Floyd, you asked me why I was against the lottery. Here's why:

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Sava


Ignorance should be punished at every opprotunity.

Lotteries don't punish ignorance, they encourage it; far from being clear about the unlikely nature of winning, lottery ads tend to obscure them, instead urging people on with slogans like "You can't win if you don't play."

Now, you could say believing advertising is just another form of ignorance that should be punished. But that's not the point. The point is, the State -- my state -- should not be deliberately using dubious rhetoric to lure its own citizenry into games of chance. If Bally's Casinos want to do so, that's one thing, however lamentable. But that is absolutely NOT what a government should be doing in a democratic society.

[David Floyd]

The point is, the State -- my state -- should not be deliberately using dubious rhetoric to lure its own citizenry into games of chance.

But it's OK for them to use men with guns to force you to pay property taxes, abide by drug laws, and any number of other INVOLUNTARY measures?

That's doesn't make any sense at all.

[Ramo]

The reasoning that because the state does one immoral thing, having it do other immoral things is ok doesn't make sense at all.

Yes, stupid people. Not ignorant people. Unless they are retarded, in the literal sense, they have the capacity to understand that the lottery does not have good odds of winning.

Being stupid implies that they don't have such a capacity. And "good odds of winning" is not as the same as "reasonable odds of winning" which I don't think is totally trivial.

[David Floyd]

The reasoning that because the state does one immoral thing, having it do other immoral things is ok doesn't make sense at all.

OK, but I'm not sure I see how it is immoral for the state to provide a VOLUNTARY program that allows one or more people to become wealthy, and also provides a good amount of tax revenues for the state.

Hell, I'd support a NATIONAL lottery as a revenue raiser.

Being stupid implies that they don't have such a capacity.

Call it willfully blind, then. Semantics aside, it's an emminently logical fact that EVERYONE has at least some inkling of the odds involved with the lottery.

And "good odds of winning" is not as the same as "reasonable odds of winning" which I don't think is totally trivial.

Not sure I see your point.

[JohnT]

"Imminently", David. And how is it logical?

[Lefty Scaevola]

His point is that he buys lottery tickets and does not think of himself as stupid. Let us just say then that he bought them for the entertainment value associated with gambling, rather than as a meas to increase his net worth; that would be rational.

[Ramo]

DF, let's say there's a lottery with 6 spots that each can be 0-9, but the numbers must be distinct. What do you (no one else answer) think is the probability of getting the right sequence?

OK, but I'm not sure I see how it is immoral for the state to provide a VOLUNTARY program that allows one or more people to become wealthy, and also provides a good amount of tax revenues for the state.

Do you think it's moral for the government to deal cocaine?

[JohnT]

Edited out as per Ramo's request.

[Ramo]

Only David can answer.

[David Floyd]

DF, let's say there's a lottery with 6 spots that each can be 0-9, but the numbers must be distinct. What do you (no one else answer) think is the probability of getting the right sequence?

I'm bad at math. But without having a clue as to the answer, logic suggests that lotteries do not exist so that a lot of people can win. If something seems too good to be true, it damn well is.

However, that does not seem to be something that is too good to be true. Guessing a six digit number? I mean, the odds of guessing a two digit number are around 1%. Even on 1% odds it's not smart to play the lottery, as simple logic suggests. I can only imagine how bad the odds would be if you go another four exponents down the line.

If you want a guess, I'd guess that the odds of correctly getting a 6 digit number correct are along the lines of about 1 in 1 million. While that answer could very well be wrong, gambling on even such an "optimistic" estimate is not logical, as anyone can plainly see.

I would not buy a lottery ticket for anything other than idle entertainment know matter how attractive the odds seemed to be, because I use my head.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by David Floyd


But it's OK for them to use men with guns to force you to pay property taxes, abide by drug laws, and any number of other INVOLUNTARY measures?

That's doesn't make any sense at all.

Property taxes are voluntary, David; nobody said you had to own property.

Seriously, though, yes, it's okay. We don't live under a King (yet ); we have constitutions that provide for state power of taxation, the ability to make regulatory laws, an dthe ability to enforce both. The processes that establishe dsuch constitutions are actually reasonably democratic, moreso that most US govt. activity. So I can live with that.

I can also live with the state making money off of gambling -- but gambling itself should be a private activity, not something run by the state (this would usually be your line, you know).

And if you want a tax on stupidity, I'm all for raising cigarette taxes to Canadian levels and slapping a surcharge onto SUV purchases. Hell, I'll even stand for increased alcohol taxes; my beer consumption alone would fund an entire elmentary school. But I stand bu the idea that the state shouldn't be trying to deliberately, aggressively, hoodwink its own citizenry, in this or any other matter.

[Ramo]

I mean, the odds of guessing a two digit number are around 1%.

Why do you think so?

Even on 1% odds it's not smart to play the lottery, as simple logic suggests.

On the contrary, it's EXTREMELY SMART to play the lottery at 1% odds (unless the prize is really small or the ticket price is really high).

I can only imagine how bad the odds would be if you go another four exponents down the line

Why do you think it's so much worse when you go on down the line?

BTW, you're almost off by an order of magnitude in predicting my lottery.

[JohnT]

Well, since David couldn't answer, I will. 1:150,000 (appx.)

[David Floyd]

On the contrary, it's EXTREMELY SMART to play the lottery at 1% odds (unless the prize is really small or the ticket price is really high).

Not unless you can afford and are willing to buy more than a few tickets. Yes, if I had a 1% chance to win the lottery off of a single $1 lottery ticket, I would probably go buy 100 lottery tickets, if my guaranteed prize was over $100.

Of course, lotteries don't work that way - any fool can see that.

Also, why do you think it's so much worse when you go on down the line?

Erm, because it is. You surely aren't going to try to tell me that your odds for winning the lottery IMPROVE as more digits are added to your number guess, are you?

BTW, you're almost off by an order of magnitude in predicting my lottery.

Well, I never claimed to be a mathematician. That actually proves my point, though - even my ignorant, haven't had a math course since 9th grade high school, back of the envelope GUESS showed that it's stupid to buy a lottery ticket for anything other than entertainment.

[Ramo]

That's right. 1/151200 to be precise.

[David Floyd]

Well, since David couldn't answer, I will. 1:150,000 (appx.)

OK, even assuming 1:150,000, one is stupid to play the lottery. This fact is even reinforced by the more common sense answer to the question (which mine was). So, in that sense, the more ignorant a person is on the subject of math, the less likely they should be to play the lottery, if they are using their brains at all.

[JohnT]

"the more ignorant a person is on the subject of math, the less likely they should be to play the lottery, if they are using their brains at all."

Of course, the more aware a person is on the subject of math the less likely they will play the lottery.

David, it's late and I'm kind of tired, but I think you just argued yourself in a big circle here. But maybe not.

[David Floyd]

Of course, the more aware a person is on the subject of math the less likely they will play the lottery.

David, it's late and I'm kind of tired, but I think you just argued yourself in a big circle here. But maybe not.

I don't think I did. All I was trying to point out was that regardless of level of knowledge on a subject, people are unlikely to play lotteries for anything other than entertainment IF THEY ARE USING THEIR HEADS.

If they become blinded like idiots in search of a get rich quick scheme, too bad for them, I suppose, but it's their own fault. No one forced them to give up money, and the odds against winning were very high, which they could figure out whether or not they know math (as I think I just showed).

[JohnT]

So, what is the chance of winning a 46-number lottery with 6 slots, with a 46-numbered Powerball that is non-deterministic upon the other balls (I don't think I phrased that correctly, but you should get the idea)?

1:310,229,045,280

That's 1 in 310 billion! I never hear that number in the lotto ads!

Without the powerball, it comes down to a manageable 1:6,744,109,680

[Ramo]

You surely aren't going to try to tell me that your odds for winning the lottery IMPROVE as more digits are added to your number guess, are you?

I want you to explain precisely why you think the way you do. Since it's "emminently logical."

That actually proves my point, though

How so? You were completely off. If you were a few more orders of magnitude off, lotteries would actually start making sense.

if my guaranteed prize was over $100.

Usually with odds as bad as that, the guaranteed prize is far, far more than $100.

Not unless you can afford and are willing to buy more than a few tickets.

Even if you couldn't. If the prize were large it'd be insane not to buy one ticket at those odds. I certainly would.

[David Floyd]

OK, but regardless of the game, it doesn't change the basic fact that anyone can reason out the obvious fact that the odds of winning the lottery are very, very poor.

Advertisements do just that - advertise. Beer commercials don't show people throwing up if they drink too much, or dying if they drive drunk. But everyone knows that both things happen - common sense and experience.

[David Floyd]

I want you to explain precisely why you think the way you do. Since it's "emminently logical."

So I misspelled a word at 1 am. Get over it.

And my answer will simply be common sense. Maybe you need something else in order to justify not playing the lottery. I don't, though.

How so? You were completely off. If you were a few more orders of magnitude off, lotteries would actually start making sense.

Maybe, but my guess was not a wild ass guess, my guess was based on what seems to make good sense. If the odds of guessing a one digit number are 10%, the odds of guessing a two digit number are 1%, and so forth.

It's not correct, and I never even tried to claim that it was correct, but it still leads in the correct direction - don't play the damn lottery.

Usually with odds as bad as that, the guaranteed prize is far, far more than $100.

Yes, that's true, but everyone who guesses the right number have to share the prize. I said MY PERSONAL prize, not the overall prize.

Lotteries don't exist to lose money, now do they?

Even if you couldn't. If the prize were large it'd be insane not to buy one ticket at those odds. I certainly would.

OK, fine, granted. What lotteries do you know that offer a 1% chance of winning any sort of substantial individual prize?

Not too many, are there?

[JohnT]

But beer commercials do say "Drink responsibly"!

Of course, it's the mean old government that makes them say that. Bad, BAD government! **JohnT whaps the government with a rolled up newspaper**

[JohnT]

Originally posted by David Floyd


So I misspelled a word at 1 am. Get over it.

You also misused it:

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary...query=imminent

[David Floyd]

Yes, they do say that, but that doesn't change the basic point that even if they didn't say that, a reasonable person would know not to drive drunk or drink a case and not expect to puke.

[David Floyd]

You also misused it:

Good God.

Since when are you the spelling/usage police? And I'm not exactly know for making those sorts of mistakes, so cut me a little slack here. We all knew what I was trying to say.

[Ramo]

My gut reaction (i.e. without applying any mathematical knowledge at all) is that my lottery would be two or three orders of magnitude from the real answer. Same with John's lottery. It simply comes down to lottery exploiting the ignorant - the poor.

[JohnT]

I'm not the spelling police: I'm the spelling Nazi!

[Aeson]

I play the lottery from time to time (a few tickets a year, if that). To me it's just entertainment, a minute Vegas vacation if you will. I don't think it's stupid, anymore than any luxury or entertainment is. I understand the odds perfectly.

For those who play the lottery only to win, their money is wasted the vast majority of the time of course...

[David Floyd]

My gut reaction (i.e. without applying any mathematical knowledge at all) is that my lottery would be two or three orders of magnitude from the real answer.

You're saying that your gut reaction to a six digit number is to think you have a GREATER chance than 150,000? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

It simply comes down to lottery exploiting the ignorant - the poor.

First of all, poor people are not necessarily ignorant, just as rich people are not necessarily intelligent.

Secondly, I maintain my statement that any reasonable person KNOWS playing the lottery is inherently stupid, if they think about it for even two seconds.