5 ms·

From my own experiences in NY, it was normally the first three numbers of the winning horses at a particular race at a particular track. It varied depending on

by turk73 7y ago

From my own experiences in NY, it was normally the first three numbers of the winning horses at a particular race at a particular track. It varied depending on whose numbers game you were talking about. I had an uncle who was involved with it. He was a money collector, among other things. Yes, it was run by the mob. No, I was not a participant. Yes, these where Italian immigrants. As far as "illegal" goes, yes numbers games were and are illegal. Nobody cared because the cops got paid off. It's a big part of what made NY what it is. It was so successful that most every state now has a lottery system. The odds of winning in state lotteries are, well, you already know what they are. State lotteries are total rip off designed to fleece the public. State lotteries exist because the pols realized they could make bazillions of dollars running numbers on a large scale and they could chase the competition away, too. So, in a sense, numbers games became legal, but controlled by the usual suspects.

brlewis 7y ago
Many people call the lottery a "Stupidity Tax". My dad calls it a "Desperation Tax", which I tend to agree with. I don't think states should have them.
- turk73 7y ago
  North Carolina held out against having a state lottery for a very long time. The corrupt pols eventually won. The money supposedly goes to education. In reality, it goes into the general fund. That is of note because unlike other states where I have lived, North Carolina seems to rake in a lot of money and little to no overt signs of where the money goes. I live in a different state now and I think I can tell that the tax dollars here aren't being stolen to such a high degree. NC had all kinds of taxes but I had a tough time seeing where any of that money actually went. Living in NY, you knew it was all corrupt unions and such, so you never had to wonder.
- snarf21 7y ago
  Maybe not but if the state doesn't have them, they will play underground ones. The state ones are guaranteed to pay with low likelihood of fraud. The underground ones have no such promise. I understand that you wish poor people wouldn't gamble but they tend to so given that they will, what is the better solution? State run or underground?
  - brlewis 7y ago
    For a lot of the people who play there's little practical difference between fraud and fine print. There's also a conflict of interest. The state is responsible for math education while having an interest in people not doing the math.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Depends on the Pot odds - with the Big UK and Euro lotteries if there are enough rollovers it does become a sensible bet. I normally get a couple of tickets when the Euro lottery gets large - just for fun.
  - brlewis 7y ago
    The math behind "sensible bet" relies on the period of time between winnings being shorter than your lifetime. Unless you're buying a huge number of tickets, even the big jackpots aren't worth playing, except just for fun. Just for fun, you could take the money you'd spend on a lottery ticket and hand it to the next person you see, just to see how they react.
    - vkou 7y ago
      Ah, but even if the net EV is negative, it still makes sense to part with a bit of money that you won't care about, for a miniscule chance of receiving a life-changing amount of money. If you're not just barely scraping together, dropping $25 on a negative EV lottery is not going to make one whit of difference to your finances. But it might change your life. Dropping $25,000 on a positive EV lottery, on the other hand, is an incredibly dumb move. Since most poor people will, in fact, miss that $25, the lottery is a really bad idea for them. Yet, they play it a lot more than the middle class do...
      - NauticalStu 7y ago
        Yeah I don't play the lottery, but I could justify buying a single lottery ticket despite understanding how horrific the odds are. Since you'll almost certainly lose, I think the true value is in the fantasy of what you would do with a staggering amount of money. You could do this without buying a ticket, of course, but it feels more real when you have some skin in the game. Mathematically, your odds are still effectively zero, but mentally there's a big difference between effectively zero and actual zero. Thinking of other consumables in that general price range that provide a short, quick fix of enjoyment (cup of coffee, snack, etc.), $1 for a slightly more vivid dream isn't so crazy to me. Having said all this, I highly doubt it's the mentality of most lottery players.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Interesting I can relate as some who is related by marriage to one of the well know Birmingham based bookies, my Great Great, Great Uncle was scary guy from all reports Watching peaky blinders Is interesting and I a have a cousin who is an actor who is the direct descendant (and could probably do a better brummie accent)

by turk73 7y ago

brlewis 7y ago

Many people call the lottery a "Stupidity Tax". My dad calls it a "Desperation Tax", which I tend to agree with. I don't think states should have them.

turk73 7y ago
North Carolina held out against having a state lottery for a very long time. The corrupt pols eventually won. The money supposedly goes to education. In reality, it goes into the general fund. That is of note because unlike other states where I have lived, North Carolina seems to rake in a lot of money and little to no overt signs of where the money goes. I live in a different state now and I think I can tell that the tax dollars here aren't being stolen to such a high degree. NC had all kinds of taxes but I had a tough time seeing where any of that money actually went. Living in NY, you knew it was all corrupt unions and such, so you never had to wonder.
snarf21 7y ago
Maybe not but if the state doesn't have them, they will play underground ones. The state ones are guaranteed to pay with low likelihood of fraud. The underground ones have no such promise. I understand that you wish poor people wouldn't gamble but they tend to so given that they will, what is the better solution? State run or underground?
- brlewis 7y ago
  For a lot of the people who play there's little practical difference between fraud and fine print. There's also a conflict of interest. The state is responsible for math education while having an interest in people not doing the math.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Depends on the Pot odds - with the Big UK and Euro lotteries if there are enough rollovers it does become a sensible bet. I normally get a couple of tickets when the Euro lottery gets large - just for fun.
- brlewis 7y ago
  The math behind "sensible bet" relies on the period of time between winnings being shorter than your lifetime. Unless you're buying a huge number of tickets, even the big jackpots aren't worth playing, except just for fun. Just for fun, you could take the money you'd spend on a lottery ticket and hand it to the next person you see, just to see how they react.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Ah, but even if the net EV is negative, it still makes sense to part with a bit of money that you won't care about, for a miniscule chance of receiving a life-changing amount of money. If you're not just barely scraping together, dropping $25 on a negative EV lottery is not going to make one whit of difference to your finances. But it might change your life. Dropping $25,000 on a positive EV lottery, on the other hand, is an incredibly dumb move. Since most poor people will, in fact, miss that $25, the lottery is a really bad idea for them. Yet, they play it a lot more than the middle class do...
    - NauticalStu 7y ago
      Yeah I don't play the lottery, but I could justify buying a single lottery ticket despite understanding how horrific the odds are. Since you'll almost certainly lose, I think the true value is in the fantasy of what you would do with a staggering amount of money. You could do this without buying a ticket, of course, but it feels more real when you have some skin in the game. Mathematically, your odds are still effectively zero, but mentally there's a big difference between effectively zero and actual zero. Thinking of other consumables in that general price range that provide a short, quick fix of enjoyment (cup of coffee, snack, etc.), $1 for a slightly more vivid dream isn't so crazy to me. Having said all this, I highly doubt it's the mentality of most lottery players.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

Interesting I can relate as some who is related by marriage to one of the well know Birmingham based bookies, my Great Great, Great Uncle was scary guy from all reports Watching peaky blinders Is interesting and I a have a cousin who is an actor who is the direct descendant (and could probably do a better brummie accent)