However, we're not expecting people to deploy Kelly criterion here, nobody is playing lotto for EV and a need to maximise returns on known value parameters.
But I play lotto. And I know all this more than most. I have literally paid my rent with money earned from understanding this and exploiting it. WTF am I doing playing poor odd games?
When you're playing $5k to win $5k on something where you think true odds are more like 55% in your favour, you are doing so most likely knowing $5k is 10% of your total bank (based on Kelly), and that you're 45% likely to lose. You're going to hopefully play over and over again and in the long run make money.
When you're playing $2 to win $100m, do you actually care?
The $2 is likely such a tiny part of your bank that you could literally lose it down the back of the sofa and not care, but the payout is so large and life-changing, that not having access to that very remote possibility - given the cost is so tiny and marginal and unnoticeable - is short-sighted.
Yes, the maths don't work from a probability angle, but arguing that playing the lottery is a tax on ignorance is juvenile and short-sighted. Optimising your bank at that level is like trying to make sure you don't leave a single grain of rice on your plate at dinner.
The maths of starting a business are pretty harsh, the costs of failure are higher and yet still, many people choose to do it. Are they fools? Perhaps. But they consider the cost and potential payouts to be worth it.
See the bigger picture from time to time.
and when it isn't a tiny part?
> Optimising your bank at that level is like trying to make sure you don't leave a single grain of rice on your plate at dinner.
many individuals playing the lottery are in a position like that, and frequently spend significantly more than $2 in hopes of winning.
> See the bigger picture from time to time.
...seriously? nobody cares if people like you or me burn a few dollars on a month on a lottery. the concern is for folks not in a position to do so.
I do find it problematic that states lean on a gambling game for revenue that (due to the population distribution of typical lottery players) acts as a defacto regressive tax. There's a side of me thinks this is rather exploitative, particularly with the evidence that lottery advertising is strongest in poor neighborhoods. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/powerbull-the-lottery-loves-pov...)
With the recent emphasis in America of pooling together multiple states and tweaking odds to produce these headline-grabbing 9 figure jackpots, one other complaint: it's pretty clear to me that American lotteries fail to prepare winners for the "consequence" of winning... that is, the huge amount of financial planning and protection (even lifestyle and location changes, I'd say, along with how to handle relationships with people you know), that is necessary for having a public-known 9 figure asset base. Even lotteries that reward 6 or 7 figures may come with some shocks, but leaping to that sort of base is a whole other sort of ball game.
i feel like that's pretty bad, next to an article like:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/01/why-half-of-americ...
Each lottery ticket purchased is a no-skill crapshoot. People who are attracted to it tend to be looking for short cuts in life, not rolling up their sleeves for the hard and uncomfortable work of entrepreneurship. And unlike a startup, the lotto confers no personal benefits along the journey even when it fails.
These traits 1) help soften the downside of "losing" the "startup lottery" (making it non-analogous to the actual lottery in pure mathematical terms). And 2) perhaps also might help explain any measured difference in outcomes between startup founders and lottery winners.
But the "People who are attracted to it..." portion of your post doesn't seem necessarily true and is a pretty harsh/puritan attitude. Do you have any hard empirical data supporting these claims?
Defore testing this claim, and for your own sake, we should investigate parent's original question: do we see a similar pattern with startup "winners"? Because if so, your reasoning here might have disturbing entailments for the entrepreneurial set ;-)