• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What force controls probability?

jayrev said:
I think we have a disagreement about the meaning of "practically zero"...
Click to expand...
"practically zero" means "for all intents and purposes, zero". It means you can assume it will not happen.

jayrev said:
It is not at all irrational for me to buy 1 lotto ticket if the cost has "practically zero" affect on my life, while the potential payoff could have a drastic affect.
Click to expand...
One lotto ticket? The average lotto player plays eight games every week. That is not "practically zero" affect on the player's life. It is a considerable investment (wrong word, of course) of time money and effort. And the payoff will not come even if he plays eight games a week, every week for the rest of your life. With no payout, it is irrational to play.
 
BillyJoe said:
"practically zero" means "for all intents and purposes, zero". It means you can assume it will not happen.

One lotto ticket? The average lotto player plays eight games every week. That is not "practically zero" affect on the player's life. It is a considerable investment (wrong word, of course) of time money and effort. And the payoff will not come even if he plays eight games a week, every week for the rest of your life. With no payout, it is irrational to play.
Click to expand...

So is it still irrational when the expected value of the lottery ticket exceeds the cost?
 
Almo said:
The expected value of a lotto ticket is never higher than its cost. Or there wouldn't be a lottery.
Click to expand...

I agree that is true for someone who plays every drawing. But if you only play lottos that "rollover" when there is no winner, and the payout exceeds the probability of winning, doesn't that specific ticket have a +EV?
 
What did Einstein mean when he said that God did not play dice in reference to quantum physics? And what does it mean that the scientific community today believes that he was wrong about that? Does that mean that randomness, random chance exist in the universe?
Click to expand...

Dave 1001 was correct. Einstein made that remark because he did not think there was any randomness in the universe. I think he went to his grave trying to disprove this idea he had done so much to develop. Physically, we are unable to predict the outcome of a coin toss because it involves differential equations in fluid dynamics among other things. Those of you that have taken a course in differential equations know that most of them cannot be solved, only approximated. I believe, as indicated above, that Chaos theory rules here.
 
jayrev said:
I agree that is true for someone who plays every drawing. But if you only play lottos that "rollover" when there is no winner, and the payout exceeds the probability of winning, doesn't that specific ticket have a +EV?
Click to expand...


In very, very, rare cases, the size of the jackpot is such that the dollar value of the jackpot is greater than $1 * number of possible tickets. However, that doesn't mean a positive EV. If multiple winning tickets are sold, then the jackpot gets divided among the winners. So, when calculating EV, you have to take into account that there is a chance multiple winning tickets will be sold.

And then of course, there's taxes.

I seriously doubt that there has ever been a lottery game where the EV was positive.



I actually buy an occasional ticket, or did when my disposable income was higher, prior to marriage. I don't think it was irrational. I'm guessing I bought about 20 tickets per year. The most I ever won was 50 dollars. Like most people, I am sure that if I added up all the winners, and subtracted the losers, I would end up a net loser. However, since I had disposable income, the occasional dollar didn't bother me in the least to lose, but the occasional 20 or 50 dollar win was way cool. So, my net enjoyment was positive.

I realize that is not the typical buying pattern that generates the revenue for the state.
 
Meadmaker said:
In very, very, rare cases, the size of the jackpot is such that the dollar value of the jackpot is greater than $1 * number of possible tickets.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not that rare at all, it happens a few times a year here in Georgia. But I tend to agree that when you consider the possibility of a jackpot split and taxes it does become less likely for the EV to truly be positive.
 
Jorghnassen said:
That's not how probability of precipitation works. IIRC, if it says there's a 30% chance of rain, it means 30% of the territory covered in the forecast will see some rain according to the model used.
Click to expand...
the method you suggest has the drawback that it cannot be determined empirically. whether or not it rained is usually defined by a bucket in a rain gauge (but even the definition of "rained" can [?used to?] vary within Europe).

Jorghnassen said:
Weather forecast is still very much done deterministically (though things may be changing, see some of the works of, say, Adrian E. Raftery).
Click to expand...

monte carlo style probabilistic methods have been operational in both the US and Europe since 1992...

http://www.ecmwf.int/services/dissemination/3.1/Forecast_Probability_products.html
 
jayrev said:
Actually it's not that rare at all, it happens a few times a year here in Georgia. But I tend to agree that when you consider the possibility of a jackpot split and taxes it does become less likely for the EV to truly be positive.
Click to expand...

Play the European lotteries, they're tax-free.
;)

PS. Checking out the Euromillions lotto, I see that a 2 euro ticket has a 1 in 76 million chance of winning 140 million euros. Factoring in the other prize tiers and I wouldn't be surprised if the EV was positive in this case

PPS. I also see that there have been 10 jackpot rollovers so far. After 12 draws without a jackpot winner the top prize is instead distributed between the second prize winners (who face 5 million to 1 odds). Now that's when I buy my ticket!
 
What's the probability that someone would find this thread again after two months?
 
BillyJoe;1884942One lotto ticket? The average lotto player plays [I said:
eight[/I] games every week. That is not "practically zero" affect on the player's life. It is a considerable investment (wrong word, of course) of time money and effort. And the payoff will not come even if he plays eight games a week, every week for the rest of your life. With no payout, it is irrational to play.
Click to expand...

So would you agree that it is irrational to go to the cinema? As I said before, if I spend £5 on the lottery and don't win, or £5 on the cinema, either way I have lost £5 and gained nothing. But while playing the lottery I had the excitement and adrenaline from knowing that I might win, and while in the cinema I had the excitement and adrenaline from watching imgainary things get blown up. By your arguments both are irrational, but if I do both purely for the enjoyment at the time, and not with the expectation that either one will change my life, I would say neither are irrational.
 
Cuddles said:
So would you agree that it is irrational to go to the cinema? As I said before, if I spend £5 on the lottery and don't win, or £5 on the cinema, either way I have lost £5 and gained nothing. But while playing the lottery I had the excitement and adrenaline from knowing that I might win, and while in the cinema I had the excitement and adrenaline from watching imgainary things get blown up. By your arguments both are irrational, but if I do both purely for the enjoyment at the time, and not with the expectation that either one will change my life, I would say neither are irrational.
Click to expand...

I Agree. I don't know about adrenaline but I think hat people play loto for the dream of winning something. This is not very different than going to the movies and not more irrational.

Of course people who believe that their chance of winning is different from their objective or statistical chance of winning are thinking irrationally.

nimzo
 
Last edited:
Cuddles said:
So would you agree that it is irrational to go to the cinema?
Click to expand...
No.

Cuddles said:
if I spend £5 on the lottery and don't win, or £5 on the cinema, either way I have lost £5 and gained nothing.
Click to expand...
If you are descriminating about what you see at the cimema, you could gain a great deal in ongoing enjoyment, education, discussion etc etc. On the other hand, playing the lottery is a dead loss.

Cuddles said:
But while playing the lottery I had the excitement and adrenaline from knowing that I might win...
Click to expand...
Your "excitement and adrenalin" are based on a false premise - that you might win. The odds (zero for practical purposes) are such that it does not justify your "excitement and adrenaline". Your "excitement and adrenaline" are, therefore, irrational.

Cuddles said:
..if I do both purely for the enjoyment at the time, and not with the expectation that either one will change my life, I would say neither are irrational.
Click to expand...
The only reason that you can enjoy playing lotto is that you don't know that it is irrational. Ignorance may be bliss but that doesn't stop it from being irrational. :cool:

BJ
 
nimzov said:
I Agree. I don't know about adrenaline but I think hat people play loto for the dream of winning something. This is not very different than going to the movies and not more irrational.
Click to expand...
I disagree :D

nimzov said:
Of course people who believe that their chance of winning is different from their objective or statistical chance of winning are thinking irrationally.
Click to expand...
I agree ;)

BJ
 
BillyJoe said:
Your "excitement and adrenalin" are based on a false premise - that you might win. The odds (zero for practical purposes) are such that it does not justify your "excitement and adrenaline". Your "excitement and adrenaline" are, therefore, irrational.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter why you are excited, the fact that you are is enough reason to play. People jump off hundred foot cliffs. They enjoy it, but there is no rational reason for the enjoyment. However, the fact that they experience the enjoyment provides a rational reason for jumping, therefore jumping is rational. Of course, someone who doesn't enjoy cliff-diving would be irrational for jumping off since they don't gain anything from it at all. Just because you don't enjoy the lottery doesn't mean others don't, so while it may be irrational for you to play, it doesn't make it irrational for others to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom