Should a scientist never buy a lottery ticket?

[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.

 

[Monique]

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.

You are entirely missing the point. There is a difference in playing a few times and many times. By continuing to play the odds of winning will decrease, that's when you become part of the average.

Throw a coin three times, what is the chance that you throw face all times? Now flip it 100 times, what is the chance to throw face all times?

 

[Dickfore]

You are entirely missing the point. There is a difference in playing a few times and many times. By continuing to play the odds of winning will decrease, that's when you become part of the average.

Throw a coin three times, what is the chance that you throw face all times? Now flip it 100 times, what is the chance to throw face all times?

So, are you suggesting that if you go only few times, your chances of winning are bigger?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

Do you think I'm an idiot?

 

[Travis_King]

So, are you suggesting that if you go only few times, your chances of winning are bigger?

Your chances of winning every time are bigger.

If you play RED every time you play roulette, it is true that each time you play, your odds of winning are 50/50 (or close to it, damn zeros).

If you play twice, your odds of winning each individual turn are still 0.50. However, your odds of winning BOTH, are now 0.25. As this goes on, the odds continue to diminish.

However, each time you play your odds are the same. Gambler's fallacies work both ways. There's no reason to assume that simply because you are doing well, you will soon lose big. If you have won three times already, your odds of winning again are still 50/50, despite the lower probability describing the higher level.

 

[Dickfore]

Your chances of winning every time are bigger.

If you play RED every time you play roulette, it is true that each time you play, your odds of winning are 50/50 (or close to it, damn zeros).

If you play twice, your odds of winning each individual turn are still 0.50. However, your odds of winning BOTH, are now 0.25. As this goes on, the odds continue to diminish.

However, each time you play your odds are the same. Gambler's fallacies work both ways. There's no reason to assume that simply because you are doing well, you will soon lose big. If you have won three times already, your odds of winning again are still 50/50, despite the lower probability describing the higher level.

Winning meant making profit.

 

[Dickfore]

Do you think I'm an idiot?

Irrelevant. You claimed you made a pretty hefty sum.

 

[I_am_learning]

Expected Return is Negative.
But the concept of expected value is valid only for very large no. of trials.
So, its definitely No - No to play Lottery millions of times.

For just 1 trial or so, its just that you are buying probability. How much are you willing to buy a '1 in 10000 probability of winning $10000 ? ".
<you can't tell that its beneficial only if the ticket costs < 1$ ($10000 * 1/10000 = 1$), because, as previously told, this concept holds only for large no. of trials>

Those who feel they are lucky are more willing to pay for that small probability.
Even if we know the probability is so small, we may still buy the probability? The probability is small, but who knows, it just so happens to occur to me?

Seriously, I can't find any serious logic? Please help. :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Irrelevant. You claimed you made a pretty hefty sum.

I did, and you're the one explaining utterly simple facts to me as though I was an idiot. If you're trying to make the point that the house always wins of course you're right but why on Earth do you feel the need to explain that to me as though I didn't know it? Was I advocating somewhere in this thread that gambling is a good way to make money or that there is a way of ensuring you win all the time? No. Was anyone? No.

 

[Dickfore]

Expected Return is Negative.
But the concept of expected value is valid only for very large no. of trials.
So, its definitely No - No to play Lottery millions of times.

For just 1 trial or so, its just that you are buying probability. How much are you willing to buy a '1 in 10000 probability of winning $10000 ? ".
<you can't tell that its beneficial only if the ticket costs < 1$ ($10000 * 1/10000 = 1$), because, as previously told, this concept holds only for large no. of trials>

Those who feel they are lucky are more willing to pay for that small probability.
Even if we know the probability is so small, we may still buy the probability? The probability is small, but who knows, it just so happens to occur to me?

Seriously, I can't find any serious logic? Please help. :)

Ok, now I see the exact phrazing of the title. Anyone should buy a lottery ticket once in a while.

 

[Dickfore]

I did, and you're the one explaining utterly simple facts to me as though I was an idiot. If you're trying to make the point that the house always wins of course you're right but why on Earth do you feel the need to explain that to me as though I didn't know it?

I was not trying to point anything to you, until you responded to my reply to Travis_King. Frankly, I don't care if you know or not, or what you think are simple facts. Some people do not understand those, and this is perpetuating a false optimism for gambling. You can see their psychology, when they start with the sentence:

"If I win on the first trial,..."

Wrong! There is a far bigger, or at least equal chance to lose on the first trial! Then, all the rest of the text is useless, unless they try again. And again.

Besides, the op was about lottery. Then, someone mentioned that gambling gives you better odds. I still oppose that statement. It gives you better odds, but the return is smaller, and is not worth your time. Then you pointed how you made 300 euros in 6 hours, and, I just tried to point out that is a one-time shot that you won't repeat again, so it is a useless fact, that could serve only to promote gambling.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Then you pointed how you made 300 euros in 6 hours, and, I just tried to point out that is a one-time shot that you won't repeat again, so it is a useless fact, that could serve only to promote gambling.

No, you started all this with a snarky comment to monique that she must be a millionaire even though nothing she said indicated that she was claiming that she (or anyone) can gamble their way to success and what she said was a reasonable statement. I responded to that by pointing out that your snarky disbelief was flawed because it is possible for people to have made money. You're reply implied that I was misrepresenting gambling or didn't understand the simplicity of what we are talking about and you replied in a holier-than-thou manner to boot.

I advise you read what people are saying and think about more about how you come across before diving into an argument.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There's no accounting for scientists. They are bound to do something stupid at any given moment. Mathematicians, on the other hand, should never buy a lottery ticket. I know from experience because I bought a couple of lottery tickets. They were ten cents a piece, two for a quarter. I won the million dollar prize, a dollar a year for a million years. As you probably guessed, the prize money has ruined my marriage. I'm still stuck with the same woman.

 

[Drakkith]

To me it's all about risk vs reward. The risk is very low since I'm only giving up about 3 bucks, but the reward is enormous. The chance is low that I'll win it big, but IF I do...hoo boy I am going to buy so many telescopes...

 

[Dickfore]

No, you started all this with a snarky comment to monique that she must be a millionaire even though nothing she said indicated that she was claiming that she (or anyone) can gamble their way to success and what she said was a reasonable statement.

And, indeed, she claimed she leaves casinos as soon as she wins. This suggested to me she has a well-proven system that could potentially make her rich.

I responded to that by pointing out that your snarky disbelief was flawed because it is possible for people to have made money. You're reply implied that I was misrepresenting gambling or didn't understand the simplicity of what we are talking about and you replied in a holier-than-thou manner to boot.

Ok, please go and make money then.

I advise you read what people are saying and think about more about how you come across before diving into an argument.

I did, and you had not touched upon any of my points in my previous response to you.

 

[EmpaDoc]

Wow, just writing to note that my post has sparked quite a lively discussion where almost nobody replied "But on average you lose!".
The more I think of it, I realize that the important question - if you are really in it for the chance of winning - is not what the expectation value is, but what is the probability of winning big. Being ridiculously low, as it is for lotteries, you can only justify what you do by saying that you do it for the thrill.

As a pension plan, it is obviously idiotic.

 

[Drakkith]

Wow, just writing to note that my post has sparked quite a lively discussion where almost nobody replied "But on average you lose!".
The more I think of it, I realize that the important question - if you are really in it for the chance of winning - is not what the expectation value is, but what is the probability of winning big. Being ridiculously low, as it is for lotteries, you can only justify what you do by saying that you do it for the thrill.

As a pension plan, it is obviously idiotic.

I gamble to have fun, or for the 1 in a million chance of winning big in the case of lottery tickets. That's it. I don't play "to win big", as it is very very unlikely. I have made money gambling, usually by simply getting lucky one night and leaving while I am a few hundred up. Of course, this is offset by the times that I have left with a total loss.

 

[Drakkith]

And, indeed, she claimed she leaves casinos as soon as she wins. This suggested to me she has a well-proven system that could potentially make her rich.

I don't know why that suggests that she has a well-proven system that could make her rich. Sounds to me like she's simply a little bit lucky, with enough smarts to leave while she's still up.

 

[Dickfore]

Just as a repetition:

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?

Not more than I've won.

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

What kind of a remark is that?

So, the bolded words imply to me that she has a worked-out system, a trick if you will, that let's her win more than she loses in a repetitive fashion, since she claims to do it often.

Then, when I asked her if she is a millionaire, she started wondering why people ask her, and, of course, we had the knight in shining armor defend her honor.

 

[Drakkith]

So, the bolded words imply to me that she has a worked-out system, a trick if you will, that let's her win more than she loses in a repetitive fashion, since she claims to do it often.

Then, when I asked her if she is a millionaire, she started wondering why people ask her, and, of course, we had the knight in shining armor defend her honor.

The lynchpin is that you have to win first. If you don't win, you can't walk away with money. And winning doesn't usually mean win just once. If I'm playing roulette I can win a dozen times and lose twice but still be down depending on how I'm betting.

Honestly your statement Wow, great! You must be a millionaire by now. is extremely sarcastic. Is it any wonder you had the responses you had?

 

[Dickfore]

The lynchpin is that you have to win first. If you don't win, you can't walk away with money. And winning doesn't usually mean win just once. If I'm playing roulette I can win a dozen times and lose twice but still be down depending on how I'm betting.

I tend to agree with you on this one.

Some people do not understand those, and this is perpetuating a false optimism for gambling. You can see their psychology, when they start with the sentence:

"If I win on the first trial,..."

Wrong! There is a far bigger, or at least equal chance to lose on the first trial! Then, all the rest of the text is useless, unless they try again. And again.

Honestly your statement Wow, great! You must be a millionaire by now. is extremely sarcastic. Is it any wonder you had the responses you had?

It is, and it was intended to emphasize the absurdity that she wins more than she loses on a regular basis. Honestly, if I had found some scheme like that, I would be trying to get as much money as possible.

 

[Monique]

So, the bolded words imply to me that she has a worked-out system, a trick if you will, that let's her win more than she loses in a repetitive fashion, since she claims to do it often.

Then, when I asked her if she is a millionaire, she started wondering why people ask her

Why are you behaving so ignorantly? Yes, it's possible to win, yes it's possible to loose, yes, it's possible to play even.

It is, and it was intended to emphasize the absurdity that she wins more than she loses on a regular basis. Honestly, if I had found some scheme like that, I would be trying to get as much money as possible.

Come on, have I said that I game on a regular basis? I said that when I gambled I've often won, for you to deny such a possibility is absurd.

 

[Dickfore]

Why are you behaving so ignorantly? Yes, it's possible to win, yes it's possible to loose, yes, it's possible to play even.

And what exactly does this tautology have to do with the topic at hand?

Come on, have I said that I game on a regular basis? I said that when I gambled I've often won, for you to deny such a possibility is absurd.

No, you said I've often won at gambleing, even at the roulette table. To have won often, it is necessary to had played at least as often as having won. Also, you said that you won more than you lost. I find this statement highly improbable, and your further claims about initial probabilities and such made my suspicion even more founded. I suspect you are biased in remembering the times you won more vividly than the times you lost.

Did you keep track of your bets? Did you keep track of your wininings? Did you keep track of the times you had gambled and the total time spent?

 

[Monique]

It is very easy and uncomplicated: I have won more money than I lost.

 

[Andre]

Luck is a strange thing in my experience. Never had any luck in the national lottery, occasionally a break even but most of the time a waste of money. Well you buy the thrill of fantasy.

However on one of my assigments in the NATO we had a good multi-national social interaction and there was a weekly bunco-night. You just role dice and there is absolutely no decision to take. Pure chance. Just role, socialize and have fun. Eventually, we had no idea where to store all the useless stuff we won. It was just shameless, I hardly remember leaving without a price. Clearly far more than our fair share.

 

[daveb]

My bold

Also, you said that you won more than you lost. I find this statement highly improbable, and your further claims about initial probabilities and such made my suspicion even more founded.

You do realize that for every game, there is a distribution of people who win more than they lose and people who lose more than they win? True, (assuming the probabilites are fair and not skewed due to cheating) the distribution is skewed so that the total money lost by the losers is more than the money won by winners, but there is someone somewhere that happens to have won more than they lost. Monique is claiming to be one of those people. Why is this so hard to believe?