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.):
<br /> \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}<br />
where we used that the average profit is -2/38. The relative uncertainty is:
<br /> \frac{\sigma(P)}{\vert E(P) \vert} \approx 8.111 \times 10^{-2} \approx \frac{1}{12}<br />
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.

 

[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.