Comment by temp-dude-87844 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by temp-dude-87844 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

temp-dude-87844

While I support the idea that lottery and gambling is for 'entertainment purposes only', if one never buys into the lottery, they can never obtain the winnings. Buying exactly one ticket per drawing at least places one in the pool of potential winners, despite the odds being rather long. Although the expected value is still minuscule, it's an unquantifiable improvement (since we can't divide by zero).

And before you evoke any comparisons with the probabilities of getting struck by lightning or hit by meteors, none of those will ever pay you a nice chunk of cash.

Investing the same amount of money in a financial device with higher assurances of returns is not a comparable experience, neither psychologically nor practically, even if we callously suppose that such instruments are in fact widely available across all cross-sections of society. Holding back the price of 1 ticket per drawing period from safer investments to gain a shot at a high-payout lottery is simply diversifying your investment portfolio.

> Although the expected value is still minuscule, it's an unquantifiable improvement (since we can't divide by zero).

This isn't how it works, because the expected value, in monetary terms, is negative once you factor in the cost of the tickets. Statistically, it is a quantifiable unimprovement.

That said, lots of activities have negative expected monetary value, like going to the movies, or going bowling. And it is theoretically possible that you will find an envelope in the bowling alley parking lot containing a million dollars, but let's not pretend that both bowling and playing the lottery are anything other than entertainment products at the end of the day.

> Statistically, it is a quantifiable unimprovement.

What's the probability that someone on SSI will be a millionaire before they die?

What's the probability that someone will become a millionaire by playing the lottery?

Which is a larger probability? It's possible that many people aren't as dumb as we think.

Could I interest you in a bridge?

Probability being on SSI makes you a millionaire: 0%

Probability playing the lottery makes you a millionaire: Very close to 0%.

Probability being on SSI makes you poorer: 0%

Probability playing the lottery makes you poorer: Very close to 100%.

> This isn't how it works, because the expected value, in monetary terms, is negative...

I once heard a statistics professor explaining he played the lottery. His reason? It was fun. Period. He said one may spend $10 on a movie ticket and be entertained for a few hours, but one would end up $10 poorer with 100% certainty. On the other hand when he spent $10 on a lottery ticket he was entertained for days just thinking of the possibility of winning, and he might end up a lot richer, but it was not a necessary condition for him to enjoy the fun it provides.

> On the other hand when he spent $10 on a lottery ticket he was entertained for days just thinking of the possibility of winning

With a slightly better imagination he could save the $10 and daydream for days about a close relative/friend winning the lottery and gifting him a substantial chunk of the money.

That sounds exactly like a smoker “explaining” why they smoke. They claim to enjoy it. In reality, of course, smokers only smoke because it makes them stop feeling the nicotine urge for a short while, i.e. they feel like a normal non-smoker person for a short while.

Likewise, anyone could fantasize about getting a windfall of mountains of money from far likelier events, like an unknown relative willing their fortune to you. Sure, it’s unlikely, but it’s more likely than winning the lottery. You don’t need to play the lottery to do that.

> They claim to enjoy it. In reality, of course, smokers only smoke because it makes them stop feeling the nicotine urge for a short while

Using this model, it's difficult to explain where new smokers come from.

The reason people start to smoke are the same reasons people start to drink coffee, or tea, or beer. Nobody likes any of those things when they first try them, but they choose to acquire the taste, for either social reasons and/or because they want the side effect (caffeine or alcohol). In the case of cigarettes, the social effect has been very strong but is declining, and the wanted side effect is illusory, but as long as people still think that they will get something from nicotine, people will start to smoke, or vape, or chew, or snuff, or whatever form it will take in the future.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smokin...

In general, you're not on firm ground when someone says "I enjoy X" and you say "no, I can tell what you enjoy better than you can".

I think the problem people have with the lottery isn't directed at the middle class person buying a lottery ticket here and there. It's more that the whole system is designed to encourage already vulnerable people to risk somewhat significant portions of their weekly take home on the extremely unlikely chance of winning, and then doing this week in and week out. $2/$3 for a Powerball, maybe a state lotto ticket, then a few scratch offs, and ATM fees to get the cash for all this, and poof you've spent $10-$20+, when you're living on less than $300 a week.

I'm not saying don't buy a lottery ticket here and there if you truly get some enjoyment out of it, but the lottery system as it is now seems to encourage borderline gambling addiction behaviors in people who are the least likely to be able to resist them.

Spain in the 19th century tried to avoid that by massively increasing the ticket price (even now, it's still 200€ per full ticket). It didn't work, people just pooled their money and bought "shares" of a ticket.

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/el-gordo/ great story

Ok if the goal is to give people hope, just allocate a fund every 3 months from the state and enter everyone who is reported a tax income less than poverty level in the pool. And there it is, automatic hope and dreams for a while for all that state's poor.

The lottery though is not hurting a middle class programmer who buys a ticket for fun, it is hurting the poor who possibly don't realize how unlikely it for them to win and _time_ and money spend on the lottery might be better used for something else.

It is not unlike the liquor stores and payday loans popping up in more poorer areas of town. From a cold rational point of view one can say "ok, if they rely on the lottery to give them hope, they are just as likely to spend that money on drugs or alcohol" and indeed they might however it doesn't mean the states should encourage that and act in a predatory manner towards them.

I've recently moved to Chicago and two things I have noticed: what I can only assume are relatively lower income people buying incredible amounts of lottery tickets, expensive scratch offs at that. And chicken wing bones one the sidewalks.

It is a negative expected value. You can go below zero. There is no situation where buying lottery tickets is a good way to diversify your portfolio

Well, there are some situations in which it's a good investment. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/07/how-mit-students-scammed...

Nah, depending on jackpot size, Mega Millions at least can reach a +ev state.

https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/957061-chris-demuth-jr/25...

The expected return is not minuscule.

It's a reasonably sized negative number.

Actually, given the probability of winning, each lottery ticket has a negative value, so... yeah, there's no way it isn't a waste of money. "You gotta be in it to win it" is nonsense and is exactly what the lottery commission relies on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com