everyone else. If I choose to avail myself of it before making my decision, then I’m better off than the folks who weren’t able to do so. If I find out about where the winning ticket (or bullet) is after I make my decision, then it’s irrelevant whether someone else found out where the winning ticket (or bullet) was before I made my decision: I’m having to operate according to probability, since my actual knowledge is stunted.
Daniel
I’d like to sue because it turns out I am not an influential trend setter whose opinions are respected by others.
Now consider this. The tickets are distributed to all players at once, and, as you say, each player has an equal chance of winning.
Now, suppose that in order to compare your ticket to a winner, you must pay $1. The players, in turn, pay their dollar and compare their tickets. The conditional probability of a winner is clearly changing with each comparison, and goes to 0 when the winning ticket is found. Do you still expect each player to pay $1 for their “equal” chance of winning at this point?
If the owners of the lottery made each player go into a closet to do the comparison, and did not let the winner reveal his win, do you think the players who went after him would be happy?
I already stated the solution in posts 76 and 81. They key is to not print a pre-determined number of winners, but to assign to each ticket a random value based on the probability distribution. This can be done ahead of time (i.e., it has nothing to do with on-line games). Here is a simple example: Let’s say you have a game in which you print 10 tickets with prizes that range from $1 to $10.
One way to do this is print exactly one $1 card, one $2 card, etc. In this case when the $10 prize is scratched off you know that no other unsold/unredeemed cards can have that value.
In my way each card is assigned a value from $1 to $10 with a 1 in 10 chance of being any one of those values. Then the entire batch of cards is printed. Now there is not always going to be exactly one $10 winner in the batch. Even if I know there has already been another $10 winner there is still a 1 in 10 chance that my card is also a $10 winner.
You’re using a different definition of “chance” than most other people in this thread. That doesn’t make your observations incorrect, but that doesn’t make Dan’s observations incorrect, either.
You’re using “chance” as shorthand for, “given all the things that have been previously determined, whether or not I personally have knowledge of them, will a certain result occur when I undertake this action?”
Dan is using “chance” as a shorthand for, “if I did this action multiple times, how often would I expect a certain result, given the information I have?”
And, I should point out, Dan’s definition is normally the way people understand the meaning of “chance.” As evidence, take a look at Cecil’s column on the Monty Hall problem (and the various threads spawned by that, if you dare). In that problem, by definition, Monty knows what’s behind each of the doors, and from his perspective, the “chance” of any particular door being a winner is either 0% or 100%. However, the contestant does not know what’s behind each door, and from the contestant’s perspective, the “chance” of a particular door being a winner is 1/3 or 2/3. Same event, different valid “chances”, depending on information known.
I know I’m using a slightly different definition. The problem is that others are also using one.
Not exactly. People are talking about how their chances of getting a winning ticket change once the winning ticket has been scratched off, even if they’re unaware that the winning ticket has been scratched off. It’s as though they’re using "chance as shorthand for, “if I did this action multiple times, how often would I expect a certain result, given the information I or anybody else has?”
If we use only the shorthand that you offer, there’s no problem. Maybe you don’t know the winning ticket has been scratched off, in which case your chance of winning doesn’t change at all. Maybe you do know it’s been scratched off, in which case you now have the information to know that your chance of winning will be 0%.
It’s only when we allow knowledge that other people have, but we don’t have, to affect our odds, that it appears something wonky is happening.
Let’s imagine yet another lottery. In this one, there’s no double-blind thing going on: one extremely honest sould printed the winning ticket and knows that it is the third from the top in the stack of tickets being sold at Joe’s Stop and Go. If you go to purchase the second-from-the-top ticket, there’s someone out there who knows beyond a doubt that you’re not going to win. Even though your ticket says, “Win up to $75,000,” they know you’re not going to win. Have you been defrauded?
No: someone else’s knowledge about your odds may not figure into your own best-case calculations.
Odds require that you accept a premise and a mathematical system. The premise is that a winning ticket was printed and a million losing tickets were printed. THe math is a fraction. If your premise and your math are right, that’s how you get your odds.
People are suggesting a different premise: that a winning ticket was printed, and it hasn’t been sold yet, and a million losing tickets were printed. This is, first off, not the premise offered to you by the people running the game. Second, it makes figuring the odds impossible, since this premise would require you to know how many of the losing tickets have been sold.
It’s a lousy and irrelevant premise. If you’re unwilling to accept the one offered to you by the folks running the game, then you’re free not to play; but to play, operating under an unworkable premise you came up with for yourself, and then to get angry when it doesn’t match the lottery commission’s premise, is foolish.
Daniel
First of all, people are talking about “chances of winning” from the perspective of the people running the lottery. That’s kind of the whole basis of this thread–should the lottery commission still advertise a certain chance of winning, even though they know perfectly well, from their perspective, that the probability has changed to zero? Everyone’s fine with treating the lottery probabilistically, so long as everyone else has the same knowledge, and the odds are being rrepresented fairly. (For some different interpretations of “fairly,” for sure, but I’m not particularly interested in that.)
Second of all, DanBlather’s post that you were originally responding to was this: “You are playing Russian Roulette with a six shot revolver. The first though fourth player hear a click. The fifth person shoots himself dead. As the sixth player do you really think you now have the same chance to die as the previous five?” He has explicitly specified that the player (“you”) now has additional knowledge, which means he’s not one of these people who “allow knowledge that other people have, but [they] don’t have, to affect [their] odds.”
It depends on how you interpret the statement, which again is what this thread is all about. It’s not unreasonable to interpret it as Mr. Extremely Honest’s guarantee that, so far as he knows, every ticket gives the purchaser a “chance” to win $75,000. In which case, Mr. Extremely Honest isn’t so much, is he? Neither is it unreasonable to interpret it as Mr. Extremely Honest’s guarantee that somewhere there exists a ticket which will win $75,000, and as far as every purchaser knows, there’s a chance it’s the one in front of him.
If, however, Mr. Extremely Honest knows there does not exist a ticket which will win $75,000, and still gives his guarantee, then thats not very honest at all.
At the point where the lottery commission made the claim that a winning ticket existed, a winning ticket existed. If you look at your ticket, it’s pretty clear that your ticket doesn’t have an Internet connection, nor does it have an LED screen by which the text on it may be updated. Of course the text on the ticket (and, for that matter, on posters in the window) was printed at the point when a winning unclaimed ticket existed. If you choose to evaluate that claim as reflecting up-to-the-minute information, that’s an unreasonable interpretation, and not one for which the commission should be accountable.
If the lottery commission is making new statements (filming new ads, printing new tickets, etc.) after the winning ticket has been uncovered, then there might be a problem. I see no evidence that that’s happening.
Daniel
I sell a fair amount of lottery tickets (mostly scratchoffs), and people really don’t seem to pay too much attention to the “win up to $xx!” bit. Instead, they’re really just looking for a “big score” of some sort. They say (to me) “Maybe I’ll win big!” and such, but I’ve never heard anyone say “Maybe I’ll win $xx!” Sometimes they do ask if I’ve had any sizable winners on a particular ticket, and are less likely to purchase that kind if so, from a perceived smaller chance of winning because of the previous winner. While some people do spend a *foolish[\I] amount of money on lottery tickets, I don’t think they are (in general) actually necessarily stupid. They know there’s a good chance that they will fail to win, but it is there only chance to become wealthy, and so they try anyway. Sometimes I do want to cut people off (like at a bar): “No, I’m sorry, you’ve had too much. No more tickets for you!”
And that’s actually a reasonable thing to do: if you have incomplete information, knowing more information does help you calculate your odds better. It’s not the fact that you’ve sold winners that makes their odds worse if they buy one; it’s the fact that they know that you’ve sold winners that makes their odds worse if they buy one.
Daniel
The debate seems to revolve around differing ideas of what’s “fair”, a concept which has some mathematical use (as in tossing a fair coin). But it seems to be mostly used in a non-rigorous way that tends to attract hugely self-serving interpretations, as any one who has ever had a 6 year old will agree.
Nevertheless, “fair” or not, the only thing that matters is the written terms of the contract of purchase (whether the authority underlying those terms is the general law of contract or some statutory modification thereof specific to scratchies, which is often the case). It does not matter whether the rules comply with the plaintiff’s (or anybody else’s) self-serving sense of fairness - as has been observed above, if you don’t like the game, don’t play. And it does not matter how disproportonate the attention given to the disclaimer is as compared to the hook - if the fact that disclaimers were in fine print were a legitimate legal objection, we would not have any fine print. There are no doubt those who think that might be a good thing, but it is not the law.
I am highly confident (even without Gnome42’s insider account) that the terms would have made it plain that if the Big One has been sold, it’s tough luck if you still buy in. The scratchie people are professionals after all, and the plaintiff in the OP is not the first person to have thought of this.
In any event, a further issue emerges. What are the damages due to a plaintiff in this situation, even assuming him to be right?
The usual principle in assessing damages is that the guilty defendant has to replace/restore what the plaintiff has lost. In the present case, even assuming the most self-serving view of probability, the plaintiff has not lost $75,000, he has lost the margin between two chances - zero and infinitesimal. Accepting his claim that he would not have bought in had he known of the prior sale of the winner, he has lost the value of his ticket (arguably minus the value of the chance that that ticket would have won a minor prize).
I know American courts tend to hand out punitive damages much more generously than Commonwealth courts, but absent proof of fraud, why would anyone get punitive damages here? Even if the lottery rules were struck down on some entirely novel basis as unfair, they were publicly available in one form or another, so fraud will be impossible to prove in a practical sense.
This suit smells of attention seeking, or at best a naive attempt to bleat about “the principle of the thing”, a concept which almost always makes lawyers start thinking about checking out the new Ferrari catalogue, and almost never makes whiny plaintiff’s rich.
We need a term for a totally trivial, self-serving, tying-up-the-courts lawsuit. Fortunately, a recent case has given us just the term we need:
This lawsuit is pants.
Daniel
This is TOTALLY unrelated to this particular case, but it has brought to mind something that happened several years ago in Spain.
I imagine that some here have heard of the Christmas Lottery in Spain (“La Lotería del Gordo”). It has been running once a year for close to 200 years now (it began in 1812) and has accumulated a series of semi-quaint traditions. But I digress… 
(for more info, you can check Wikipedia).
Something very typical is for a pub, bank, or even individual to buy some tickets, and sell “shares”, which give a right to share in the (potential) prize. Tickets for the Christmas Lottery are expensive (€200 nowadays, divided in 10 “décimos” of €20 each). With a first prize of €3,000,000 it may be attractive to do these “shares”… And, anyway, it is traditional You are not supposed to sell more “shares” than the value of the tickets that you originally bought, anyway.
In any case, in 1986, there was this guy who hit upon a great scam (undoubtedly others had been doing it before):
<train of thought> What are the chances of winning the big prize in that lottery, anyway? Ridiculously small! So, why not buy a few tickets, and then sell WAY more shares than I can possibly cover? Chances are this ticket won’t win anything, and I will just pocket the cash! </train of thought>
He shopped around until he found what he thought was an “unlikely-looking” number (03772) and started selling “shares” like there was no tomorrow (this will give a clue as to his mental acuity, thinking that some numbers may be more likely to turn up than others due to their “appearance”).
You can guess were this is going, right?
THAT NUMBER WON THE BIG PRIZE.
Here is an article (only in Spanish, sorry) with some info on the case, which has been put in the internet archive of the “El Pais” newspaper.
It is one of those things that make you go, “man…”
It also made me think of “The Producers”, in some way 
(Ironically, most of his customers were little old ladies).
Just my 2 eurocent!