Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum 1,2,3,4,5,6 in the lottery

 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

 1st February 2012, 07:22 PM #81 Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman     Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 66,261 Originally Posted by Southwind17 I think what jp means is that a combination of patterned numbers is less likely than a combination of un-patterned numbers, which, of course, is correct. He just didn't word it very well. "No" to the first/second sentence or third? If the first, he's correct, and certainly does, seemingly, understand probability theory, at least to that extent. What is the principle for the patterned and un-patterned combos differing in odds? How is any single 6 number pick any more or less likely than any other single 6 number pick? __________________ "Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
 1st February 2012, 08:54 PM #82 psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics     Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 12,472 Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger What is the principle for the patterned and un-patterned combos differing in odds? How is any single 6 number pick any more or less likely than any other single 6 number pick? It isn't. However, if you choose from the same 9 or 10 numbers to fill in all your tickets and the draw includes the same numbers then more of your tickets will win as compared to filling your tickets from random numbers. (OTOH if the draw doesn't include those numbers then none of the tickets win). In the long run, the expected value of your winnings (or rather, your losses) will be the same no matter what pattern you use to fill in your tickets.
 1st February 2012, 08:59 PM #83 Dan O. Banned   Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,594 Originally Posted by Pup Guy buys \$1 ticket and loses, but can deduct \$1 from (future) winnings, so lost \$1 but will save 35 cents in future taxes, net loss 65 cents. Is this true in New Zealand? The tax code in the US does not allow gambling losses to be carried forward to later years.
 1st February 2012, 11:13 PM #84 Dan O. Banned   Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,594 Originally Posted by ynot I see that as being one of the “other advantages”. If there are multiple winners of First Division the prize money is shared equally between all winning tickets. As you hold ten winning tickets you get ten shares instead of only one (I don‘t care how “messy” that is). I thought you were better at maths. Another approach is to simultaneously play every possible game and see which method comes out ahead. There are about 4 million combination for the regular lotto and 10 combinations for the power ball. In each game we are playing 10 tickets. For \$1 tickets, we each need to start with \$400 million. In each game, matching the regular lotto will pay \$1 million divided equally to each winning ticket. Matching the regular lotto with a matching power ball will pay an additional 30 million. In each game, I will play my 10 tickets on separate numbers: Ticket 1 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P1 Ticket 2 = 4,5,6,7,8,9 P2 Ticket 3 = 7,8,9,10,11,12 P3 Ticket 4 = 10,11,12,13,14,15 P4 Ticket 5 = 13,14,15,16,17,18 P5 Ticket 6 = 16,17,18,19,20,21 P6 Ticket 7 = 19,20,21,22,23,24 P7 Ticket 8 = 22,23,24,25,26,27 P8 Ticket 9 = 25,26,27,28,29,30 P9 Ticket 10 = 28,29,30,31,32,33 P10 Each of my tickets will win the lotto jackpot in 10 separate games and the power ball jackpot in 1 game. I will get back \$1 Million times 10 tickets times 10 games plus \$30 Million times 10 tickets times 1 game for a total of \$400 Million. Now, lets see how you will do. In each game, you buy 10 tickets with all the same lotto numbers and a different power ball number. Ticket 1 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P1 Ticket 2 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P2 Ticket 3 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P3 Ticket 4 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P4 Ticket 5 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P5 Ticket 6 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P6 Ticket 7 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P7 Ticket 8 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P8 Ticket 9 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P9 Ticket 10 = 1,2,3,4,5,6 P10 Each of your tickets will also win the lotto jackpot in 10 games but since they all win in the same games, the prize each ticket wins is divided 10 ways. Each of your tickets also win a power ball jackpot in one game just like mine. You get back \$1 Million split 10 ways times 10 tickets times 10 games plus 30 million times 10 tickets times 1 game for a total or \$310 Million.
 2nd February 2012, 04:18 AM #86 alexi_drago Graduate Poster   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,341 Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger What is the principle for the patterned and un-patterned combos differing in odds? Consider 6 consectutive numbers, in a 6/49 lottery there's 44 combinations, then if they increase by 2 instead of 1 each time there's 39 combinations. Try to think of other ways that 6 numbers out of 1-49 could form some sort of obvious pattern. You could come up with a few thousand maybe, but that's out of 13983816 combinations and the remainder of those have a more random appearance. Say you could see some sort of patterns in 10000 different cominations then you'd have: 10000 patterned 13973816 un-patterned so the chances of seeing some sort of pattern drawn are lower than 1 in 1000 Quote: How is any single 6 number pick any more or less likely than any other single 6 number pick? No single 6 number pick is any more likely than any other, it's just that there are many more un-patterned combos so it's more likely to be one of them. Any 6 numbers you choose have the same odds as 1,2,3,4,5,6 of coming up but since an obvious pattern is rarely seen (less than 1 in a thousand draws if you take my example above) then some people think they have a better chance by choosing a more random looking combo. __________________ The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.
 2nd February 2012, 04:48 AM #87 Brian-M Daydreamer     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,044 How many of you here would play a "fair" lotto with "good" odds, if one existed? (Having fun making up an example...) Let's say you have a lotto called Fortune Four, where you pick four numbers from 64. Tickets cost \$4 (plus newsagent or paypal fee). If you get all four numbers right, you win \$1,500,000. If you get three numbers right, you win \$13,000. In this case, the lotto would be returning 90% of the money it receives to the players, and players would have a 1 in 635,376 of winning the \$1,500,000. Probably the only public lotto to give better than one in a million chance to win more than a million dollars. Someone who played 4 games a week would have a better than 1 in 100 chance of winning the \$1,500,000 within 31 years. Would you consider this to be a lotto worthwhile playing, or still a waste of money? (I hope I worked out all the figures right. No doubt someone will correct me if I haven't.) __________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
 2nd February 2012, 05:05 AM #88 alexi_drago Graduate Poster   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,341 Originally Posted by Brian-M How many of you here would play a "fair" lotto with "good" odds, if one existed? (Having fun making up an example...) Let's say you have a lotto called Fortune Four, where you pick four numbers from 64. Tickets cost \$4 (plus newsagent or paypal fee). If you get all four numbers right, you win \$1,500,000. If you get three numbers right, you win \$13,000. In this case, the lotto would be returning 90% of the money it receives to the players, and players would have a 1 in 635,376 of winning the \$1,500,000. Probably the only public lotto to give better than one in a million chance to win more than a million dollars. Someone who played 4 games a week would have a better than 1 in 100 chance of winning the \$1,500,000 within 31 years. Would you consider this to be a lotto worthwhile playing, or still a waste of money? (I hope I worked out all the figures right. No doubt someone will correct me if I haven't.) if I bought 635,376 tickets I would be guranteed to get over 4.5M back. Yes, I'd play. __________________ The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space. Last edited by alexi_drago; 2nd February 2012 at 05:10 AM.
 2nd February 2012, 05:59 AM #89 DazzaD Critical Thinker   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 307 Originally Posted by alexi_drago if I bought 635,376 tickets I would be guranteed to get over 4.5M back. Yes, I'd play. Assuming noone else plays the game and shares the prize with you?
 2nd February 2012, 06:12 AM #90 alexi_drago Graduate Poster   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,341 Originally Posted by DazzaD Assuming noone else plays the game and shares the prize with you? Quote: If you get all four numbers right, you win \$1,500,000. If you get three numbers right, you win \$13,000. He didn't mention sharing. __________________ The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.
 2nd February 2012, 06:22 AM #91 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 39,869 Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus For years, I've been telling people that it's as likely for you to get the above numbers as something like 35,32,18,16, 28, 21. People can't seem to believe it. Is this actually the case, or am I making a fool of myself? You're correct (as others have said already), and you're also not alone, as the exact same question was addressed on the excellent More or Less. The podcast version is here; the January 6 edition has the item, and there's a follow-up in the Jan 13th one (they had the correct explanation, but they got the announcement wrong in the illustration they did; they got the regular lottery announcer to read out the numbers, but tacked on "in that order", which does change the probabilities involved). __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20
 2nd February 2012, 05:31 PM #92 Brian-M Daydreamer     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,044 Originally Posted by alexi_drago if I bought 635,376 tickets I would be guranteed to get over 4.5M back. Yes, I'd play. Ah, I guess I did make a mistake with the figures. I worked out the wrong number of minor prizes possible, and therefore the wrong return for them. According to a different quick calculation (which is probably also wrong because I'm distracted by watching House at the moment) shows that the minor prize should only be about \$88 ("about" because I'm rounding it up to a more aesthetically pleasing value). ETA: No, that is wrong too. I'll figure it out later. ETAA: Let's see... Four numbers drawn from 64 leaves 60 incorrect numbers. So out of the 635,376 tickets, 60 will have only the first number wrong, 60 will have only the second number wrong, 60 will have only the third number wrong, and 60 will have only the last number wrong. That's 240 minor prizes. ((\$4 * 635,376 * 0.9)-\$1,500,000)/240 = \$3,280.64 So the minor prize should be \$3,300 instead of \$13,000. __________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 2nd February 2012 at 06:02 PM. Reason: Re-calculated
 22nd February 2012, 03:07 AM #93 vladi Student   Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 28 Originally Posted by Pixel42 I would imagine your best chance of not having to share the payout if you do win is to pick whatever numbers came up the previous week. They have exactly the same chance of coming up this week as any other combination, but you'll likely to be the only person playing them. Not so. This actually happened here in Bulgaria: www dot dailyfinance dot com/2009/09/18/bulgaria-lottery-repeats-winning-numbers-and-winners-abound/ And guess what? 18 people won the second time!
 22nd February 2012, 08:29 AM #94 Ladewig I lost an avatar bet.     Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 25,926 Originally Posted by vladi Not so. This actually happened here in Bulgaria: www dot dailyfinance dot com/2009/09/18/bulgaria-lottery-repeats-winning-numbers-and-winners-abound/ And guess what? 18 people won the second time! Each one won around 7600 \$US. The lottery chooses six number from 1 to 42 without replacement. The odds of hitting all 6 are around 1 in 5.2 million. If the grand prize (before the split) was around 140,000 \$US than the lottery is pretty much a suckers' game designed to separate rubes from their money. Vladi's link: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/...inners-abound/ That story cites odds of 1 in 4.2 million. That probability was calculated by a mathematician who assumed that small flaws in the balls cause the same numbers to be repeated more often that probability would predict. Also, some stories cite \$7300 and others cite \$7643. Last edited by Ladewig; 22nd February 2012 at 08:33 AM.
 22nd February 2012, 08:43 AM #95 Almo Masterblazer     Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,825 And just because it happened once doesn't prove the probability is not astronomically small. __________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia
 22nd February 2012, 09:59 AM #96 vladi Student   Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 28 Yes, but it proves that there are enough people that play with last week's numbers and you are not very likely to be the only one that wins in such occasion Some people may consider them nuts but... they won Last edited by vladi; 22nd February 2012 at 10:02 AM.
 22nd February 2012, 10:50 AM #97 Ladewig I lost an avatar bet.     Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 25,926 Originally Posted by vladi Yes, but it proves that there are enough people that play with last week's numbers and you are not very likely to be the only one that wins in such occasion Some people may consider them nuts but... they won Yes. They won. They won one-eighteenth what the average jackpot winner would win. They can each buy a somewhat crappy used car. ETA: unnecessary snarkiness removed. [I wonder if there is a record for tiniest jackpot] The other thing that sucks is that usually when one has a one-in-five-million story to tell, one can at least get some free drink in the pub for telling a good story. But with this story, others will expect the teller to buy the drinks because he won the lottery. Last edited by Ladewig; 22nd February 2012 at 11:02 AM.
 22nd February 2012, 11:07 AM #98 jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,556 Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger No. With a clear and meaningful refutation of my point like this, I hardly need to ask for clarification, but in what way am I wrong, pray tell? I know it's hard to actually read what another person wrote, but unless you believe that there are an equal or greater number of patterned sets than non-patterned sets in all of the possible lottery outcomes, I can't see why you'd respond in the negative to the first. Regarding the second clever response, please explain how a lottery wheel, a tool for generating combinations, can change the statistics of the game itself? Whether I choose a random set of numbers or allow a wheel to generate the numbers for me, in a fair game, either ticket is equally likely to win. __________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein Last edited by jasonpatterson; 22nd February 2012 at 11:09 AM.
 22nd February 2012, 11:15 AM #99 dlorde Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,848 Originally Posted by jasonpatterson I know it's hard to actually read what another person wrote, but unless you believe that there are an equal or greater number of patterned sets than non-patterned sets in all of the possible lottery outcomes, I can't see why you'd respond in the negative to the first. Perhaps it depends what you mean by a 'patterned set'? For some reason this reminds me of the 'smallest uninteresting number' paradox (the smallest uninteresting number is interesting for that very reason). __________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
 22nd February 2012, 11:16 AM #100 jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,556 Originally Posted by Ladewig The lottery chooses six number from 1 to 42 without replacement. The odds of hitting all 6 are around 1 in 5.2 million. If the grand prize (before the split) was around 140,000 \$US than the lottery is pretty much a suckers' game designed to separate rubes from their money. I'm fairly sure that most gambling (not all, but most) is a suckers' game designed to separate rubes from their money. That aside, do we know how much a Bulgarian lottery ticket costs? That's going to make a big impact on how bad the game is slanted against players. If you can get a ticket for \$0.05 then the prize isn't so bad. If it's \$1 per ticket, then wow. Just wow. __________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein
 22nd February 2012, 11:17 AM #101 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 39,869 Originally Posted by jasonpatterson With a clear and meaningful refutation of my point like this, I hardly need to ask for clarification, but in what way am I wrong, pray tell? Either you misunderstand the situation, or you did not clearly express what you meant to say. Quote: I know it's hard to actually read what another person wrote, but unless you believe that there are an equal or greater number of patterned sets than non-patterned sets in all of the possible lottery outcomes, I can't see why you'd respond in the negative to the first. And I think the latter is what happened. You didn't say that the set of six numbers was more likely to be a non-patterned set than a patterned set. You said: Originally Posted by jasonpatterson any set of 6 numbers with a simple pattern is less likely to occur than one of the sets of 6 numbers with no obvious pattern. I take that what you meant convey is that there are simply more non-patterned than patterned sets of 6 numbers. However, that's not what the words you used actually mean. Any set of 6 numbers with a simple pattern is just as likely to occur as one of the sets of 6 numbers with no obvious pattern, since we're just comparing two sets of 6 numbers. Now, given your opening sentence, Originally Posted by jasonpatterson As has been mentioned repeatedly, yes, you're right, any given set of 6 numbers in a fair lottery is equally likely to occur. I can believe you understand this, and you just didn't express yourself as clearly as you might have. __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20
 22nd February 2012, 11:21 AM #102 jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,556 Originally Posted by dlorde Perhaps it depends what you mean by a 'patterned set'? For some reason this reminds me of the 'smallest uninteresting number' paradox (the smallest uninteresting number is interesting for that very reason). Indeed, and in my original post I used the phrase "obvious pattern" and commented on it being a far from perfect term. That said, there are far fewer combinations that involve things like counting by 1's/2's/etc, or that follow some other easily recognized pattern than those that don't. If we wanted to be really obnoxious we could of course claim that any set of 6 numbers has a pattern, which is true (They're all solutions of 0=(x-A)(x-B)(x-C)(x-D)(x-E)(x-F) if nothing else.) but is very clearly not what I meant in my original post, and I stated as much. __________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein
 22nd February 2012, 11:22 AM #103 azzthom Muse   Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Oxfordshire Posts: 901 I never play the lottery here in the UK, but I do have a question:- Is there a name for the "phenomenon" of lottery numbers seeming obvious after the draw? I ask because several friends have said they have had that feeling.
 22nd February 2012, 11:31 AM #104 jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,556 Originally Posted by zooterkin I take that what you meant convey is that there are simply more non-patterned than patterned sets of 6 numbers. However, that's not what the words you used actually mean. Any set of 6 numbers with a simple pattern is just as likely to occur as one of the sets of 6 numbers with no obvious pattern, since we're just comparing two sets of 6 numbers. So you'd prefer that I had said something along the lines of, "It's more likely that a member of the non-patterned sets of numbers will be drawn than that a member of the patterned sets of numbers will be drawn..."? That is definitely clearer, but I have a difficult time believing that a person who actually read what I wrote misunderstood it so thoroughly as to believe that immediately after saying that every set of 6 lottery numbers was equally likely to be picked that I would then say that patterned sets were less likely. Thank you for a thoughtful response, in any case. __________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein
 22nd February 2012, 08:55 PM #105 Ladewig I lost an avatar bet.     Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 25,926 Originally Posted by jasonpatterson I'm fairly sure that most gambling (not all, but most) is a suckers' game designed to separate rubes from their money. Indeed. And yet that phrase appears so seldom in the SEC-required quarterly reports from corporate casinos. Quote: That aside, do we know how much a Bulgarian lottery ticket costs? I tried looking ti up, but my Google-fu is weak and every hit that I got was about the repeat-number story. ..................... ETA: the 6/49 Bulgarian State Lottery charges \$0.81 per ticket. I still have no idea how much the 6/42 Bulgarian State Lottery charges per ticket (and for that matter, how many sets of numbers can be played for the price of one ticket). Last edited by Ladewig; 22nd February 2012 at 09:09 PM.
 22nd February 2012, 10:30 PM #106 Dan O. Banned   Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,594 Originally Posted by Ladewig I tried looking ti up, but my Google-fu is weak and every hit that I got was about the repeat-number story. Here is their site: http://www.toto.bg/index.php?lang=2&pid=6&sid=5
 22nd February 2012, 10:43 PM #107 Ladewig I lost an avatar bet.     Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 25,926 Originally Posted by jasonpatterson I'm fairly sure that most gambling (not all, but most) is a suckers' game designed to separate rubes from their money. That aside, do we know how much a Bulgarian lottery ticket costs? That's going to make a big impact on how bad the game is slanted against players. If you can get a ticket for \$0.05 then the prize isn't so bad. If it's \$1 per ticket, then wow. Just wow. 34 cents (US) buys one set of numbers.
 24th February 2012, 12:49 AM #110 Southwind17 Philosopher     Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,077 Originally Posted by Ladewig What exactly is your definition of practicable? Now that's a sucker's game - win the definition argument! Originally Posted by Ladewig For the record, the average jackpot is not split among 18 different tickets. Nor 17 or 19 either, I should imagine. Originally Posted by Ladewig The jackpot winners - the folks who picked all six numbers correctly - won about 7600 \$US. They bet the equivalent of 0.34 \$US on a 5 million to one shot. The odds were 5 million to one and the payout was around 22,000 to one. That's off by more than two orders of magnitude. That, most assuredly, sucks. And if you think that it doesn't suck, then let's play a game: I'll flip a coin and you call it. If you lose, you pay me \$10 and if you win, I'll pay you \$0.10. The payoffs in that game are closer to the actual odds than the payout in the Bulgarian lottery was to the actual odds. How is that comparable? If I offered to take 34 cents off you in exchange for \$7,600 would you tell me to take a running jump because it 'sucks'? Would you hellers! __________________ The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind. "Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
 24th February 2012, 01:02 AM #111 Roboramma Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 10,324 Originally Posted by Southwind17 How is that comparable? If I offered to take 34 cents off you in exchange for \$7,600 would you tell me to take a running jump because it 'sucks'? Would you hellers! If you offered to pay me 34 cents for a 5 million to one chance to win \$7600 from me, I'd take you up on it every time. __________________ "... 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
 24th February 2012, 04:42 PM #112 Southwind17 Philosopher     Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,077 Originally Posted by Roboramma If you offered to pay me 34 cents for a 5 million to one chance to win \$7600 from me, I'd take you up on it every time. Of course, because you have predetermined odds and a return that you know don't make for an sensible investment. To convert \$0.34 to \$7,600, howsoever, is a fantastic return in anybody's book. As such it doesn't suck. __________________ The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind. "Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
 24th February 2012, 06:03 PM #113 jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,556 Originally Posted by Ladewig 34 cents (US) buys one set of numbers. Ouch. My google-fu was weak as well. That is a horrible expected value... __________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein
 25th February 2012, 07:12 AM #114 Ladewig I lost an avatar bet.     Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 25,926 Originally Posted by Southwind17 Of course, because you have predetermined odds and a return that you know don't make for an sensible investment. To convert \$0.34 to \$7,600, howsoever, is a fantastic return in anybody's book. As such it doesn't suck. If the chances of turning a 34-cent ticket into a \$7600 payout consisted of a one in fifty billion chance, then would it suck? ETA: if such a lottery offered that payout for those odds would it be, in your opinion, a suckers' game designed to separate rubes from their money? Last edited by Ladewig; 25th February 2012 at 07:16 AM.
 25th February 2012, 07:35 AM #115 vladi Student   Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 28 Here is some additional info. In the Bulgarian lottery the prize is not fixed, it depends on the revenue for every draw. 50% of the revenue goes for prizes and 40% of it (or 20% of the total revenue) go to those who guessed all six numbers. If no one guessed all six numbers, then this sum is added to the sum for the next draw (jackpot) and grows until someone guesses all six numbers and gets the prize. The biggest jackpot in 6/42 was about \$2.6 million won in 2011 by one person. The prizes from the lottery are tax-free. Last edited by vladi; 25th February 2012 at 07:38 AM.
 25th February 2012, 07:49 AM #116 Dan O. Banned   Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,594 The average expected payout for all of the Brazilian toto games is 50%. For every \$0.34 ticket bought, only about \$0.17 will be comming back as prizes. This is consistent with most state run lotteries. It's a fool's game for anyone that plays. However, in the U.S. we make them into even bigger fools by taking back at least 30% of the jackpot winnings through taxes.
 25th February 2012, 07:59 AM #117 vladi Student   Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 28 At least part of the revenue goes for funding sport here in Bulgaria. That's why it is called Sport Totalizator. And gambling is for fools, anyway Last edited by vladi; 25th February 2012 at 08:00 AM.
 25th February 2012, 08:28 AM #118 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 39,869 Originally Posted by vladi At least part of the revenue goes for funding sport here in Bulgaria. That's why it is called Sport Totalizator. In the UK, too, they are up-front that the Lottery is a fund-raising enterprise, and it raises an awful lot of money every week. Quote: And gambling is for fools, anyway But that's the way I like it baby, I don't wanna live for ever... __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20
 25th February 2012, 08:35 AM #119 vladi Student   Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 28 ... And don't forget the joker
 25th February 2012, 09:22 AM #120 Dan O. Banned   Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,594 5.5% of lottery jackpot winners go bankrupt. If you want to get rich you need to learn to manage your money and invest in yourself. get an education, develop your work skills and advance your career. A small investment made early in life comperable to buying a lottery ticket every week will grow exponentially into a significant life style change that also gives you the skills needed to avoid the bankruptcy trap when your boat does come in.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit