not really. Its fun when i buy the ticket, and when i check the numbers. I forget about it in the meantime, mostly, other than occasional, what would we do with teh money, conversations.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Compared to roulette the lottery makes lots of sense because with the latter > there is a very real even if very small chance of becoming truly wealthy > with a very small investment. > > Where the roulette player must have a larger purse and has no chance of > making the kind of money a lottery player might, and since wealth is not > going to find him in a single spin then he has to choose where to quit so he > is more likely to lose it. > > I am not aware of any one armed bandit that has a payout as large as a > lottery payout, but as mentioned the frequency of play makes it more likely > to be costly. > > There are plenty of people who have a fortune made from lottery winnings, > however there are I am sure very few people who have made millions with very > little starting capital from roulette or craps and managed to not give it > all back to the casino. > > Now spending a lot on a lottery is foolish as you are still probably going > to lose, playing every week/month is foolish as is buying many tickets or > using the same numbers, but it does make sense to buy one once in a while > with a few spare bucks. > > Without an extraordinarily asymmetrical payout or an element of skill > gambling makes no sense. > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:30 AM, leaking pen <itsat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> enh. i have more fun for longer with my money gambling at a casino. >> the lottery is fun for a minute, then done. > > > Isn't it fun from the purchase through to the draw? > >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Jan 3, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: >> > >> > Quoting Pascal, "Lotteries are a tax on fools." >> > >> > Pascal is certainly right about that, especially when they are used to >> > directly offset taxes, which is why not only the fools like lotteries, >> > but >> > also those who see them as means to avoid taxes, and those who profit >> > directly from running them. As insidious as monthly lotteries in lieu of >> > taxes might be, they are benign in comparison to various forms of casino >> > gambling. In some communities, gambling produces more costs for the >> > communities than revenue, due to the small community take and the demand >> > on >> > public services, insurance companies, public safety, and the legal/penal >> > system. >> > >> > It might be asked why a monthly lottery with a 50 percent take and less >> > than >> > a chance in a million of winning could be considered far less harmful >> > and >> > addictive than, say, betting red or black in roulette, which has an >> > about >> > 5.263 percent house take and nearly even chances of winning each bet. >> > The >> > answer is that the roulette player typically places much more than a >> > single >> > bet. According to Ian B William's Slot Machines: Fun Machines or Tax >> > Machines, $51 billion a year is spent in the US on casino gambling, and >> > about 70 percent of that on slot machines. If the typical gambler bet >> > only >> > a few times, then each slot machine and table would have lines of people >> > going out the door and down the street. This is not what you see at >> > casinos. People bet repeatedly for long periods. Repeated betting >> > increases >> > the expected house win amount drastically. >> > To see which is better, a monthly lottery or roulette, take a look at >> > the >> > expected purse amounts for the two alternatives over the one month >> > period of >> > the lottery. If a gambler has $100 to bet for that time he will likely >> > gamble it all away. His expected purse value after the 100 hours or so >> > of >> > roulette gambling time possible during the month will be a tiny fraction >> > of >> > a cent. If a roulette wheel has 38 slots then 2 will be without color >> > (or >> > green, house take) and 18 will be black and 18 red. The house take will >> > be >> > about 5.26 cents per dollar bet. Due to a typical house $5 minimum the >> > gambler's $100 will likely only be a 20 bet purse. If allowed to make >> > $1 >> > bets the gambler will have a 100 bet purse and can expect to be broke in >> > less than 1900 bets, or less than about 19 hours of betting. He will >> > probably try to obtain even more money with which to vindicate himself. >> > The >> > following table shows in 100 bet intervals the probability of being >> > broke >> > and the expected value of the purse for roulette color bettors that >> > start >> > with a 20 bet purse. >> > >> > Number of bets in better's starting purse 20 >> > House percentage = 5.263 percent >> > Bet Prob. Alive Expected Value >> > ---- -------------- --------------- >> > 100 0.881083267382 14.891433066690 >> > 200 0.619848498510 10.952448130541 >> > 300 0.435274926086 8.199805170679 >> > 400 0.313261560357 6.245178037378 >> > 500 0.230621461565 4.823106110599 >> > 1000 0.062016797315 1.514700202615 >> > 2000 0.007334798455 0.206508730270 >> > 3000 0.001127300806 0.034033899035 >> > 4000 0.000195968405 0.006173086380 >> > 5000 0.000036627971 0.001187554885 >> > 6000 0.000007182650 0.000237810615 >> > 6900 0.000001707388 0.000057358537 >> > The roulette gambler at a 5.263 percent house take and a $100 to bet at >> > $5 a >> > bet can expect to be broke in less than 3 hours. In fact, from the >> > table, >> > you can see that at bet 300, about 3 hours, he has a 43.5274926086 >> > percent >> > chance of being alive. He has about 1.7 chances in a million of lasting >> > 6900 bets, or about 69 hours of betting during the month, and only a >> > small >> > fraction of a cent expected purse value by that time. >> > At $5 a bet and 100 bets an hour he can be expected to lose 0.05263 * >> > $5/bet >> > * 100 bets/hour = $26.32 per hour. If he has 100 hours to gamble in the >> > month, and does so, he can be expected to lose about $2,632 per month. >> > The >> > estimated 100 bets per hour may be high, and a lower bet rate will >> > reduce >> > the expected loss per hour. >> > The lottery ticket buyer probably will not even spend the full $100 on >> > tickets, unless there are lots of quick turnaround small pots, which >> > will in >> > fact act just like casino gambling. A single large pot can be expected >> > to >> > attract out of state money - especially when no winner shows up and the >> > expected win becomes positive on a subsequent "let it ride" round. But >> > let >> > us assume the lottery player does spend the full $100 on the lottery in >> > order to compare apples to apples. Lotteries typically take about half >> > the >> > proceeds. The $100 provides about a $50 expected purse at the end, as >> > opposed to the small expected fraction of a cent purse for the roulette >> > gambler that bets more than 70 hours. >> > Typically both betters end up broke. However, the lottery ticket buyer >> > is >> > more likely to stay on budget, more likely to win, and will definitely >> > be >> > provided the truth about his approximate odds. If the lottery goes into >> > a >> > "let it ride" round, a late ticket buyer may even end up with more than >> > fair >> > odds. Lastly, the lottery ticket buyer really only needs to buy one >> > ticket >> > a month to keep his dream alive. The machine gambler has to find a way >> > to >> > keep feeding the beast to keep his dream alive. >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Horace Heffner >> > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >
