b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Gambling » Post 418135 | Search
This is a question Gambling

Broke the bank at Las Vegas, or won a packet of smokes for getting your tinkle out in class? Outrageous, heroic or plain stupid bets.

Suggested by SpankyHanky

(, Thu 7 May 2009, 13:04)
Pages: Popular, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

« Go Back

The Lottery
To set the record straight, the lottery is a game of probability and your risk-tolerance, not a "tax on the stupid".

The chance of all 6 of your numbers being drawn is 1-in-13,983,816 - [(49*48*47*46*45*44)/(1*2*3*4*5*6)].

If the prize is £13,983,816 then spending £1 on a 6-ball ticket is a risk-neutral event [ignoring that 2 tickets can share a prize, but that there's a prize on 3/4/5 balls generally negates that].

Even so, if someone bets £1 on a prize less than £13,983,816, it doesn't make them stupid - just makes them risk-loving. That is, the 1-in-13,983,316 chance of winning say, £10 million, is worth £1 to the risk-lover, rather than the £0.7151 that a risk-neutral agent would pay.

So stupidity? No.

A game of probability played by agents with differing risk-profiles? Yes.
(, Sat 9 May 2009, 15:06, 9 replies)
Except....
If I recall correctly, 50p of the pound goes to the jackpot, 50p to the lottery fund/taxes/comission, so the expected winnings is always 50p (given people playing each week).
The expected winnings on a single rollover is around 75p, since the rolled over jackpot adds to the prize fund (it ends up being somewhat less due to the extra interest).
(, Sat 9 May 2009, 16:27, closed)
Even if the maths isn't right,
the sentiment is.

*click*
(, Sat 9 May 2009, 16:45, closed)
Not quite
The 50p goes to the prize fund - a large chunk of this is payable to the jackpot winner, but most of it goes to other prize winners.

If nobody wins the jackpot, only the jackpot portion (32%?) rolls over. So, assuming exactly the same number of people play the next week, the expected return is something like 66 pence in the pound.
(, Mon 11 May 2009, 10:49, closed)
i dont care ...
he/she sounds clever. i do creative stuff for a living that phases the hell out of number jockeys yet it comes easy to me - likewise they - with their 'code' and fucking binary are like alchemy to me. algebra is the devils work to me unless, Rainman style i can attach pictures to the numbers and 'see' them.

i'm off to look at this fuckers profile cos i think i fancy them*


*hope its not a bloke**

**remembers hot chicks don't do maths***

***CHCB - ok that would be a statistical anomaly

EDIT - fucksticks. its a bloke.
(, Sat 9 May 2009, 20:13, closed)
^ There was an extremely very high probability of it being a bloke
Just don't ask me to do the maths
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 7:26, closed)
Hmm
There's a high probability of the profile owner being a bloke, even if they profess to be female and have a nice female profile picture too.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:50, closed)
I never said
'tax on the stupid'.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 10:37, closed)
it's not risk-neutral
you're misunderstanding risk and probability and the complexities involved in mutliple prizes, and the way the lottery works.

You could possibly describe it as risk neutral if you played over significantly more than 14,000,000 draws, if all the money paid in went into the prize fund. But it doesn't and anyway you don't have 269,000 years to play.

It's not stupid to play. But it's stupid to try and base your chances of winning on any probability calculation related to the chances of any series of numbers coming up. You might win. it's not likely, but you might.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 15:49, closed)
risk? what risk?
I don't see a risk.
I don't even see the lottery as gambling.
For my quid a week I get to dream of how I'll spend those mega-millions when they land on my lap.
When I don't win, fair enough. At least I bought a dream for a few days.

Yeah, sad I know, but.......
(, Mon 11 May 2009, 11:00, closed)

« Go Back

Pages: Popular, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1