And for the winners, what do they face? Massive taxation, as well as depreciation (compare a million bucks 20 years ago to a million today). In all, the state basically writes a big check to itself; if you take the payments, the remainder is sitting an account somewhere, accruing interest. Lump sum? Take out more from your bottom line. More money for the state.

So, I was wondering: why bother? Is it just in place to take money away from the those who play it most? Is it a tax on stupidity?

The reason it is so popular is because people do not think about the odds. It's only a dollar a ticket to them.

quote:

---

Karnaj startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
I'm unfamiliar with how specifically it works, but let's say you have to correctly guess 6 two digit numbers between 00 and 99. That works out to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 (100e6 or 10e12) of choosing correctly. Anyone with a basic grasp of discrete math can see that it's a complete waste of time.

And for the winners, what do they face? Massive taxation, as well as depreciation (compare a million bucks 20 years ago to a million today). In all, the state basically writes a big check to itself; if you take the payments, the remainder is sitting an account somewhere, accruing interest. Lump sum? Take out more from your bottom line. More money for the state.

So, I was wondering: why bother? Is it just in place to take money away from the those who play it most? Is it a tax on stupidity?

---

Dogbert said it best: it's a tax on people who are bad at math.

these days most often you have a cash option which is much less than the 20 year 30 year pay out. They take bids on each jackpot and a company says for the lump sum now they will pay an anuity to the winner for X dollars over X years. Supposedly it goes to the person who offers the winner the best return but it might actually be the one that offers the best kickback/graft/return to the state/offical/lotto managment instead.

Still if you play a dollar here and there and you won a jack pot, even if after taxes it was under one million I doubt you would be too unhappy.

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Karnaj:
.... Is it a tax on stupidity?

---

Think about this, Were does all that money go? Most of it ends up in Edjumaction.

Besides when the Mega Millions is up to 200 Million, even at a incredible longshot, what the fuck is 1-5 bucks for a ticket? One less drink at the bar?

quote:

---

How.... Peter.... uughhhhhh:
Think about this, Were does all that money go? Most of it ends up in Edjumaction.

Besides when the Mega Millions is up to 200 Million, even at a incredible longshot, what the fuck is 1-5 bucks for a ticket? One less drink at the bar?

---

At p=1e-12, you would have to buy a ticket once a week for a billion years to have a ~50% chance of winning.

To have roughly the same effect as partaking in the lottery, you must picture economic rationalism as a tangible object--one you can hold in your hand, like a lottery ticket--and wipe your ass with it.

Pvednes fucked around with this message on 09-15-2005 at 03:39 AM.

quote:

---

Pvednes had this to say about John Romero:
At p=1e-12, you would have to buy a ticket once a week for a billion years to have a ~50% chance of winning.

To have roughly the same effect as partaking in the lottery, you must picture economic rationalism as a tangible object--one you can hold in your hand, like a lottery ticket--and wipe your ass with it.

---

This is like saying, "well, the chance of getting in a car crash or dying in a plane wreck is realy small, so it might as well be 0." Different orders of magnitude? Yes. But still tiny.

There are two things to consider; one is that most of you seem to be forgetting the "win 5 dollars" function that, depending on the state, makes some lottos close to being a statistical wash. The other thing is that people merely want a chance at the millions, and they aren't going to be too sad if they throw a few thousand over the course of a lifetime at it.

quote:

---

How.... Blindy..... uughhhhhh:
Except the numbers aren't all 00 to 99.

---

In Mass it only goes to... 42
Odds: 1 in 5,245,786

Mega Millions only has 56 numbers
Odds: 1 in 175,711,536

TheOriginalZane fucked around with this message on 09-15-2005 at 11:22 AM.

I know I won't win a million dollars if I get a ticket, but what, exactly, does it hurt? I know in Indiana they have safeguards against you spending all your money on tickets (you can't use your debit card to buy lotto tickets, for instance), and they turn it and the money from the gambling they do here into the coffers of public works (Indiana has a LOT of roadwork in operation now; good choices, etc, and it dumps it into the school systems, which I highly approve of in general).

So they try to prevent you from hurting yourself by playing, and occasionally people win something nice, and even if they don't, the money doesn't go into the pockets of the people running the lottery. The money by and large ends up doing positive things.

Contrast that with NC, which in terms of roadwork and education is running so far into the red right now that it's frightening, and where they keep voting down the idea of a lottery.

I consider it an entertainment expense, much like going to the movies. I put a bit of money into the lotto, and I get to spend a few days dreaming of what I would do with the money if I hit the jackpot. I think about quitting my job, building a dream house, building a dream computer, buying stuff for my family and friends, and various other things.

Besides, you'll notice that the jackpot DOES reset sometimes. Long odds or not, someone hits it every now and then. A bit of pocket change for that longshot chance isn't that bad.

quote:

---

Maradon! had this to say about dark elf butts:
You're buying hope.

---

Exactly that.

quote:

---

So quoth Maradon!:
You're buying hope.

---

Buying mild amusement more likely. The few times I buy a ticket doesn't mean I'm hoping every second of the day that I 'OMG MIGHT CRACK IT BIG OMG OMG'

In the end, it's only a quid. A lot of it (except less with Camelot controlling the national lottery) goes to a good cause anyway.

Now when you're addicted to the lottery like my uncle, that's a different matter.

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Maradon! stammered:
You're buying hope.

---

You're confusing very small numbers with 0.

quote:

---

Niklas stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Buying mild amusement more likely. The few times I buy a ticket doesn't mean I'm hoping every second of the day that I 'OMG MIGHT CRACK IT BIG OMG OMG'

In the end, it's only a quid. A lot of it (except less with Camelot controlling the national lottery) goes to a good cause anyway.

Now when you're addicted to the lottery like my uncle, that's a different matter.

---

Exactly, some folks act like people that play the lottery are hopeless gambling addicts.

Every week or so I buy a ticket if I'm in the gas station. Last month I landed $150, not bad considering in my entire lifetime I havent bought anywhere near 150 tickets.

quote:

---

Snugglits startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
You're confusing very small numbers with 0.

---

Very small numbers are the same as zero in practice--that's why the ancient argument about the arrow in flight never being able to reach its target doesn't work.

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Reynar squealed:
Exactly, some folks act like people that play the lottery are hopeless gambling addicts.

Every week or so I buy a ticket if I'm in the gas station. Last month I landed $150, not bad considering in my entire lifetime I havent bought anywhere near 150 tickets.

---

There is no such thing as a gambling addict, unless you've recently caught someone freebasing a scratch-off thingy. Some obsessive-compulsive behavior is oriented towards gambling, but that != addiction.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
Very small numbers are the same as zero in practice--that's why the ancient argument about the arrow in flight never being able to reach its target doesn't work.

---

Wait, what? Are you saying that an arrow having little hope of hitting its target means it can't hit its target?

And are you also saying nobody ever wins the lotto?

quote:

---

So quoth Bloodsage:
There is no such thing as a gambling addict, unless you've recently caught someone freebasing a scratch-off thingy. Some obsessive-compulsive behavior is oriented towards gambling, but that != addiction.

---

Oh boy, a semantics argument.

quote:

---

Peanut butter ass Shaq Snugglits booooze lime pole over bench lick:
You're confusing very small numbers with 0.

---

I thought the fact that I wasn't doing that was the entire point of my post?

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Snugglits squealed:
Wait, what? Are you saying that an arrow having little hope of hitting its target means it can't hit its target?

And are you also saying nobody ever wins the lotto?

---

Dude, it's smarter to ask a question than it is to display your ignorance arrogantly like that. The philosophical argument, first raised in ancient times, was that an arrow in flight could never reach its target because in order to do so it must first cross half the distance, then half the remainder, then half the remainder again ad infinitum. It's the same with the lottery: with odds of 170 million-to-one, it's as good as zero. Saying, "Haha, just because the odds are long doesn't mean they're zero," is just stupid.

quote:

---

Saying, "Haha, just because the odds are long doesn't mean they're zero," is just stupid.

---

..But they're not.

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Snugglits squealed:
Oh boy, a semantics argument.

---

Actually, it makes all the difference in treatment. Addiction cures focus on the addictive substance, whereas cures for obsessive-compulsive disorders have to focus on the individual.

Jeebus, just admit you fucked up your terminology and move on.

quote:

---

Maradon! had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
I thought the fact that I wasn't doing that was the entire point of my post?

---

Sorry, without any context, I thought you were calling people who buy lottery tickets stupid.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Sean absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
..But they're not.

---

In practice, it's best to treat them as if they were, though. Unless, of course, you have enough money to guarantee winning the jackpot--now you just have to hope no one else picked the same numbers and you have to split it and ruin your "investment."

quote:

---

Bloodsage said this about your mom:
Dude, it's smarter to ask a question than it is to display your ignorance arrogantly like that. The philosophical argument, first raised in ancient times, was that an arrow in flight could never reach its target because in order to do so it must first cross half the distance, then half the remainder, then half the remainder again ad infinitum. It's the same with the lottery: with odds of 170 million-to-one, it's as good as zero. Saying, "Haha, just because the odds are long doesn't mean they're zero," is just stupid.

---

How does your example prove that a small number is 0? Doesn't it prove that it isn't?

quote:

---

Bloodsage stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Actually, it makes all the difference in treatment. Addiction cures focus on the addictive substance, whereas cures for obsessive-compulsive disorders have to focus on the individual.

Jeebus, just admit you fucked up your terminology and move on.

---

I only made a single post about the word "addiction". So, how could I have responded to this post, this post you just made, in the middle of your post?

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
In practice, it's best to treat them as if they were, though. Unless, of course, you have enough money to guarantee winning the jackpot--now you just have to hope no one else picked the same numbers and you have to split it and ruin your "investment."

---

I believe you should meet my friend. His name is multiplication. He and 0 cannot ever possibly get it on and produce a statistical event, while he can with tiny numbers.

quote:

---

Snugglits had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I believe you should meet my friend. His name is multiplication. He and 0 cannot ever possibly get it on and produce a statistical event, while he can with tiny numbers.

---

Mario made me fucking lose it. I laughed for a solid minute.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Snugglits absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
How does your example prove that a small number is 0? Doesn't it prove that it isn't?

---

I thought you were supposed to be good at math? It proves that a small number is the same as zero, otherwise how can it keep crossing half the distance? Won't there always be half of a discrete distance left, unless at some point it just doesn't matter anymore?

It's an ivory tower stupidity versus the real world thing. Sure, there's a measurable chance to win the jackpot. But it's pretty damned stupid to count on it because the odds make it just this side of impossible for any given individual to win. Buying a lottery ticket is almost exactly the same as throwing a dollar in the fireplace, in practical terms.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Snugglits absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
I believe you should meet my friend. His name is multiplication. He and 0 cannot ever possibly get it on and produce a statistical event, while he can with tiny numbers.

---

Don't be a fucking idiot. If you don't know damned well what I'm talking about, you should go shoot yourself, because you have no hope of living a normal life. RTFQ, and start living in the real world, jeebus.

This argument is getting ridiculous. One pound of mild entertainment every now and then is throwing money in the fireplace? Yeah sure, I guess it'd be mildly entertaining to see if the fire is hot enough to noticably affect the coin.

quote:

---

Snugglits startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
I only made a single post about the word "addiction". So, how could I have responded to this post, this post you just made, in the middle of your post?

---

What the fuck are you talking about? You quoted me and called it just a semantics argument, as if it made no difference--and which, btw, you are doing with your stupid statistics argument.

Addiction and compulsion are different. You fucked up the difference.