Compared to roulette the lottery makes lots of sense because with the latter there is a very real even if very small chance of becoming truly wealthy with a very small investment.
Where the roulette player must have a larger purse and has no chance of making the kind of money a lottery player might, and since wealth is not going to find him in a single spin then he has to choose where to quit so he is more likely to lose it. I am not aware of any one armed bandit that has a payout as large as a lottery payout, but as mentioned the frequency of play makes it more likely to be costly. There are plenty of people who have a fortune made from lottery winnings, however there are I am sure very few people who have made millions with very little starting capital from roulette or craps and managed to not give it all back to the casino. Now spending a lot on a lottery is foolish as you are still probably going to lose, playing every week/month is foolish as is buying many tickets or using the same numbers, but it does make sense to buy one once in a while with a few spare bucks. Without an extraordinarily asymmetrical payout or an element of skill gambling makes no sense. On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:30 AM, leaking pen <[email protected]> wrote: > enh. i have more fun for longer with my money gambling at a casino. > the lottery is fun for a minute, then done. Isn't it fun from the purchase through to the draw? > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Horace Heffner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Jan 3, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > > > > Quoting Pascal, "Lotteries are a tax on fools." > > > > Pascal is certainly right about that, especially when they are used to > > directly offset taxes, which is why not only the fools like lotteries, > but > > also those who see them as means to avoid taxes, and those who profit > > directly from running them. As insidious as monthly lotteries in lieu of > > taxes might be, they are benign in comparison to various forms of casino > > gambling. In some communities, gambling produces more costs for the > > communities than revenue, due to the small community take and the demand > on > > public services, insurance companies, public safety, and the legal/penal > > system. > > > > It might be asked why a monthly lottery with a 50 percent take and less > than > > a chance in a million of winning could be considered far less harmful and > > addictive than, say, betting red or black in roulette, which has an about > > 5.263 percent house take and nearly even chances of winning each bet. > The > > answer is that the roulette player typically places much more than a > single > > bet. According to Ian B William's Slot Machines: Fun Machines or Tax > > Machines, $51 billion a year is spent in the US on casino gambling, and > > about 70 percent of that on slot machines. If the typical gambler bet > only > > a few times, then each slot machine and table would have lines of people > > going out the door and down the street. This is not what you see at > > casinos. People bet repeatedly for long periods. Repeated betting > increases > > the expected house win amount drastically. > > To see which is better, a monthly lottery or roulette, take a look at the > > expected purse amounts for the two alternatives over the one month period > of > > the lottery. If a gambler has $100 to bet for that time he will likely > > gamble it all away. His expected purse value after the 100 hours or so > of > > roulette gambling time possible during the month will be a tiny fraction > of > > a cent. If a roulette wheel has 38 slots then 2 will be without color > (or > > green, house take) and 18 will be black and 18 red. The house take will > be > > about 5.26 cents per dollar bet. Due to a typical house $5 minimum the > > gambler's $100 will likely only be a 20 bet purse. If allowed to make $1 > > bets the gambler will have a 100 bet purse and can expect to be broke in > > less than 1900 bets, or less than about 19 hours of betting. He will > > probably try to obtain even more money with which to vindicate himself. > The > > following table shows in 100 bet intervals the probability of being broke > > and the expected value of the purse for roulette color bettors that start > > with a 20 bet purse. > > > > Number of bets in better's starting purse 20 > > House percentage = 5.263 percent > > Bet Prob. Alive Expected Value > > ---- -------------- --------------- > > 100 0.881083267382 14.891433066690 > > 200 0.619848498510 10.952448130541 > > 300 0.435274926086 8.199805170679 > > 400 0.313261560357 6.245178037378 > > 500 0.230621461565 4.823106110599 > > 1000 0.062016797315 1.514700202615 > > 2000 0.007334798455 0.206508730270 > > 3000 0.001127300806 0.034033899035 > > 4000 0.000195968405 0.006173086380 > > 5000 0.000036627971 0.001187554885 > > 6000 0.000007182650 0.000237810615 > > 6900 0.000001707388 0.000057358537 > > The roulette gambler at a 5.263 percent house take and a $100 to bet at > $5 a > > bet can expect to be broke in less than 3 hours. In fact, from the > table, > > you can see that at bet 300, about 3 hours, he has a 43.5274926086 > percent > > chance of being alive. He has about 1.7 chances in a million of lasting > > 6900 bets, or about 69 hours of betting during the month, and only a > small > > fraction of a cent expected purse value by that time. > > At $5 a bet and 100 bets an hour he can be expected to lose 0.05263 * > $5/bet > > * 100 bets/hour = $26.32 per hour. If he has 100 hours to gamble in the > > month, and does so, he can be expected to lose about $2,632 per month. > The > > estimated 100 bets per hour may be high, and a lower bet rate will reduce > > the expected loss per hour. > > The lottery ticket buyer probably will not even spend the full $100 on > > tickets, unless there are lots of quick turnaround small pots, which will > in > > fact act just like casino gambling. A single large pot can be expected > to > > attract out of state money - especially when no winner shows up and the > > expected win becomes positive on a subsequent "let it ride" round. But > let > > us assume the lottery player does spend the full $100 on the lottery in > > order to compare apples to apples. Lotteries typically take about half > the > > proceeds. The $100 provides about a $50 expected purse at the end, as > > opposed to the small expected fraction of a cent purse for the roulette > > gambler that bets more than 70 hours. > > Typically both betters end up broke. However, the lottery ticket buyer > is > > more likely to stay on budget, more likely to win, and will definitely be > > provided the truth about his approximate odds. If the lottery goes into > a > > "let it ride" round, a late ticket buyer may even end up with more than > fair > > odds. Lastly, the lottery ticket buyer really only needs to buy one > ticket > > a month to keep his dream alive. The machine gambler has to find a way to > > keep feeding the beast to keep his dream alive. > > Best regards, > > > > Horace Heffner > > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/<http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/> > > > > > > > > > >
