$500 million....are you playing the lottery?
- Thread starter TrickyDickie
- Start date
If no one wins tonight (5% chance), the jackpot will increase to $975 million.
On the way home it was supposed to be up to $640 Mil.
It is. Five minutes to go until I quit my job! 
And the Winning Numbers:
2-4-23-38-46 Mega 23
So who won. I didn't. I didn't even have any of the numbers
2-4-23-38-46 Mega 23
So who won. I didn't. I didn't even have any of the numbers
I had two of the numbers on two separate lines... didn't win a dime though.
A
Amaris
Guest
Nope. Nothing. Better luck next time!
I won $7.00. Didn't quite cover what I spent, but I enjoyed looking up new cars and real estate today so I'll call it a win.
Besides, that'll just make the next jackpot bigger for me.
While I didn't win today, I did get paid from my work today so that was a nice plus. In a sense, I made at least $300 (After expenses are paid like Rent and Cell Phone) in profit today so I'm happy.
A
Amaris
Guest
I found a quarter under the couch, so I've already made 2400% profit today! w00t! 
Do the maths yourself. 5 balls out of 56 plus 1 out of 46. That's 5/56 x 4/55 x 3/54 x 2/53 x 1/52 x 1/46 = 1/175.711.526. I think the number was already mentioned here.
Nothing against people enjoying the virtually non-existent chance to win the jackpot (not that there aren't better and more social stochastic games where you don't lose real money) but playing while not being aware of how slim your chances actually are, gee, that's just riping off yourself.
Ah, the Population of the Universe=0 argument.
Odds of winning if you buy a ticket = very slim.
Odds of winning if you DON'T buy a ticket = 0
Investment cost = $1
Possible return on investment = millions of times over.
I'd say spending that $1 is no big deal.
It's being reported at least one winning ticket was sold.
Too bad, it would have been interesting to see this thing break or flirt with the $1B mark.
Technically you didn't. You already HAD the quarter you just didn't know it. And I don't know where the 2400% profit comes from. If you started the day with $0 then you've "made" an infinite profit. Profit is also money OVER costs so if you it costs you vastly less than 25c to live for a day then, congrats. You've made a profit by finding money you already had.
No one ever thinks of the Midwest.
Why should I? I don't live there.
Well fine then. If I win I'll by Saty and the rest of my flyover country companions a drink. But the coasts? Well
Of course that's all before buying the new house in Florida.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, my ticket was a loser.
I did get two numbers in sequence, but I don't think that's worth anything.
Oh well. better luck next time. If I win then, I'll buy the whole damn world a drink.
Well fine then. If I win I'll by Saty and the rest of my flyover country companions a drink. But the coasts? Well
Of course that's all before buying the new house in Florida.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, my ticket was a loser.
I did get two numbers in sequence, but I don't think that's worth anything.
Oh well. better luck next time. If I win then, I'll buy the whole damn world a drink.
Well, I will be rooting for you then. I've never been bought a drink before.
While capital markets are certainly imperfect, I'm not convinced they're imperfect enough to break equivalence, if humans operated rationally. IOW, IMO it's the rationality problem that is the bottleneck to equivalence more than market imperfect. Of course, it's untestable either way, so...
I suppose the question arises as to what defines a sufficiently informed consent to meet your critera for them being aware enough to play ethically. Accepted criteria for informed consent generally revolve around a basic grasp of the facts, and an ability to process and retain the information and so make decisions about them. I'd suggest that while people may not view a lottery as part of an overall system of societal management, they do intellectually understand many other key aspects, especially that the odds of winning are exceptionally poor. They may not know the exact figure, but I suspect if you asked people this question, answers would range from millions to one up to billions to one. So all in approximately the right area. I'd say that means they're playing with sufficient information to choose freely whether to play or not.
I realise you're just picking heroin as a random example to use as an analogy, so the following is purely tangential, but still: there are a lot more than you might guess, sadly. Also, there's the phenomenon of socio-economic decline: many of those who die of heroin-related issues who were of a low socio-economic class at time of death will have actually originated in a higher class, and moved down gradually over time, due to the increasing primacy of the drug in their lifestyles.
Well, I believe that people are not that stupid. Take WWII, perhaps the clearest "experiment" we have for Ricardian Equivalence.
First of all it clearly shows that the demand-increasing effects of public spending clearly outweigh any potential consumption reductions so the Chicago boys who love to tell their RA story (that's the only reason this ridiculous claim exists in the first place) to discredit Keynesianism are wrong.
But have people really been that stupid to not realize that the immense amount of public debt will have to be repaid one day, that there will be top marginal tax rate of over 90% during the fourties and fifties?
I don't think so. That you do not know your feature income, that you cannot shift resources which are uncertain to and fro in time (go to a bank, show them your education level, tell them that all the money you will make one day is the collateral for your consumer credit and they will rightly laugh about you) and that the large spread between credit rates destroys your incentives to use the capital market for consumption smoothing in the first place seem to be the more significant factors in my opinion.
Perhaps I am too old-school but my question would be, why weave an irrationality story like 'habit persistence' when there is a perfectly sound, classical economical explanation that doesn't require any funky heterodox stuff?
First of all it clearly shows that the demand-increasing effects of public spending clearly outweigh any potential consumption reductions so the Chicago boys who love to tell their RA story (that's the only reason this ridiculous claim exists in the first place) to discredit Keynesianism are wrong.
But have people really been that stupid to not realize that the immense amount of public debt will have to be repaid one day, that there will be top marginal tax rate of over 90% during the fourties and fifties?
I don't think so. That you do not know your feature income, that you cannot shift resources which are uncertain to and fro in time (go to a bank, show them your education level, tell them that all the money you will make one day is the collateral for your consumer credit and they will rightly laugh about you) and that the large spread between credit rates destroys your incentives to use the capital market for consumption smoothing in the first place seem to be the more significant factors in my opinion.
Perhaps I am too old-school but my question would be, why weave an irrationality story like 'habit persistence' when there is a perfectly sound, classical economical explanation that doesn't require any funky heterodox stuff?
All those terms are way over my head... and did nothing to convince me to not play the lottery. Three people walked away with more money than I'll ever see in my entire lifetime, so that's enough to keep me trying on these large jackpots.
Seriously.
Buying a lottery ticket costs $1-$2 and most lottery drawings are 3 times a week. That'a $3-$6 of money a week if you consistently buy lottery tickets. That's hardly a "lot" of money with a potentially huge payoff/return.
Buying a lottery ticket costs $1-$2 and most lottery drawings are 3 times a week. That'a $3-$6 of money a week if you consistently buy lottery tickets. That's hardly a "lot" of money with a potentially huge payoff/return.
A
Amaris
Guest
Plus, it can be fun. The fun is in the gamble, and the price is relatively small if it pays off.
For those expected value is usually less than the price for playing.
In other words, you are just wasting your money again.
In other words, you are just wasting your money again.
A
Amaris
Guest
Here's the thing about gambling: Go in knowing how much you might lose, and don't lose any more than that. If you had fun, it was worth it. If you're fortunate, you walk away with a sizeable amount of money for little to no work. If you lose it all because you were foolish, then you get what you deserve. Gambling is not and has never been a sure guarantee. The House always wins.
Similar threads
