IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags lotteries , math puzzles , probability , probability puzzles

Reply
Old 28th February 2012, 07:45 AM   #161
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
The reasoning in both cases is, of course, fallacious*. I think there's both a Gambler's Fallacy and an Inverse Gambler's Fallacy that apply here, though I always forget which is which.

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.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 08:26 AM   #162
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
that should be: 1 in N!/(N - 6)!/6!

To see that this is true, just ask how many possible combinations of N-6 balls are left after 6 balls have been removed.
fair enough, the order is irrelevant so it's the number of combinations rather than permutations
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 08:27 AM   #163
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
In Florida, there is a publication called "Bargain Trader". I don't know if they still do, but they used to print a complete history of Fl Lotto winning numbers and a count of how many times each number had hit.

Some people would look at the most frequently drawn numbers and bet them because they were "hot". Some people would look at the least frequently drawn numbers and bet them because they were "due".

The reasoning in both cases is, of course, fallacious*. I think there's both a Gambler's Fallacy and an Inverse Gambler's Fallacy that apply here, though I always forget which is which.

*assuming a random draw, of course. If certain balls were weighted or otherwise favored, the "hot" number would in fact be a better bet.
The lottery company must love this sort of thing
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 08:30 AM   #164
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
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)
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 08:34 AM   #165
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
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.
Life is so much simpler if you don't have a conscience
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 08:56 AM   #166
Rasmus
Philosopher
 
Rasmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,372
Originally Posted by Alex Cured View Post
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)
And i assume there is a reason why you throw away half the money, too?
__________________
"Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg
Rasmus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 09:01 AM   #167
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Rasmus View Post
And i assume there is a reason why you throw away half the money, too?
I was trying to be amusing ... I don't actually do the lottery
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 09:03 AM   #168
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
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
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 09:30 AM   #169
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 28th February 2012 at 09:32 AM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 09:31 AM   #170
Rasmus
Philosopher
 
Rasmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,372
Originally Posted by Alex Cured View Post
I was trying to be amusing ... I don't actually do the lottery
It was. amusing, I mean.

but that argument is surprisingly common and I tohught I'd just document the obvious objection.
__________________
"Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg
Rasmus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 09:35 AM   #171
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Rasmus View Post
It was. amusing, I mean.

but that argument is surprisingly common and I tohught I'd just document the obvious objection.

Yes, it's all the more surprising that no one has offered it
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 03:18 PM   #172
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Important word that: "might"!
That, of course, is why I included it. Never give a sophist an easy break - and always assume there's a sophist in the room.
__________________
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
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 03:44 PM   #173
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I'd agree with some of that, but certainly not UK football pools. As I recall some 30% is skimmed in 'commissions', and I seriously doubt an individual's skill will overcome that kind of rake.
Agreed (I much prefer a zero-sum game myself). They might, though.

Quote:
Horse and dog-racing? Dunno. High St bookies typically run an 'over-round' of about 15% I believe. Hard to beat that, and you're up against unkown opponents who are effectively setting the odds.
That latter point actually means that it's the other players' judgement you're putting your own up against. The House reflects that in the odds and doesn't judge.

Quote:
Even the racing-paper pro tipsters are routinely shown to be losers in those published 'tipster leagues'.
Which is perhaps because the odds on their picks are driven lower by the biddable individuals who follow them (a lapse in judgement on their part). Of course, if every punter thought like that the tipsters might well do better if their judgement really is above average. Which raises the question of why they're not just gambling for a living in the first place.

Quote:
As to those other games, finding opponents known to be weaker can be a skill in itself
Indeed. The first judgement to make is which games to be in; the next is whether that first judgement was sound.
__________________
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
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 03:56 PM   #174
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
Originally Posted by Alex Cured View Post
... and when I want to support a charity I'd prefer not to give 50% of the money to a for-profit company too
Quite. What the [Rule 8] is that all about? Branson's non-profit pitch (without even the Virgin brand) was rejected because he "lacked the requisite business acumen", so that dog don't hunt.

Best I not get going on this one .
__________________
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
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 04:00 PM   #175
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
If only I could get over my aversion to taking advantage of fools.
Check any moral qualms at the door or don't come in.
__________________
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
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 04:15 PM   #176
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
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.
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:
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.
There's a good QI question in that . And if it's already been used on QI it's no longer special.
__________________
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
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 04:26 PM   #177
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Interesting Number Paradox
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 04:50 PM   #178
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
Originally Posted by Alex Cured View Post
In the references of that article, Martin Gardner is listed.

He may very well have been the person from whom I got the idea.

I just conflated "special" with "interesting", but you get the idea.

BTW, what's a QI question?

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 28th February 2012 at 04:52 PM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 05:01 PM   #179
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
In the references of that article, Martin Gardner is listed.

He may very well have been the person from whom I got the idea.

I just conflated "special" with "interesting", but you get the idea.

BTW, what's a QI question?
It's a BBC TV Series: http://www.qi.com/tv/ that's Quite Interesting
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 07:18 PM   #180
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
I've considered starting a business selling such numbers. If only I could get over my aversion to taking advantage of fools.
... and develop a profitable business model!

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
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.
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Indeed. In different terms, if an action determined by a system materially changes that system the action is no longer justified.
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!

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
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.
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!

Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Which raises the question of why they're not just gambling for a living in the first place.
Contradiction in terms, surely, as 'living' infers a guaranteed net gain to support it.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 07:36 PM   #181
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post

At the risk of sounding obtuse I disagree with this, too.
Ummm...

...how does one "disagree" with a paradox?
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 11:59 PM   #182
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
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.
If Dan O can get past his aversion to taking advantage of fools, then that class of people will simply expand to include his customers.
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 12:06 AM   #183
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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!
Dan O could allocate his sequentially, omitting the ones on the fool's choice list
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 12:15 AM   #184
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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!
"The interesting number paradox is a semi-humorous paradox ..."
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 12:21 AM   #185
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Alex Cured View Post
Dan O could allocate his sequentially, omitting the ones on the fool's choice list
... and I'm assuming he would have less than about 13 million customers
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 12:31 AM   #186
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Ummm...

...how does one "disagree" with a paradox?
Er ... by disagreeing that it's a paradox?
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 08:37 AM   #187
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Alex Cured View Post
... and I'm assuming he would have less than about 13 million customers

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.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 02:12 PM   #188
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,781
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Check any moral qualms at the door or don't come in.
I'm always afraid to do that because I worry that I might get someone else's moral qualms when I leave. Then I might end up becoming a vegetarian [shudder].


..................
Well, I'm off to forge Davy Jones's signature on a bunch of publicity photos.

Last edited by Ladewig; 29th February 2012 at 02:18 PM.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 11:34 PM   #189
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Quote:
So your point is that it doesn't suck to win the lottery? Well... okay, yeah, that's true.

It doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it's worthwhile to play however.
Again, ask a selection of jackpot winners that question. And don't forget that for most players the emotional hope of winning each week and the anticipation when checking the result is well worth the modest stake.
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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:55 AM   #190
Kahalachan
Illuminator
 
Kahalachan's Avatar
 
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.
Kahalachan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 02:19 AM   #191
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by Kahalachan View Post
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.
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
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 03:17 PM   #192
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Let me ask you this: at what price do you think the lottery is overpriced, and why?
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 05:00 PM   #193
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Not true.
You are incorrect.

Quote:
'Randomness' isn't the same as 'uniqueness'.
Irrelevant.

Quote:
Every 'individual' jackpot winner evidently selected a unique number set ...
The set is not unique if more than one person chose them for that particular draw.

Quote:
... but I strongly suspect that many, if not most, were not selected truly randomly.
Which is the point.

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:
Contradiction in terms, surely, as 'living' infers a guaranteed net gain to support it.
You probably mean "implies", but you're wrong anyway. A living is something whch has got you to where you are but it's never absolutely guaranteed. People have made a living out of gambling without running the House, even unto their natural term, and some continue to do so. It's oviously a better bet to make a living from gamblers without gambling (there's another born every minute), but the gambling option can work for those who are good at it.
__________________
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
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 05:03 PM   #194
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
Scratch-cards and slots are the real life-wreckers.
__________________
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
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 05:29 PM   #195
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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?
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:
It's not a question of mathematics from their point of view; it's simply a question of reality.
Why should I care about their point of view? You are basically saying "If you ignore the possibility of losing, playing the lottery is great!". Um, okay.
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 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'm not trying to explain anyone's behavior, I'm trying to look at whether or not it's worthwhile to play the lottery. To understand that you have to understand what the chances of winning are.

I can't understand why you think that's not important.


Quote:
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.
So you don't think that the value of a lottery ticket is related either to the size of the prize or the chances of an individual ticket winning that prize?
__________________
"... 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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 09:05 PM   #196
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
You are incorrect.
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:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
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.
... 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?

Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Irrelevant.
Again, feel free!

Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
The set is not unique if more than one person chose them for that particular draw.
But more than one person didn't choose them, did they! (I did write 'individual' winner, in case you missed that.)

Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Which is the point.
Sure, provided one doesn't miss the point!

Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
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?
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?!

Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
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.
That's reassuring; I currently do exactly the same!

Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
You probably mean "implies" ...
Nope, 'infersdict' will do nicely, thanks.

Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
... but you're wrong anyway. A living is something whch has got you to where you are but it's never absolutely guaranteed. People have made a living out of gambling without running the House, even unto their natural term, and some continue to do so. It's oviously a better bet to make a living from gamblers without gambling (there's another born every minute), but the gambling option can work for those who are good at it.
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?
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 11:53 PM   #197
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I don't see why you think that's an interesting question.
I'm not claiming it's a particularly interesting question. Indeed, it was you who initially inferred the question:
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
So your point is that it doesn't suck to win the lottery? Well... okay, yeah, that's true.
It doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it's worthwhile to play however.
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
By cherry-picking the winners you can ask the same question of any game of chance.
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?

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Why should I care about their point of view? You are basically saying "If you ignore the possibility of losing, playing the lottery is great!". Um, okay.
Ah ... you are getting it now, I see!

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
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.
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'.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
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.
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!

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm not trying to explain anyone's behavior ...
Because you clearly don't understand 'behaviour', hence:
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm trying to look at whether or not it's worthwhile to play the lottery.


Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
To understand that you have to understand what the chances of winning are.
No, you have to understand behaviour, and what 'worthwhile' actually means to entrants.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I can't understand why you think that's not important.
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?!

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
So you don't think that the value of a lottery ticket is related either to the size of the prize or the chances of an individual ticket winning that prize?
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 04:06 AM   #198
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,781
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
Let's call $10 million (after taxes) a life-changing amount of money.

If $1 buys a one in one billion chance of winning that $10 million, is it worthwhile? What if $1 buys a one in one trillion chance of winning $10 million, is that still worthwhile?
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 04:32 AM   #199
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
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
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 05:13 AM   #200
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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?

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.

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 3rd March 2012 at 05:14 AM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.