> The math explanation could fill an article itself.
If you are interested in how exactly he did it, here is a more detailed description:
If you are interested in how exactly he did it, here is a more detailed description:
That's not quite the optimum solution - what if you accidentally played the same numbers a million times, instead of a million different sets of numbers? So you should make sure you spread out your plays. However, I believe spreading them randomly is "good enough": the interesting maths only improves your edge a tiny amount.
Its only anecdotal evidence, but this would support your idea.
I used to work for a mom & pop company. The owner was really wealthy. He would only play once the pot got to an insane amount (I think it was over $5 or $10 million) and then on his way into the office, would stop at 5-8 places, buying anywhere from $1-$3K in tickets a shot.
I still vividly remember huge stacks of lottery tickets sitting on his huge desk in his office.
He never did win the big pots, but did win a $1K or $2k amounts by matching a few of the numbers. But very clearly, he spent WAY more then he ever won.
Which, in a recreational context, one could argue has more potential upside than a lot of other recreational activities (at least it's on the table, unlike other activities), and a pretty high baseline thrill as well.
Whereas other forms of recreation (IMO) give you more in return, such as increased dexterity, increased knowledge, strengthened human relationships, an interesting story to ponder and discuss, etc.
I'm not saying people who gamble or use drugs are bad, I'm just saying the value of a given recreational activity can be measured along more axes than "dopamine yield"
For you, maybe increased dexterity or knowledge is good, but for another person, that's downright boring.
One other way to "value" thrill is whether it is legal or illegal, whether it damages other people or just a single individual.
In terms of pleasure derived, you can't really say "this is useless entertainment" vs "this entertainment makes you smarter too so it's better"
Buying a bond that has a 10x return with a 50% default rate is still a great investment.
If only 50% of tickets are defaulting, there is something very very wrong with that lottery. This is more like a bond that pays a 100x return but has a 99.9% default rate.
From my own research, the sets of tickets that give you the best chances still have negative expectation of reward.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_mathematics#Minimum_nu...