Negative numbers baffle scratchcard buyers.

[Mojo]

'Cool Cash' card confusion (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1022757_cool_cash_card_confusion).

To qualify for a prize, users had to scratch away a window to reveal a temperature lower than the figure displayed on each card. As the game had a winter theme, the temperature was usually below freezing.

But the concept of comparing negative numbers proved too difficult for some Camelot received dozens of complaints on the first day from players who could not understand how, for example, -5 is higher than -6.

...

"I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it."

:hb:

[Biscuit]

WOW....

[iMaGiNaTioN]

sadly, this is not the least bit surprising.

[wahrheit]

Oh noes, I actually read the entire article. This is, eh, sad, isn't it? I mean the story, not me reading an article.

[Madalch]

I suppose this might happen in places where it seldom gets below freezing, or where they measure temperatures in Fahrenheit (in which sub-zero temperatures are more rare).

In the math textbook I use, they introduce the concept of negative numbers by saying that temperatures -sometimes- get below zero degrees. Being from Edmonton, I find the "sometimes" to be hilarious.

[Hellbound]

And here I thought the U.S. was falling behind everyone in math and science education. At least we're still running neck and neck with someone :)

[brodski]

And here I thought the U.S. was falling behind everyone in math and science education. At least we're still running neck and neck with someone :)

Yeah, but running neck and neck with Levenshulme is nowt to be proud of.

Each day I become less and less sure if Shameless is a comedy or a documentary. :p

[Nick Bogaerts]

Innumerate gamblers. Not good. This certainly makes me wonder if the National Lottery has customers or if it has victims.

[tkingdoll]

Oh dear me.

I think Camelot are giving people the wrong impression - the card doesn't say to look for a colder or warmer temperature, it says to look for a higher or lower number. Six is a lower number than 8. Imagine how many people have been misled.

Six is a lower number than eight, yes. Sadly, her card said minus six, not six. How thick? I mean, fine, admit the gap in your knowledge, learn and move on. But don't try and insist you're right. Six and minus six are not the same numbers. Stupid cow.

To be fair, though, it's possible that the paper made up the quote.

[Rolfe]

The National Lottery. A voluntary tax on stupidity.

Rolfe.

[GodMark2]

The National Lottery. A voluntary tax on stupidity.

Rolfe.

What's really fun is that in my state, the education that would be needed to correct this math illiteracy is being paid for by lottery proceeds.

[Ivor the Engineer]

It depends what you mean by "lower".

The people were quite correct in their complaints if they were considering the magnitude of the value. -6 is lower (i.e. closer to zero) than -8.

Another example (that most non-mathematical people are familiar with) is debt. A person with a mortgage of £125,000 has a lower debt than a person with a £300,000 mortgage, even though both are amounts of money you owe i.e. are negative.

What they should have stated was a number more negative than -8 is required to win a prize.

[Madalch]

It depends what you mean by "lower".

The people were quite correct in their complaints if they were considering the magnitude of the value. -6 is lower (i.e. closer to zero) than -8.

But the card clearly said a "lower temperature".

[my_wan]

Pssst. A little secret. I sell these things. There,s lots of money in them trashcans.
ETA: I am in the US though.

[Ivor the Engineer]

But the card clearly said a "lower temperature".

Ok. In that case the common sense interpretation would make "lower" imply towards -infinity.

[Wowbagger]

So... people who buy lottery tickets are bad at math? Whodathunkit??!!!

[tkingdoll]

But the card clearly said a "lower temperature".

Hmmmmmmmmmmm actually, do we know that for sure? The woman in the article claims not.

[NorwegianSquirrel]

At first I thought "perhaps they've just made a mistake due to bad instructions", but then I read the article and just realized that people are just stupid.

Maybe they should have included a little scale?

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 ?

"If your number is on the right side of the number on the card, you are a winner!"

ETA: Oops, did I just make a reverse x-axis? Oh well :)

[Ladewig]

Almost three times as many UK adults (15.1m) have poor numeracy - the equivalent of a G or below at GCSE maths - than with poor literacy skills, according to the government's Skills for Life survey.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that a sentence describing poor literacy skills was written by someone with poor literacy skills?

[Dan O.]

Why is there no information concerning the Cool Cash scratch game on the national lottery web site (http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/)?

I'm beginning to smell a spoof.

[SusanB-M1]

The item was mentioned on the 'News Quiz' today.

I pay my BT bill by direct debit - £40 a month. Because I have broadband and no longer make so many long, long-distance calls, I am in credit - at present about £110! My sons say I shouldn't let them have my money, but I point out that I'm quite happy for them to save it up for me. But the reason I'm writing this is that it appears as -£110, which I've got used to now, but found it quite puzzling at first because it looks as if I owe them.

[wahrheit]

The item was mentioned on the 'News Quiz' today.

I pay my BT bill by direct debit - £40 a month. Because I have broadband and no longer make so many long, long-distance calls, I am in credit - at present about £110! My sons say I shouldn't let them have my money, but I point out that I'm quite happy for them to save it up for me. But the reason I'm writing this is that it appears as -£110, which I've got used to now, but found it quite puzzling at first because it looks as if I owe them.

That's why all my money related business is in the hands of a tax consultant. I often scored 15 out of 15 points in maths back in school, but this debit and credit thing in accounting – I never quite understood it. :redface1

[MetalPig]

A person with a mortgage of £125,000 has a lower debt than a person with a £300,000 mortgage, even though both are amounts of money you owe i.e. are negative.
What? No. No!
The amount of money I owe is positive. I borrowed positive money from them (I bought a house with it), so I need to pay them back in positive money.

Can I borrow 10 euros from you and pay you back -10?

[Soapy Sam]

I'm not sure the Manchester Evening News quite grasped the problem either:-

"But the concept of comparing negative numbers proved too difficult for some Camelot received dozens of complaints on the first day from players who could not understand how, for example, -5 is higher than -6."

It's not a higher number, but it is a higher temperature. Are we comparing magnitude here , or temperature?

[Nancarrow]

It's not a higher number, but it is a higher temperature. Are we comparing magnitude here , or temperature?

It is a higher number. -5 is greater than -6. It's higher than -6. It's more than -6. Whatever words you wish to use. It bears the same relationship to -6 as 23 does to 22, which is the opposite relationship to that which 22 bears to 23.

[Nancarrow]

Innumerate gamblers. Not good.

There are other kinds? :confused:

[CapelDodger]

That's why all my money related business is in the hands of a tax consultant. I often scored 15 out of 15 points in maths back in school, but this debit and credit thing in accounting – I never quite understood it. :redface1

For every credit you don't understand there's an equivalent debit you don't understand so, on balance, it's not worth worrying about.

[CapelDodger]

Am I the only one who finds it odd that a sentence describing poor literacy skills was written by someone with poor literacy skills?

Written by a journalist, so not odd at all.

[CapelDodger]

It is a higher number. -5 is greater than -6. It's higher than -6. It's more than -6. Whatever words you wish to use. It bears the same relationship to -6 as 23 does to 22, which is the opposite relationship to that which 22 bears to 23.

I take comfort in the number line stretching out infinitely, lower this way, higher that. No loops or excursions, simplicity itself.

[Soapy Sam]

It is a higher number. -5 is greater than -6. It's higher than -6. It's more than -6. Whatever words you wish to use. It bears the same relationship to -6 as 23 does to 22, which is the opposite relationship to that which 22 bears to 23.

I disagree. "Higher" is a vague term and we have to define it precisely in context.
If what you mean is "Lies further to the right on a conventional number line", then yes, (-5) is "higher than" (-6) .

If what's meant is "Bigger" , then -6 is bigger than -5.
If you have $0 and spend $6 is your debt not bigger, higher, deeper or larger than if you spend $5? Minus 6 is a larger quantity than minus 5, exactly as 6 is a larger quantity than 5.

In the case of temperature, there should be no ambiguity, because temperature is a linear scale. -6 deg C is a lower temperature than -5 deg C, but the M.E.N article does not say that, it simply says "-5 is higher than -6" and the meaning of that phrase depends on context.

Particularly as people who buy many lottery tickets are often in debt and their debts get bigger, not smaller, the more they buy.

[Dan O.]

The example scratch card in the article clearly shows the degree symbol after the number.

I tried to look up the official rules but it's as if that game never existed. If the game was sold in stores as the article says then the web site should still have instructions for redeeming winning tickets even if the game was terminated. Has anyone found any evidence that the whole story is not a spoof?

[CapelDodger]

I disagree. "Higher" is a vague term and we have to define it precisely in context.
If what you mean is "Lies further to the right on a conventional number line", then yes, (-5) is "higher than" (-6) .

"Higher" means greater than, "lower" means less than. There are no significant milestones - and that includes zero.

If what's meant is "Bigger" , then -6 is bigger than -5.

Then apparently "bigger" could mean anything.

If you have $0 and spend $6 is your debt not bigger, higher, deeper or larger than if you spend $5?[quote]

When you measure debt along the number line a $6 debt is greater than a $5 debt. That's becuase we're using the number line to count units of debt.

[quote]Minus 6 is a larger quantity than minus 5, exactly as 6 is a larger quantity than 5.

A debt of $6 is larger than a debt of $5. Minus five is still greater than minus six.

In the case of temperature, there should be no ambiguity, because temperature is a linear scale. -6 deg C is a lower temperature than -5 deg C, but the M.E.N article does not say that, it simply says "-5 is higher than -6" and the meaning of that phrase depends on context.

Only, apparently, with the introduction of "bigger" to obfuscate matters.

[CapelDodger]

The example scratch card in the article clearly shows the degree symbol after the number.

I tried to look up the official rules but it's as if that game never existed. If the game was sold in stores as the article says then the web site should still have instructions for redeeming winning tickets even if the game was terminated. Has anyone found any evidence that the whole story is not a spoof?

Scratch-cards are an immediate pay-out bet, as I understand it. A particularly insidious form of gambling.

[tkingdoll]

The example scratch card in the article clearly shows the degree symbol after the number.

I tried to look up the official rules but it's as if that game never existed. If the game was sold in stores as the article says then the web site should still have instructions for redeeming winning tickets even if the game was terminated. Has anyone found any evidence that the whole story is not a spoof?

There's a photograph of the ticket. Also, since when is proving a negative the thing to do? Get some proof that it is a spoof, first.

There's no reason to think this is a spoof. It's possible that the customer quote is made up, simply because that is common practice, but it's quite unlikely that the Manchester Evening News is carrying a potentially libelous story about Camelot, with quotes from them, without the game even existing.

If it bothers you that much, check the website to see if every other withdrawn or finished 'instant' game is listed there. There are hundreds of them, as well as the current crop. If those are there then it's telling that this game isn't mentioned. However, that's still not evidence it's a spoof.

The Mirror is carrying the same story.

[Alice Shortcake]

Many people have similar difficulty grasping AD/BC dates. A few days ago I had to explain to my neighbour that 2BC was more recent than 20BC.

[becomingagodo]

I was going to invent a lottery scratchcard game involving complex numbers. However, normal lottery scratchcard players would proberly have a heartattack.

Strange, I thought the people who played lottery scratchcard games watch weather reports. England is cold, I wonder what they thought when you had a temperture below zero.

[Dan O.]

There's a photograph of the ticket. Also, since when is proving a negative the thing to do? Get some proof that it is a spoof, first.

Is it a photo or a photoshop? I was looking for positive proof. That is why I went to the UK National Lottery web site. There is no evidence of the game except in the one news story. In all the other stories I found through searching the web, the only information on the game is referenced to that original news story.

There's no reason to think this is a spoof. It's possible that the customer quote is made up, simply because that is common practice, but it's quite unlikely that the Manchester Evening News is carrying a potentially libelous story about Camelot, with quotes from them, without the game even existing.

Since when is it necessary to prove a negative? There is no proof that the story is real. I'm looking for further information to answer questions in this thread, a higher resolution image, the official rules for that game, etc..

If it bothers you that much, check the website to see if every other withdrawn or finished 'instant' game is listed there. There are hundreds of them, as well as the current crop. If those are there then it's telling that this game isn't mentioned. However, that's still not evidence it's a spoof.

I did check the web site. There is a listing for closed games. They are required to list all games for 180 days after they are closed because winning tickets can still be redeemed through that period.

Are we to believe everything that is printed if we cannot personally prove it false?


The Mirror is carrying the same story.

Is it a reflection of the original story? They did offer an original quote but as you said, they sometimes make up these quotes.

[Dan O.]

I was going to invent a lottery scratchcard game involving complex numbers. However, normal lottery scratchcard players would proberly have a heartattack.

Not long ago, I ran a simulation of betting with imaginary cash :)

After trying a particularly bad betting strategy where you almost always loose almost all of your gambling stake, I tried a simulation where I always bet an imaginary fraction of the current stake. My stake would spiral randomly right and left through the complex plain but slowly getting bigger.

[DazzaD]

It is possible that it doesnt appear to be mentioned on the Camelot site if they did indeed withdraw the game:

(reference on various links that mention the original story above)

[delphi_ote]

While I would believe people are this mathematically illiterate in a heartbeat, looking at the scratch off card is telling. The "-" is small and in a different font. Blending in with the background, you might miss it, and if you didn't scratch off all the way, you might not see the "-" at all! If you were rushing through a bunch of these games, you might not see the not-so-subtle hints that you were looking at negative numbers.

I think this probably more the result of a combination of bad reading comprehension and a slightly confusing lottery game than it is bad math skills. The brain dead quote teek cited reads to me more like someone unwilling to admit they made a mistake (and maybe hoping to create a controversy and get some money) than someone confused about the underlying mathematics.

[Tirdun]

Everyone laughed at Kelvin, WHO'S LAUGHING NOW?!?

Oh, wait. I am.

[dacium2007]

There is an easy solution to this problem. Get rid of all the games crap on the cards, and you just scratch one number - the amount you win. Maybe then people will begin to see how stupid these things are.

[Ladewig]

There is an easy solution to this problem. Get rid of all the games crap on the cards, and you just scratch one number - the amount you win. Maybe then people will begin to see how stupid these things are.

I like it. Most of the tickets would simply say "You lost $1."

[roger]

If what's meant is "Bigger" , then -6 is bigger than -5.
If you have $0 and spend $6 is your debt not bigger, higher, deeper or larger than if you spend $5? Minus 6 is a larger quantity than minus 5, exactly as 6 is a larger quantity than 5.
You can't do that.

What do I mean by that? Change what you are measuring.

If you say I have -5 dollars, you are saying that is how much money you have. You have -5 dollars, and your debt is +5. On the other hand, if your debt is -5, then you have +5 dollars.

So, if you have -5 dollars, and I have -6 dollars, who has more money? You do. The question of who has more debt is entirely different. You can't answer the question of who has more money with who has more debt.

[Janot]

Negative numbers seem to be increasingly acceptable in accountancy. Recently I bought a sledgehammer, and received an invoice for +1.00000 sledgehammers. So, no integers. But at first attempted use of the tool, it split, so I returned it. I then received an invoice for minus 1.00000 sledgehammers. So an agricultural hardware store in a remote area of Wales, UK, had the concept of selling someone -1.00000 items. Not easy.

[ponderingturtle]

Negative numbers seem to be increasingly acceptable in accountancy. Recently I bought a sledgehammer, and received an invoice for +1.00000 sledgehammers. So, no integers. But at first attempted use of the tool, it split, so I returned it. I then received an invoice for minus 1.00000 sledgehammers. So an agricultural hardware store in a remote area of Wales, UK, had the concept of selling someone -1.00000 items. Not easy.

Hmm your number of sledgehammers is accurate to 5 decimal places.

I have to wonder what 1.05784 sledgehammers would be.

[Michael Redman]

People think of cold as a quantifiable thing. So, the bigger the number after the negative sign, the more cold you have. Therefore, a bigger, colder temperature.

[Earthborn]

Maybe they should have included a little scale?

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 ?

"If your number is on the right side of the number on the card, you are a winner!"How about a nice picture of a thermometer next to it, with the negative numbers at the bottom and the positive numbers at the top? Surely that should clear up the "higher-lower" issue.

[my_wan]

I like it. Most of the tickets would simply say "You lost $1."

I watch people misjudge what they have won and lost all the time. In general if some has played a bunch of tickets in one sitting and claim to have won about $200.00 they likely lost about $400.00. This ratio seems to be pretty consistent with nearly all regular players.

Not long ago a guy came in with some friends and said he usually always wins. He bought a dollar ticket and it payed him a dollar. He said, "see, I won". I asked him, "What did you win, the right to keep your money?" He looked at me like he didn't understand and said, "A dollar."

If the ticket actually said, "You lost $1." some people will say, "That's not right, I'm not supposed to pay more if I lose." The lottery commission actually engineers the games and how they pay to take advantage of the way these people think.

The scam goes deeper.
(Rough numbers based on a $10 million dollar win)
State collects $20 million.
State puts $10 million in winnings.
State buys bonds $5 million to pay that $10 million
(cash option pays what those bonds would have cost)
State and federal taxes are collected (2.3 million)
So overall government collects $20 million and pays $2.7 million and people think it will save them. It's a fools bet even if the odds were not so ridiculous.

[Dan O.]

What state are you referring to? Everywhere I've read the state laws that create the lotteries, when they say: "prizes equal 50% of sales" they mean exactly that for every $1 taken in they set aside $.50 in the prize pool. Buying annuities to pay the jackpot allows them to claim a much higher jackpot than the actual value.

[my_wan]

What state are you referring to? Everywhere I've read the state laws that create the lotteries, when they say: "prizes equal 50% of sales" they mean exactly that for every $1 taken in they set aside $.50 in the prize pool. Buying annuities to pay the jackpot allows them to claim a much higher jackpot than the actual value.

You may have caught me with misinformation here. I'm in Ga.
A quick search found this;
http://www.galottery.com/gen/aboutUs/faq.jsp#1

Q.Why is the Cash Option different than the advertised Jackpot?
A.The Georgia Lottery Corporation advertises its jackpots at the estimated 26-year annuity value for Mega Millions. When players choose the annuity option on their prize, the Georgia Lottery pays the prize out over 26 years by buying U.S. Government Treasury Securities, which earn interest and mature annually over the time period. That annual return is the amount winners receive each year for the 26 year period. With Cash Option, the Lottery takes the amount of money that would have been invested and pays it directly to the winner in one payment. Both payment options have federal and state taxes deducted from them.


Not clearly specific but seems to support your claim. The "Georgia Lottery for Education Act" doesn't define it either.
http://www.galottery.com/uploads/LotteryReportList/LotteryReport/1/LotteryforEducationAct.pdf

If you have anything more specific I would like to know. I would expect it to be in line with other states so I would accept that also.

[Dan O.]

The Georgia Lottery Corp. Annual Reportpdf (http://www.galottery.com/uploads/LotteryReportList/LotteryReport/28/GLCFY06AnnualReportWeb.pdf) gives the breakdown of where your money from lottery ticket sales goes.

[my_wan]

The Georgia Lottery Corp. Annual Reportpdf (http://www.galottery.com/uploads/LotteryReportList/LotteryReport/28/GLCFY06AnnualReportWeb.pdf) gives the breakdown of where your money from lottery ticket sales goes.

I'm having a hard time reading that but the graph on page 5 seems to support you. However, this is all games combined including scratch & win. The large proportion of payouts on scratch & win are free tickets or null result wins and total sales volume outstrips lottery sales. If you average in a lot of null result wins (100% payouts on individual sales) in the total average you would expect it to increase the total payout as a percentage. Since payment is required to be in the form another ticket but is must be rang up as another sale it can increase apparent payouts significantly.

Consider a single sale where the buyer wins a free ticket 3 times in a row (not unusual). Now off of that one sale 4 apparent sales are created. That's a 75% payout averaged in that pie chart. So then how does the overall average remain so close to 50%?

To see it more clearly consider a set of 20 sequential $1 tickets.
Suppose we have 14 losers, 5 free tickets, and one $5 winner.

[Real sales]
Real sales = $15 because five were free.
Real payout = $5 because free tickets only cost them a piece of paper.
Real payout % = 33%

[Apparent sales]
Apparent sales = $20 (Clerks are required to ring up all tickets free or not)
Apparent payout = $10 (5 payed in free ticket, $5 payed in wins)
Apparent payout % = 50%

This is tantamount to printing your own money and hiding it in a numbers game with null sales. So if in fact payouts on regular lottery is ~50% scratch & win can't pay as claimed and maintain the overall 50% statistics as published. If the real scratch & win payout is as claimed they must reduce the actual cost to payout on lottery to maintain the overall 50%. If done in lottery it can only occur through the reduced cost of buying bonds.

I suppose they can make the legal argument if done through bond purchases that the winners can in fact receive the money as promised. This is tantamount to my original claim. It's also tantamout to collecting bond interest up front from winners and using it to cover all the money they printed themselves while the winner must wait on the bonds to mature to get the promised 50%.

If there is a simpler explanation of what they are really doing to meet legal payout requirements where is it?

[Dan O.]

Skip past the fluff at the beginning and down to the real report. On page 21 they give the actual ticket sales and the number of those that are prize tickets (about 7%). It appears that they deduct the prize tickets from ticket revenues and don't count them as prizes. (Otherwise there could be 222 million that just slipped into someone's pocket :()

Prizes as a percentage of net ticket sales is about 61%.