One thing I forgot to add is that if the lottery continues to acknowledge
tickets from players from previous losing rounds (their tickets remain
valid), then the number of potential winners keeps going up and the big
jackpots are likely to be diluted by the cumulatively increasing number of
players. I've never played, so I don't know what the lottery rule is in this
regard. Yet either way it is a losing game for the participants.
However, after further consideration I can think of a set of circumstances
in which the odds might be in favor of the player. That is, when ALL of the
following conditions are true:
1. The lottery rules invalidate the tickets of all players in a round that
has no winner, so these players have to buy in again if they want to
participate in subsequent rounds.
2. You never participated in any of the losing rounds whose losses
contributed to the current jackpot.
3. The size of the current jackpot is at least N dollars, where N is the
odds of picking a winning ticket (which is a constant). In the CA lottery, a
jackpot of this size would likely require several losing rounds.
4. The number of players (to be more precise, the number of unique numeric
combinations submitted) in the current round is only a fraction of jackpot
size, so the probability of duplicate winners diluting the jackpot is
reduced.
As you might imagine, this set of circumstances is highly improbable.
Indeed, whenever item (3) is satisfied, it tends to increase the number of
players (more people play under those rare occasions when the odds go up)
which invalidates item (4). I would conclude that it is theoretically
possible, in certain rounds of the lottery, for the odds to be in the favor
of particular players, but the chances of this occurring are 1 in a
bazillion.
You can't lose if you don't play,
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
[mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Michael R. Clements
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 11:23
To: Donald R McKenna; mrclem@telocity.com; Scot Zediker; James Creasy;
ba-autox@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: My divisional picks revisited (now is Lottery math)
In the lottery, the amount they pay out is a fraction (less than 100%) of
what goes in, so in any given round the risk to benefit ratio is always
against you. In other words, if the chance of winning is 1 in N, then the
amount you win is less than N times what you paid.
Yet one could argue that if the lottery "goes around" enough times, then the
jackpot might pile up to the point where the winnings, even after the state
takes its cut, still justify the risk (the 1 in N chance).
However, when the above happens, remember that the people who participated
in the previous rounds in which there was no winner, have lost their money
and it is their losses that have created this situation (the huge jackpot).
These people who lost their money in previous rounds, are out of the game.
That is to say, they are not eligible to win in subsequent rounds even if
their old tickets match the new numbers. So they only way they can
participate in the new rounds is to pay in again.
It is this effect, if compounded over several "no win" rounds, that can give
the illusion of turning the odds in the favor of subsequent players. If it
weren't for this effect, if the tickets of the old players still were valid
in subsequent rounds, it would increase the number of potential winners and
dilute the earnings.
Yet I use the word "illusion of turning the odds" because it is just that --
an illusion. Even in a round with a huge jackpot financed by the losses of
players in previous losing rounds, the odds are still not necessarily in
favor of new players. The probability of becoming a participant in a round
in which there is no winner, is unpredictable because it depends not on how
many players participate, but instead on how many unique numeric
combinations were submitted. The two are not necessarily the same because
sometimes different people pick the same numbers by chance.
In summary, the odds of winning are constant regardless of the number of
players or the number of numeric combinations submitted. But the payout
ratio is not only variable, but impossible to predict even when you know the
size of the jackpot (because you can't know in advance how many unique
combinations were submitted).
The fact that some people win, and that some people enjoy playing even when
they lose, doesn't change the math. The odds are against you; indeed, you'd
be much better off playing blackjack or craps at Vegas.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
[mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Donald R McKenna
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:15
To: mrclem@telocity.com; Scot Zediker; James Creasy;
ba-autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: My divisional picks revisited
But--- Didn't we have a real rareity in Lottery play last Saturday?
Wasn't the "expected return" (if, as happened, only one ticket had all the
winning numbers) about $3 for each $1 spent?
Don, (not that great at statistics)
----------
>From: "Michael R. Clements" <mrclem@telocity.com>
>To: "Scot Zediker" <roadsterboy@earthlink.net>, "James Creasy"
<black94pgt@pacbell.net>, <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
>Subject: RE: My divisional picks revisited
>Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2001, 9:29 PM
>
>Scot, that's a sign of intelligence. The lottery is a tax on people who are
>bad at math. . . which makes it ironic that some of the lottery money goes
>into the school system.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
>[mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Scot Zediker
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 16:13
>To: James Creasy; ba-autox@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: My divisional picks revisited
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Creasy" <black94pgt@pacbell.net>
>To: "Scot Zediker" <roadsterboy@earthlink.net>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 10:31 PM
>Subject: Re: My divisional picks revisited
>
>
>> > WRONG!!
>> > WRONG!!
>> > WRONG!!
>> > WRONG!!
>> > WRONG!!
>> > WRONG!!
>> ...
>>
>> so howd you do in the lottery?
>
>I didn't even play. Maybe it's just as well...
>
>Scot
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>You're three times more likely to wind up in court than in a hospital.
>Shouldn't you be protected?
>http://www.prepaidlegal.com/go/szediker
|