|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
28th February 2012, 07:45 AM | #161 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Though it is a Fallacy to believe that there is some correlation or anti correlation between trials, it is not a fallacy to know that many gamblers play as if there were. It is possible to increase your expected payback by excluding those sets that a typical innumerate gambler might choose. I've considered starting a business selling such numbers. If only I could get over my aversion to taking advantage of fools. |
28th February 2012, 08:26 AM | #162 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
|
28th February 2012, 08:27 AM | #163 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
|
28th February 2012, 08:30 AM | #164 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
I can't help but notice that no one has justified doing the lottery because of all the good causes it supports. That's why I do it of course
(This is referencing the UK lottery anyway, I'm assuming others have a similar remit) |
28th February 2012, 08:34 AM | #165 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
|
28th February 2012, 09:01 AM | #167 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
|
28th February 2012, 09:03 AM | #168 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
... and when I want to support a charity I'd prefer not to give 50% of the money to a for-profit company too
|
28th February 2012, 09:30 AM | #169 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
Of course, as soon as you determine and sell the set or sets that a typical innumerate gambler might exclude, then that set or sets become non-random. Making it self-defeating.
Reminds me of determining the first number in a set that has nothing special about it. But that number itself is special in that its the first non-special number. |
28th February 2012, 09:31 AM | #170 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,372
|
|
28th February 2012, 09:35 AM | #171 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
|
28th February 2012, 03:18 PM | #172 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
|
|
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 |
|
28th February 2012, 03:44 PM | #173 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
|
Agreed (I much prefer a zero-sum game myself). They might, though.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 |
|
28th February 2012, 03:56 PM | #174 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
|
|
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 |
|
28th February 2012, 04:00 PM | #175 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
|
|
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 |
|
28th February 2012, 04:15 PM | #176 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
|
Indeed. In different terms, if an action determined by a system materially changes that system the action is no longer justified.
For a practical example, consider the junk-bond fiasco of the 80's. Milken's original analysis of the system was accurate, and while it was taken advantage of by a select few clients it made excellent returns. When he got greedy and media-hungry it all went to pot (and he ended up going to prison).
Quote:
|
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 |
|
28th February 2012, 04:26 PM | #177 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
|
28th February 2012, 04:50 PM | #178 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
|
28th February 2012, 05:01 PM | #179 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
It's a BBC TV Series: http://www.qi.com/tv/ that's Quite Interesting
|
28th February 2012, 07:18 PM | #180 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
... and develop a profitable business model!
Not true. 'Randomness' isn't the same as 'uniqueness'. Every 'individual' jackpot winner evidently selected a unique number set, but I strongly suspect that many, if not most, were not selected truly randomly. The key is to ensure that the selection is made available to only one entrant, which is why I question the varacity of the business model that supports such principle. The closest you'll probably come is the 'quick pick' function available in some lotteries (computer generated), which happens to be free! At the risk of sounding obtuse I disagree with this, too. By definition, there's nothing special about a number that's not special. Being the first, last or any other in the infinite sequence of such numbers does not render it special! Would you classify somebody at the front of a queue of people special? They're the same person they were when they were second in line, and that's certainly not special! Contradiction in terms, surely, as 'living' infers a guaranteed net gain to support it. |
28th February 2012, 07:36 PM | #181 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
|
28th February 2012, 11:59 PM | #182 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
|
29th February 2012, 12:06 AM | #183 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
|
29th February 2012, 12:15 AM | #184 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
"The interesting number paradox is a semi-humorous paradox ..."
|
29th February 2012, 12:21 AM | #185 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
|
29th February 2012, 12:31 AM | #186 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
29th February 2012, 08:37 AM | #187 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
The number of combinations vary for each game but the same combinations would be valid from drawing to drawing as they would from state to state. There would be as much or more positive value to buying a set of numbers from a syndicate that insured no overlap as there is to exclude the high traffic picks but that only works if there is only one syndicate. If the business model works, there will be replicas and that will break the system. I've also thought of franchising and offering a money back guarantee if your winning number isn't unique (as if giving a dollar back to someone that just won millions would make then feel better about having to split their jackpot). The other possible model would be to give the numbers away for free but to ask for a small tithe should they win. Winners are more likely to feel generous, especially to someone that has just helped them for free. The trick would be in making the transaction feel personal. Perhaps an AI front end that gathers personal data and offers numbers based on their beliefs. |
29th February 2012, 02:12 PM | #188 |
I lost an avatar bet.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,781
|
|
29th February 2012, 11:34 PM | #189 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Ask them what question? The only question in the quoted text is pertaining to what your point was, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
If you mean, ask them whether or not it's worthwhile to play the lottery, I don't see why you think they'd have more insight than me: we both know the same facts, that they won the lottery and an enormous number of other people lost. We can both use that information to calculate the odds of winning, compare it to the price of a ticket, and see if that price is worthwhile. Let me ask you this: at what price do you think the lottery is overpriced, and why? |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
1st March 2012, 01:55 AM | #190 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,237
|
I think people assume it has to be in the order 1,2,3,4,5,6 which would mean it is a higher probability.
Drawing the first number has to be a 1. The odds are 1/x, where X is the number of balls. The 2nd number has to be 2. The odds are 1/x-1 (since one ball was removed from the pool). So the odds are 1/x * 1/(x-1) * 1/(x-2) * 1/(x-3) * 1/(x-4) * 1/(x-5) Compare to if you could have those exact numbers out of order. 6/x * 5/(x-1) * 4/(x-2) * 3/(x-3) * 2/(x-4) * 1/(x-5) The difference is a factor of 720 But that set of numbers 1-6, will have the same odds as hitting as any other set of 6 numbers. |
1st March 2012, 02:19 AM | #191 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
|
N!/(N - K)!/K!
N! would be the total number of permutations on N numbers N!/(N-K)! would be the total number of permeations of K numbers and N!/(N - K)!/K! Would be the total number of combinations (because the order the numbers appear in is not relevant to winning) of K numbers So for a typical lottery of 6 from 49 49!/(49-6)!/6! = 13983816 13983815 to 1 against any given ticket winning |
2nd March 2012, 03:17 PM | #192 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Yes, that's exactly the question, and you puzzle me. How many individual jackpot winners (indeed significant prize money winners generally) do you suspect would claim that it's NOT worthwhile? It's not a question of mathematics from their point of view; it's simply a question of reality. I think you're over-analysing this - seeking to explain human behaviour and emotion with maths. Life doesn't work that way - life's not a cold numbers game.
I think it's overpriced when the cost of a ticket starts to impact on a significant number of purchasers' amenity. I don't believe that's the case with any lotteries that I'm familiar with. |
2nd March 2012, 05:00 PM | #193 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
|
You are incorrect.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Excuse me getting anecdotal, but I did once do the lottery with two friends, one line each with a shared pot. I, of course, was the smartarse who insisted each line should have at least one number above 31 (the birthday issue). We got five numbers (from six) on one line and made 180 quid between us because guess what ... There were well over a hundred jackpot winners, who got forty-odd grand each. I pointed out that we'd dodged a bullet (imagine the disappointment of thinking oneself to suddenly be a millionaire only to find one's only gained fourteen grand and change) but it cut little ice, I'm afraid. People are sooooo irrational, don't you find? I used to pay into a departmental lottery at work simply to avoid the tiny chance of being the only one to lose out one day. Which I still regard as rational.
Quote:
|
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 |
|
2nd March 2012, 05:03 PM | #194 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
|
|
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 |
|
2nd March 2012, 05:29 PM | #195 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
I don't see why you think that's an interesting question.
By cherry-picking the winners you can ask the same question of any game of chance.
Quote:
I don't see why you think there's anything even worth talking about there. There is a possibility of losing, and in ignoring it you completely change the nature of the cost-benefit analysis. I could take people who won a game of russian roulette with a 1/6 chance of dying, where the winners get $50,000, and ask them if they thought playing had been worthwhile. Of course the answer would be yes, but that doesn't tell me anything about whether anyone (myself included) should join future games.
Quote:
I can't understand why you think that's not important.
Quote:
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
2nd March 2012, 09:05 PM | #196 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Hey, I'm all for brevity, but it really does help, you know, when quoting and responding, to quote in context. To be clear, I claim Fast Eddie's statement is untrue:
... on the basis that it's not non-randomness that's important, but uniqueness. Are you up to explaining why you believe that's incorrect? Again, feel free! But more than one person didn't choose them, did they! (I did write 'individual' winner, in case you missed that.) Sure, provided one doesn't miss the point! Actually, I'd say the smartarse was whichever mate of yours chose the winning numbers, not you! There has to be some moral in that anecdote somewhere ... maybe something along the lines of a gift horse?! That's reassuring; I currently do exactly the same! Nope, 'infersdict' will do nicely, thanks. In other words they're not gambling any more, per se. I'd like to hear details about some people you might know who supposedly make a living from 'gambling'. Do you happen to have any? |
2nd March 2012, 11:53 PM | #197 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
I'm not claiming it's a particularly interesting question. Indeed, it was you who initially inferred the question:
Of course, and that proves the point I'm making: that whether something is worthwhile or not can often only be considered in the context of the class of person affected. Is doing the lottery worthwhile? Ask some major winners. 'Yes', I'm sure, will be the obvious answer for most, if not all. Ask a bunch of non-winners. 'Yes', I'm sure, again, will be the answer for most. Why? Because there's a chance they'll win a stack of money. Why else do people do the lottery? Now, was doing the lottery last week and not winning worthwhile? Of course it wasn't; it was a complete waste of money. But that misses the point of why doing the lottery is worthwhile; because it has the potential to make one wealthy. Pointing out that the odds make no sense actually misses the point. The simple fact that it has the potential to realise dreams is exactly why it's worthwhile. Ask a bunch of smokers whether smoking is worthwhile. Most will look at you like you have two heads, and rightly so. To them smoking is worthwhile for the benefit it derives. The fact that statistically it will probably shorten their lives is academic. The 'worth' of something is arguably different for each individual. The fact that people actually do the lottery is evidence that it's 'worthwhile'. Get it? Ah ... you are getting it now, I see! Change it from what to what - the mathematical proposition that the cost is real but the benefit is, essentially, zero, to the practical reality that the cost is minimal and the potential benefit could be life changing? That's not changing the nature; that's looking at it from the perspective of just about every punter that does the lottery. That's what makes it 'worthwhile'. Strawman. Motivation for playing Russian Roulette for $50k isn't comparable to motivation for staking a couple dollars a week for a possible life-changing outcome. Even if people, like I, appreciate that the lottery odds mean that I shouldn't expect to win the jackpot, it's still a worthwhile venture. Allow me to repeat, for most the cost has no material loss of amenity, which means for all intents and purposes it's essentially free to enter. What fool wouldn't enter a free lottery for a chance to become rich? Look, I see where you're coming from with the chalkboard, but that's not how people look on the lottery, and frankly your naysayer attitude is the last thing that most lottery players want to hear - they want to have fun trying to win a fortune. Leave 'em be you doom monger! Because you clearly don't understand 'behaviour', hence: No, you have to understand behaviour, and what 'worthwhile' actually means to entrants. Here's how to test the importance of the maths: go stand next to your local lottery ticket sales outlet, set up a billboard showing the odds and even explaining the maths, and see how many people you can convince not to buy a ticket. Many will understand and appreciate the odds, but will they be swayed? Are you a betting man, by any chance?! Not at the current pricing and prize levels that most people play at, absolutely not, but I'm not going to repeat myself yet again. |
3rd March 2012, 04:06 AM | #198 |
I lost an avatar bet.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,781
|
|
3rd March 2012, 04:32 AM | #199 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
With the UK Premium Bond scheme you're gambling with the interest on your money, rather than the money itself. The interest is the same as with any standard savings account, it's just distributed as prizes instead of being added to your account periodically. The draw is monthly and your numbers are entered into every draw as long as you hold your bond, so you don't have to keep buying it. The prizes are not as huge as lottery prizes can get, but the biggest is big enough to be life changing for most people. You can get your money back at any time.
By any measure premium bonds are a better bet than lottery tickets. So why do any Brits buy the latter? |
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
3rd March 2012, 05:13 AM | #200 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
I was not the one addressed, but since my position was referenced...
Imagine that we determine that many people are using similar schemes to select lotto numbers. Let's say they're using Bargain Trader analysis and in large numbers choosing sets based on the 10 most and 10 least occurring numbers from past drawings. So, we come up with a set of hopefully "unique" numbers that exclude the top and bottom 10 numbers. Do you hold that our scheme is so clever and "unique" that no one else will have thought of it? Any algorithm to select unique numbers seems doomed as long as others are also chasing "uniqueness". I think. But math and number theory and probability are all far from my fields of expertise, so I'm perfectly willing to be informed here. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|