great definition :-)
Meredith...@frankston.com
Thought people here would appreciate the following definition from
someone on another email list:
"The lottery: A tax on people who flunked math."
Monique Lloyd
Gordon Purdie
I heard a similar one from a statistician who gets phone calls from people
with lottery schemes:
"A tax on stupidity"
Byron Davis
What both definitions of a lottery lack is the fact that they are State
sponsored taxes on the stupid and the mathematically impaired. Is it also
interesting that the fastest growing contributer to both political parties
is, you guessed it, gambling. What a world, What a world!
Byron L. Davis, Ph.D. by...@osiris.usi.utah.edu
Staff Consultant for Statistics and Research Methodology
Center for High Performance Computing University of Utah
Richard A Beldin
I call "voluntary income tax", which reinforces the sense of both the
previous descriptions.
Dick Adams
Byron Davis <by...@OSIRIS.USI.UTAH.EDU> wrote:
> What both definitions of a lottery lack is the fact
> that they are State sponsored taxes on the stupid
> and the mathematically impaired.
I do play the lottery a few times a year, but only
when the present value of the annuity at 6% exceeds
the dollar value of the total combinations possible,
i.e., expected value => ticket cost.
However, I never ceased to be amazed by people who
waste their time looking for patterns in groups of
random numbers. :-) As for me, I always play my
first wife's birthday that way when if I ever win, I'll
enjoy the money even more. (slow long-lasting smile)
> Is it also interesting that the fastest growing
> contributer to both political parties is, you guessed
> it, gambling. What a world, What a world!
If you think about it, it makes a great deal of sense.
The operator of a non-zero sum game is effectively a
toll collector with a vested interest in the flow of
traffic.
Now if you really want to talk about a tax on stupidity,
it's "Pay-Per-View Professional Wrestling"!!!
Dick
Richard F Ulrich
Dick Adams (rda...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: I do play the lottery a few times a year, but only
: when the present value of the annuity at 6% exceeds
: the dollar value of the total combinations possible,
: i.e., expected value => ticket cost.
-- And that puts you ahead of chance, IF you expect your winning
ticket to be the ONLY winning ticket.... at least, here in Pa.,
when there are ties, the pot is split among several winners; and ...
: However, I never ceased to be amazed by people who
: waste their time looking for patterns in groups of
: random numbers. :-) As for me, I always play my
: first wife's birthday that way when if I ever win, I'll
: enjoy the money even more. (slow long-lasting smile)
-- there are a lot of people who play DATES of one sort or
another, which makes the chance of being the ONLY winner
rather less when you play a DATE than otherwise.
Rich Ulrich, biostatistician wpi...@pitt.edu
Western Psychiatric Inst. and Clinic Univ. of Pittsburgh
Travis Gee
In <4v81kj$h...@access5.digex.net> rda...@access5.digex.net (Dick Adams) writes:
>Byron Davis <by...@OSIRIS.USI.UTAH.EDU> wrote:
>I do play the lottery a few times a year, but only
>when the present value of the annuity at 6% exceeds
>the dollar value of the total combinations possible,
>i.e., expected value => ticket cost.
My strategy exactly, however,
> As for me, I always play my
>first wife's birthday that way when if I ever win, I'll
>enjoy the money even more. (slow long-lasting smile)
I never play birthdays, because so many people do that, that the
chances of having to split it with somebody are much higher than with
a randomly-generated ticked, thereby eliminating a good chunk of the
(E$)>=(cost of ticket) difference. Of course, if your first wife has a
good Doberman, er, I mean, attorney, *your* chances are up there
too, but that's not a statistical problem, per se.... :-(
>Now if you really want to talk about a tax on stupidity,
>it's "Pay-Per-View Professional Wrestling"!!!
(ROTFL!)
cheers,
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Travis Gee () tg...@superior.carleton.ca ()
() () ()()()()
() () ()
() ()()()()()()()()()
"In science, the more we know the more extensive the
contact with nescience." -Spencer
John Whittington
On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Dick Adams <rda...@ACCESS5.DIGEX.NET> wrote:
>However, I never ceased to be amazed by people who
>waste their time looking for patterns in groups of
>random numbers. :-) As for me, I always play my
>first wife's birthday that way when if I ever win, I'll
>enjoy the money even more. (slow long-lasting smile)
Sure, but while looking for patterns in the groups of random numbers is
clearly futile, trying to find out about the patterns of numbers that the
punters select [at least with the UK National Lottery, this has to be done
indirectly, by looking at numbers of tied winners with various patterns,
since the actual data on punters selections is not, yet, published].
One may not be able to influence the probability of winning, but by
examining peoples number-choosing habits one can certainly increase the
expected return if one *does* win.
John
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: jo...@mag-net.co.uk
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK CompuServe: 100517,3677
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Jeremy Schorr
Gordon Purdie (pur...@WNMEDS.AC.NZ) wrote:
: >Thought people here would appreciate the following definition from
I think you guys are missing the point of buying lottery tickets. One
does not buy a lottery ticket as financial investment. One buys a lottery
ticket so that one's fantasizing about the possibilities of winning will
not seem so stupid (i.e., you have to be in it to fantasize about it).
People enjoy the momentary psychological pleasure of believing that they
may win the lottery.
As an aside, what is the probability cutoff point at which smug
statisticians will decide that an action is not worth it? It would appear
irrational from thsi thread for people to apply to good schools,
residency programs, and fellowships given the sometimes staggering odds
against their success.
Meredith...@frankston.com
Adam Schorr writes:
<<I think you guys are missing the point of buying lottery tickets. One
does not buy a lottery ticket as financial investment. One buys a lottery
ticket so that one's fantasizing about the possibilities of winning will
not seem so stupid (i.e., you have to be in it to fantasize about it).
People enjoy the momentary psychological pleasure of believing that they
may win the lottery.>>
That may be true for many of us. But there are people who will spend
$50 or more _at_one_time_ on the lottery! people who win $25 on one
of the smaller games and immediately use it to buy more tickets!
There's nothing wrong with occasionally buying a lottery ticket for
the fun of it. But the real bucks for the state come from the
hard-core lottery addicts, and IMHO it's wrong for the state to
be raising money (and ironic for it to be earmarked for education)
by encouraging this kind of compulsive gambling.
Meredith
Meredith...@frankston.com
Adam J. Schorr
This is a political or perhaps a moral question but it does not bear on the
rationality or intelligence of the ticket purchasers. My casual observation
having lived in very affluent as well as very impoverished neighborhoods is
that typically the lottery "addicts" are poor. Since the gap between a poor
person's current situation and their fantasy of financial success is greater
than that gap for an affluent person, it makes sense that they will need to
buy more lottery tickets.
As for the political/moral question, I suppose you'd want to know where that
money would be going if the state was not encouraging people to gamble on the
lottery. It's not clear to me that the money would have been invested in
worthwhile investments or spent in an otherwise responsible manner. I doubt
very much that people who were serious and responsible with their money before
the advent of state lotteries became gambling addicts after. Gambling existed
in many forms well before the state came onto the scene and of course there
have always been other ways to throw money away. If you knew for a fact that
the money would be wasted anyway wouldn't you prefer that the money end up
doing some good as opposed to lining the pockets of the mob?