Hacker News Reader

Comment by at-fates-hands | Hacker News Reader

>> 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.

View on HN

> 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.

You could argue that, but I think it's still a pretty weak argument. Arguments in favor of gambling as recreation are similar to ones made in favor of drugs as recreation where you basically just burn money in exchange for chemicals that make your brain feel good, but with few other benefits.

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"

I don't know anything about gambling, but recreational drugs use can certainly strengthen human relationships and generate interesting (or at least amusing) stories

I would not deny this, but it’s worth stating the obvious: most recreational drugs can also have the effect of destroying human relationships and generating stories that are highly tragic.

[citation needed]

google "overdose deaths"

There isn't a rational way to value "thrill" - each person has a different thing that gets them the thrill.

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"

There is value in recreation that gives you benefits, I agree, but there is also value in recreation for its own sake too. Expecting all of your hobbies to give you some benefit other than fun can lead to them all becoming "work".

I've both made friends and strengthened existing friendships at the blackjack table and craps table. I love gambling for its own sake, but it's still a little sad to me that so much of a casino floor is slot machines which are not social.

True, I shouldn't have put all gambling under the same umbrella. I actually really enjoy poker myself, though I tend not to bet real money, just chips with friends.

That's the beauty of the lottery from the article. I've done the math on my local games and it tips into your favour after the jackpots get high enough. The issue with my local lotteries is that the EV comes partly from the main jackpot, which is a very low occurence outcome. The article has the EV come from the smaller prizes which can be easily won.

Done correctly, it’s investing at an awesome interest rate.

Buying a bond that has a 10x return with a 50% default rate is still a great investment.

>> 50% default rate

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.

Yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com