Should a scientist never buy a lottery ticket?

[EmpaDoc]

Some people educated in math say, "I never buy a lottery ticket or play the roulette because I know that on average, you are bound to lose."
I don't think that argument is valid - because in most games of chance you are not very likely to end up with the expectancy value! Indeed, if you have a science education, you know that in statistics there is not only expectancy value, but also standard deviation and higher moments.
When you buy a lottery ticket, the relevant facts are these: You pay a small amount, taking the large risk of losing that money but gaining the very small chance of winning big. Are you willing to do that? There is nothing to stop a scientist from answering "yes" to that question.

My point: Averages only pertain to the population as a whole, or if you do a very large number of tries. (And speaking of large numbers - the real problem with chance games is, of course, that they are addictive! But that's beyond mathematical reasoning.)

 

[Number Nine]

The problem with the lottery is that the expected gain is negative. On average, you would have to spend far more on tickets in order to win than you would gain from winning. The lottery is an elaborate scheme designed to siphon money from the lower classes by convincing them that they have hope to become financially well off, and funnel it directly into the pockets of shareholders. It's a tax on the poor that funds the rich; that's all it is.

the real problem with chance games is, of course, that they are addictive! But that's beyond mathematical reasoning

A gambling problem is only a problem when the expected gain is negative.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Playing the lottery, or gambling in general, really depends on how much disposable income one has and one's idea of a fun risk. I don't see anything wrong with someone using some of their money that they don't care about loosing and gambling in a way that excites them.

 

[BobG]

Some people educated in math say, "I never buy a lottery ticket or play the roulette because I know that on average, you are bound to lose."

Wrong question.

Other people educated in math say, "My chances of saving enough money for retirement on my own are even lower than the chance of winning the lottery."

Of course, the problem with that statement is that people educated in math usually have a career that pays more than minimum wage and would probably have a much better chance of saving for their own retirement than winning the lottery.

But the expected net value isn't a way to compare the probabilities of meeting some objective.

 

[DaveC426913]

Except the most destitute, almost anyone can afford one dollar a week. Even knowing it will almost assuredly never pay off, the cost of that one dollar per week is outweighed by the payoff of possibly winning millions. Assuming that dollar isn't taking food out of the mouths of your children.

The trick to gambling is, as always: live within your limit. Risk only that which you can afford to lose.

 

[Andre]

In some countries and for some organisations you'd have the comfort that the lost money is very very partly used (after all the fees) for a Good Cause.

 

[daveb]

It depends upon the risk to benefit ratio. First, the ratio isn't the same for everyone. Someone who thinks nothing of spending 6 dollars every day for a latte wouldn't have as high a risk as someone who barely lives paycheck to paycheck. Second, even if the ratio is the same for two different people, their personal tolerance of the risk is different. One person might decide it's stupid to risk any money unless it's a sure thing, and snother might decide that since it doesn't matter if I lose that 1 dollar every week, then it's OK to play.

Which is wy (IMO) it's pointless to use scientific maxims such as "a scientist chould never play the lottery" when it comes to the "human equation" since the so-called human equation has a different variable for each human involved.

 

[Travis_King]

On average, you would have to spend far more on tickets in order to win than you would gain from winning.

I hope you meant "you spend more on tickets than you generally actually wind up winning" as I find it hard to believe that anyone has ever spent 350 million dollars on losing tickets. And if they did, I'd like to know why the rich SOB was playing the lottery in the first place.

 

[Dickfore]

Some people educated in math say, "I never buy a lottery ticket or play the roulette because I know that on average, you are bound to lose."
I don't think that argument is valid - because in most games of chance you are not very likely to end up with the expectancy value! Indeed, if you have a science education, you know that in statistics there is not only expectancy value, but also standard deviation and higher moments.
When you buy a lottery ticket, the relevant facts are these: You pay a small amount, taking the large risk of losing that money but gaining the very small chance of winning big. Are you willing to do that? There is nothing to stop a scientist from answering "yes" to that question.

My point: Averages only pertain to the population as a whole, or if you do a very large number of tries. (And speaking of large numbers - the real problem with chance games is, of course, that they are addictive! But that's beyond mathematical reasoning.)

OK, let's look at the standard deviation of the profit if betting on one number on a roullette wheel (in the U.S.):
$$\sigma^2 (P) = \frac{1}{38} \, \left(36 + \frac{2}{38} \right)^2 + \frac{37}{38} \, \left( 0 + \frac{2}{38} \right)^2 \approx 1.822 \times 10^{-5} \Rightarrow \sigma(P) \approx 4.296 \times 10^{-3}$$
where we used that the average profit is $-2/38$. The relative uncertainty is:
$$\frac{\sigma(P)}{\vert E(P) \vert} \approx 8.111 \times 10^{-2} \approx \frac{1}{12}$$
This means you need a deviation of at least 12 standard deviations from the (negative) expected profit to have a net gain.

If you remember the hunt for the Higgs boson, their criterion for certain was 5 sigma. This is why scientists say gambling is a sure loss.

 

[Monique]

I've often won with gambling, also at the roulette table. The trick is to realize it's going to be lost money and to start running the moment that you win.

I don't buy lottery tickets on a regular basis, since the chances of winning are so low, but sometimes it's worth the thrill of tempting luck.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It depends upon the risk to benefit ratio. First, the ratio isn't the same for everyone. Someone who thinks nothing of spending 6 dollars every day for a latte wouldn't have as high a risk as someone who barely lives paycheck to paycheck. Second, even if the ratio is the same for two different people, their personal tolerance of the risk is different. One person might decide it's stupid to risk any money unless it's a sure thing, and snother might decide that since it doesn't matter if I lose that 1 dollar every week, then it's OK to play.

Which is wy (IMO) it's pointless to use scientific maxims such as "a scientist chould never play the lottery" when it comes to the "human equation" since the so-called human equation has a different variable for each human involved.

I completely agree. The problem with such maxims is it assumes winning money is the one and only goal of gambling.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

In some countries and for some organisations you'd have the comfort that the lost money is very very partly used (after all the fees) for a Good Cause.

This is very true. I've worked for a hospice that ran its own lottery, the prize was capped at £1000 and a ticket was £1 so any ticket sold after the 1000th was money in the charity's pocket. Many people liked to play it simply because they know that if they loose part of their money is going to a charity they support.

 

[Ibix]

David Brin argued that people play the lottery in the hope that they will win, and therefore that it is a tax on hope - a deeply depressing perspective.

Of course a scientist can play the lottery. The only difference between a scientist and a regular Joe is that the scientist ought to be able to figure out exactly how much they are throwing away... As others have noted, it's actually more complex than that because people don't just play for the monetary gain. For example, in the office Secret Santa last year, a (mathematically literate) colleague bought another (also mathematically literate) colleague £5 of lottery tickets. Didn't win anything, but it was a clever solution to the hell that is Secret Santa. Wish I'd thought of it.

 

[Galteeth]

If you're going to gamble, it's a silly way to go, as the odds are so much worse then anything at a casino and IMO the game is less fun.

A fun way to gamble- play the minum bet at a roulette wheel and bet double your total losses every time you lose. Over the long run, the expected gain is still negative, but it changes the distribution to more frequent small wins and less frequent large losses.

EDIT: Clarification, I'm referring to betting on colors.

 

[Dadface]

The problem with the lottery is that the expected gain is negative. On average, you would have to spend far more on tickets in order to win than you would gain from winning. The lottery is an elaborate scheme designed to siphon money from the lower classes by convincing them that they have hope to become financially well off, and funnel it directly into the pockets of shareholders. It's a tax on the poor that funds the rich; that's all it is.

I play the lottery so does this make me "poor" and one of the "lower classes"?

 

[NeoDevin]

If you're doing it as a plan to make money, then the answer is clearly no. It's illogical, because the expected return is negative.

If you're doing it for entertainment, then it's no different from any other form of entertainment, be it movies, video games, travel, etc. Set your budget and have fun.

 

[AlephZero]

Except the most destitute, almost anyone can afford one dollar a week. Even knowing it will almost assuredly never pay off, the cost of that one dollar per week is outweighed by the payoff of possibly winning millions.

I wouldn't argue with anybody doing that, provided they get some personal pleasure from the process of paying their dollar and then losing it.

Personally I find that about as exciting as just throwing the dollar in the trash, so I don't bother.

 

[Travis_King]

Yea...but it's like throwing a dollar into the trash knowing that one day it is possible, however extremely unlikely, that the trash can will spit out a quarter-of-a-billion dollars.

50 bucks a year is, in my opinion, well worth at least having your name in the hat. If you play, you most likely won't win. If you don't play, it's assured that you won't.

With that said, I don't generally play the lotto.

 

[Dickfore]

I've often won with gambling, also at the roulette table. The trick is to realize it's going to be lost money and to start running the moment that you win.

I don't buy lottery tickets on a regular basis, since the chances of winning are so low, but sometimes it's worth the thrill of tempting luck.

So, do you lose sometimes?

 

[Monique]

So, do you lose sometimes?

Not more than I've won.

 

[Containment]

Would you buy that lottery ticket if it was your last dollar?

I can say that I have met a few people in my life that came to a point of having only a small amount of change to their name. And most of them that talked about it said that they just gave away what they had left to someone in a worse spot then them on the street and that was when their life turned around. What I took from this is that for some people just being able to just survive is a bigger deal then becoming rich. Also that sometimes holding onto money can be the thing that's keeping you down.

 

[Dickfore]

Not more than I've won.

Wow, great! You must be a millionaire by now.

 

[Monique]

Wow, great! You must be a millionaire by now.

What kind of a remark is that?

 

[Curious3141]

On the same basis that a scientist shouldn't play the lottery, a scientist should never be religious, either.

Yet there are scientists who play the lottery, and scientists who believe in God. There are even those who manage both.

 

[lisab]

On the same basis that a scientist shouldn't play the lottery, a scientist should never be religious, either.

Yet there are scientists who play the lottery, and scientists who believe in God. There are even those who manage both.

It can't be said what scientists should "never" or "always" do or think. Scientists are humans, after all.

Please mind the guidelines regarding religious discussions.

 

[Curious3141]

It can't be said what scientists should "never" or "always" do or think. Scientists are humans, after all.

Please mind the guidelines regarding religious discussions.

I was making a point, that's all. And the point that scientists are also human was exactly it, in case you missed it.

Strangely enough, a very prominent scientist used a gambling analogy to justify his own faith - does Pascal's Wager ring a bell? Perhaps it's not that strange - the tendency to gamble is the manifestation of a form of irrational faith, after all, especially for one well-versed in probability theory.

I have nothing else of even a vaguely religious nature to add to this, except to declare that I'm personally devoid of it.

 

[Dickfore]

What kind of a remark is that?

It's a perfectly valid question for someone who wins more than looses on a roulette table. But, like any gambler, you only remember the time you won.

 

[Travis_King]

It's a perfectly valid question for someone who wins more than looses on a roulette table. But, like any gambler, you only remember the time you won.

No it isn't. I win much more than I lose at craps, yet I am not a millionaire.

I know that both parts of that statement are true because:

1) Each time I play craps, I wind up at the end of the night with net profit. I don't have to recall the number of times I won or lost, and how much each turn gained or lost. What matters is what you walk away with. Yet...

2) I am not rich

Just because someone has historically won more than he has lost doesn't mean one takes up a career in gambling. Some people like betting reasonable amounts of money and walking away with reasonable amounts of winnings.

 

[Dickfore]

No it isn't. I win much more than I lose at craps, yet I am not a millionaire.

I know that both parts of that statement are true because:

1) Each time I play craps, I wind up at the end of the night with net profit. I don't have to recall the number of times I won or lost, and how much each turn gained or lost. What matters is what you walk away with. Yet...

2) I am not rich

Just because someone has historically won more than he has lost doesn't mean one takes up a career in gambling. Some people like betting reasonable amounts of money and walking away with reasonable amounts of winnings.

These two statements are incompatible. Typical gambler's fallacy.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

These two statements are incompatible. Typical gambler's fallacy.

I'm don't think you understand exactly what the gambler's[/PLAIN] fallacy is, it's not confirmation bias but the errant belief that independent random processes are linked i.e. being on a roll. Whilst confirmation bias is common you shouldn't assume it's always true. I for example have won more money than I've lost every time I've been to a casino. But I've only been to two in my life so I'm not a millionaire.

 

[Monique]

It's a perfectly valid question for someone who wins more than looses on a roulette table.

I never said that.
It's possible to place a bet at the roulette table and win, as I said: that's when you stop and take the money.

Science is not about sure wins either, it is based on uncertainties. Many times we'll get it wrong, but we hunt that time we get it right. If funding agents would only fund research with a >100% return rate, many scientists would be without a job.

But, like any gambler, you only remember the time you won.

You shouldn't count on that.

 

[Dickfore]

I'm don't think you understand exactly what the gambler's[/PLAIN] fallacy is, it's not confirmation bias but the errant belief that independent random processes are linked i.e. being on a roll. Whilst confirmation bias is common you shouldn't assume it's always true. I for example have won more money than I've lost every time I've been to a casino. But I've only been to two in my life so I'm not a millionaire.

True. But, confirmation bias is a typical fallacy performed by gamblers, maybe I should have put it that way. On the other hand, your personal experience raises a good point. Try calculating how much money you had earned and how long you played. Also, try going at least hundred times. What is your hourly wage?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

True. But, confirmation bias is a typical fallacy performed by gamblers, maybe I should have put it that way. On the other hand, your personal experience raises a good point. Try calculating how much money you had earned and how long you played. Also, try going at least hundred times. What is your hourly wage?

Not long at all, both times it was a few hours in an evening and the second time I won a few hundred euros. So call it 6 hours and 300 euros in total...I wish my hourly wage was as good as that.

However all that aside it's entirely irrelevant for the same reason that I don't add up how many hours I spend at the cinema and how much my hourly wage is. Gambling is a form of entertainment like any other. The trick, like any other form of entertainment, is to know when your relationship with it is damaging.

 

[Dickfore]

So call it 6 hours and 300 euros in total...I wish my hourly wage was as good as that.

Ok, so multiply that by 50, and you have 15000 euros for 300 hours in 100 visits to the casino. That's a pretty hefty sum to lure you back there. Please report after the 100th visit.

 

[Travis_King]

I'm don't think you understand exactly what the gambler's[/PLAIN] fallacy is, it's not confirmation bias but the errant belief that independent random processes are linked i.e. being on a roll. Whilst confirmation bias is common you shouldn't assume it's always true. I for example have won more money than I've lost every time I've been to a casino. But I've only been to two in my life so I'm not a millionaire.

Similarly, confirmation bias only works while you are playing.

If I show up with $500, gamble for a few hours, and leave for home with $1000 in my pocket. I don't have to know how many times each I won or lost. It is evident that I "won" overall.

Ok, so multiply that by 50, and you have 15000 euros for 300 hours in 100 visits to the casino. That's a pretty hefty sum to lure you back there. Please report after the 100th visit.

Why assume that everyone believes they can make a living off gambling? I, myself, have been gambling around 10-12 times. I have broke even a few times, I have won moderate sums a few times. And once I went home with several times the amount I came in with. It is purely for entertainment, and I am always fully prepared to lose it all. So far I haven't though.