The Economy and The Lottery

[Savage Beatings]

I was just thinking about this over the weekend and thought I'd see how it shapes up amongst Huddlers.

[Big John]

 

Looking for much, who said that the lottery was a tax on those who couldn't do math and had a sigline to that effect.

[keggerz]

No change in behavior - rarely or never buy lottery tickets.

[billay]

Looking for much, who said that the lottery was a tax on those who couldn't do math and had a sigline to that effect.

Exactly, it's a voluntary tax.

[SheikYerbuti]

The Lottery is the worst gamble there is. It's offensive how "anti-gambling" states get on their high horse about the subject, but have no problem offering their citizens the worst odds on the planet and advertising it as "you can get rich quick!". Totally hypocritical.

[Perchoutofwater]

I love the lottery. I never play it, but I love it. It is a tax on the stupid.

[TimC]

Looking for much, who said that the lottery was a tax on those who couldn't do math and had a sigline to that effect.

 

I know Dave Ramsey says that...and it's 100% true.

 

I contribute $5 with the co-workers when the mega-one gets over 100 million, but never play anything else. I'd rather take my money to Vegas on blackjack or poker where I have a much better chance.

[wiegie]

I contribute $5 with the co-workers when the mega-one gets over 100 million, but never play anything else.

I do the same--not because I think that we will win, but only because I would be really really pissed if my coworkers ever won and I didn't. (I consider the $5 a form of insurance against the very very very very very unlikely but incredibly severe pain I would feel from watching my coworkers get rich without me getting rich too.)

 

Overall, I wish they would get rid of the lottery.

 

(Edit to add: although lotteries have been part of America since it's earliest days--if I recall correctly, I think when facing bankruptcy, Thomas Jefferson even raised money to save Montecello via a lottery.)

Edited March 9, 2009 by wiegie

[detlef]

I do the same--not because I think that we will win, but only because I would be really really pissed if my coworkers ever won and I didn't. (I consider the $5 a form of insurance against the very very very very very unlikely but incredibly severe pain I would feel from watching my coworkers get rich without me getting rich too.)

 

Overall, I wish they would get rid of the lottery.

 

(Edit to add: although lotteries have been part of America since it's earliest days--if I recall correctly, I think when facing bankruptcy, Thomas Jefferson even raised money to save Montecello via a lottery.)

I'll preface by saying almost never play. However, isn't there a point, once the pot gets big enough that it's actually a fine play with respect to pot-odds? I mean, your odds of winning are still almost nothing, but at 150 mil or so, I think the pay-out is in-line with the odds.

 

None the less, I agree with Sheik about they hypocrisy of the whole thing. Gambling is one of those sin-based laws, is it not? I mean, isn't that allegedly the reason why it is illegal? A restaurant isn't allowed to host a poker game where their only cut is the food and drink sold at the table, yet the state and Injuns can do it en masse?

 

The other thing that gets me is how complicated they make it and how much money must go into all the marketing and such. When I go into a convenience store, I'm greeted with a huge wall of different scratchers you can buy. Seems like a lot of energy going into it and how, like those stupid 2-fer books or the police fundraiser scams, the biggest winner is the guy who puts the thing on, not the schools or whatever they tell you is the intended beneficiary.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I love the lottery. I never play it, but I love it. It is a tax on the stupid.

 

+1 to a "t"

[muck]

Looking for much, who said that the lottery was a tax on those who couldn't do math and had a sigline to that effect.

 

You're looking quite a bit (much), or your looking for me (muck)?

 

...just curious, but, yes, that's what I had as a sigline for a while...

[The Irish Doggy]

I know Dave Ramsey says that...and it's 100% true.

 

I contribute $5 with the co-workers when the mega-one gets over 100 million.

 

+1

 

I do the same--not because I think that we will win, but only because I would be really really pissed if my coworkers ever won and I didn't. (I consider the $5 a form of insurance against the very very very very very unlikely but incredibly severe pain I would feel from watching my coworkers get rich without me getting rich too.)

 

+1

 

Although, we just do $1. I know we have a snowball's chance, but I just figure what the hell.

[Big John]

You're looking quite a bit (much), or your looking for me (muck)?

 

...just curious, but, yes, that's what I had as a sigline for a while...

Typo, I meant you, muck.

[Big Country]

I'll preface by saying almost never play. However, isn't there a point, once the pot gets big enough that it's actually a fine play with respect to pot-odds? I mean, your odds of winning are still almost nothing, but at 150 mil or so, I think the pay-out is in-line with the odds.

 

None the less, I agree with Sheik about they hypocrisy of the whole thing. Gambling is one of those sin-based laws, is it not? I mean, isn't that allegedly the reason why it is illegal? A restaurant isn't allowed to host a poker game where their only cut is the food and drink sold at the table, yet the state and Injuns can do it en masse?

 

The other thing that gets me is how complicated they make it and how much money must go into all the marketing and such. When I go into a convenience store, I'm greeted with a huge wall of different scratchers you can buy. Seems like a lot of energy going into it and how, like those stupid 2-fer books or the police fundraiser scams, the biggest winner is the guy who puts the thing on, not the schools or whatever they tell you is the intended beneficiary.

 

 

Someonw refresh me, but IIRC, the lottery is pick 5 numbers plus the bonus, which can be a repeat of the previous 5 numbers. So odds are (assuming numbers 1-50, I believe they may go higher making odds even longer) 50*49*48*47*46**50=12,712,560,000 or about one in 12.7 Billion with a "B".

 

If it is numbers 1-56, it jumps to 1 in 25.6 Billion.

 

So, yeah, odds are never gonna be there to make it a neutral EV or even slightly negative EV play, but, like a few other have said, when it is over $100 million, I'll likely throw a 5 spot on it if I happen to go in to a gas station or liquor store, maybe $10 if it is up over $200 million.

[Big John]

Someonw refresh me, but IIRC, the lottery is pick 5 numbers plus the bonus, which can be a repeat of the previous 5 numbers. So odds are (assuming numbers 1-50, I believe they may go higher making odds even longer) 50*49*48*47*46**50=12,712,560,000 or about one in 12.7 Billion with a "B".

 

If it is numbers 1-56, it jumps to 1 in 25.6 Billion.

 

So, yeah, odds are never gonna be there to make it a neutral EV or even slightly negative EV play, but, like a few other have said, when it is over $100 million, I'll likely throw a 5 spot on it if I happen to go in to a gas station or liquor store, maybe $10 if it is up over $200 million.

Only if the numbers had to be in order.

 

The first 5 can be in any order, so it is: 50!/((50-5)!5!) * 50 (gold ball) = 105,938,000.

 

statistics link

 

[westvirginia]

Only if the numbers had to be in order.

 

The first 5 can be in any order, so it is: 50!/((50-5)!5!) * 50 (gold ball) = 105,938,000.

 

statistics link

 

 

So det was right here, correct?

[Big John]

So det was right here, correct?

It goes a little beyond 50, so detlef is correct.

[MikesVikes]

I sold my home and bought me a mobile home. If I don't win the Powerball on Wednesday, I'm screwed.

[wiegie]

It goes a little beyond 50, so detlef is correct.

not quite: the number of people playing is an increasing function of the size of the pot and since the pot will be split among multiple winners it's not clear that the pot odds ever really become in your favor.

[detlef]

not quite: the number of people playing is an increasing function of the size of the pot and since the pot will be split among multiple winners it's not clear that the pot odds ever really become in your favor.

Do the number of players ever become significant enough for that to be a reliable eventuality though? In order to have to assume that you'll be splitting the pot, you'd have to assume that enough people are playing it that each and every combo of numbers is not only chosen, but chosen more than once. Of course, if that were the case, the pot would never grow to such amounts to begin with because someone would always win. Maybe not the first week or two when there's not much interest, but these pots often grow for weeks after the payout his high enough to bring many marginal buyers into the fold.

 

I recognize that when we're dealing with numbers and odds this large, it is very, very possible that enough people are playing to use up every combo even if every combo is not used. However, it's no more likely that any specific combo, say the one that ultimately pays off has more than one winner than it is that nobody is holding it.

 

So, while the possibility of a divided pot has to be considered against pot odds to a degree, I don't think it can to the degree you're implying.

[Big Country]

Do the number of players ever become significant enough for that to be a reliable eventuality though? In order to have to assume that you'll be splitting the pot, you'd have to assume that enough people are playing it that each and every combo of numbers is not only chosen, but chosen more than once. Of course, if that were the case, the pot would never grow to such amounts to begin with because someone would always win. Maybe not the first week or two when there's not much interest, but these pots often grow for weeks after the payout his high enough to bring many marginal buyers into the fold.

 

I recognize that when we're dealing with numbers and odds this large, it is very, very possible that enough people are playing to use up every combo even if every combo is not used. However, it's no more likely that any specific combo, say the one that ultimately pays off has more than one winner than it is that nobody is holding it.

 

So, while the possibility of a divided pot has to be considered against pot odds to a degree, I don't think it can to the degree you're implying.

 

Imagine if the numbers from Lost ever hit...........

[wiegie]

Do the number of players ever become significant enough for that to be a reliable eventuality though? In order to have to assume that you'll be splitting the pot, you'd have to assume that enough people are playing it that each and every combo of numbers is not only chosen, but chosen more than once. Of course, if that were the case, the pot would never grow to such amounts to begin with because someone would always win. Maybe not the first week or two when there's not much interest, but these pots often grow for weeks after the payout his high enough to bring many marginal buyers into the fold.

 

I recognize that when we're dealing with numbers and odds this large, it is very, very possible that enough people are playing to use up every combo even if every combo is not used. However, it's no more likely that any specific combo, say the one that ultimately pays off has more than one winner than it is that nobody is holding it.

 

So, while the possibility of a divided pot has to be considered against pot odds to a degree, I don't think it can to the degree you're implying.

I'm not so sure.

 

For example, suppose you have a room full of 30 people. What do you think the odds are that at least two of them have the same birthday? (The surprising answer is that there is 70% chance that this will be the case.)