8 ms·

Most useful takeaway from this article: If you choose to play the lotto, don't use cute numbers. Odds are high that other people will too, and you'll have to sp

by fny 4y ago

Most useful takeaway from this article: If you choose to play the lotto, don't use cute numbers. Odds are high that other people will too, and you'll have to split the pot. > Part of the explanation surely lies in the unusually large number (433) of lottery winners > But on the previous draw of the same lottery ... > the unremarkable sequence of numbers {11, 26, 33, 45, 51, 55} were drawn ... > and no tickets ended up claiming the jackpot.

Semaphor 4y ago
That is actually commonly recommended for exactly that reason. Often right after recommending to not play the lottery at all ;)
- katrotz 4y ago
  Remember reading in some book on probability and statistics that one will be better off betting insignificant amounts of money rather than not playing at all.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    Sounds wrong, that would essentially be saying one should play the cheapest level of all lotteries.
    - mellavora 4y ago
      naw, it is probably based on the assumption that the payout can be life-changing big. risking pocket change to win big is quasi-reasonable, even though it is a loosing bet. Because you don't notice the downside/drawdowns. risking more than pocket change is not reasonable, because it is a loosing bet. NB: I don't play the lottery.
      - lupire 4y ago
        Similarly, you should make small high-upside bets bets like "strike up a chat with a as stranger"
  - 317070 4y ago
    You might be thinking about the Kelly criterion [0]. It does go the other way around: even if the expected value of a lottery were positive, you should only bet insignificant amounts. If I have a lottery, and you have a 1 in a billion chance to gain 10 billion utility, tickets cost 1 utility. How much of your current utility wealth should you put in? Classical expected value reasoning would pour in everything, even though you are almost guaranteed bankrupt at the end of that transaction. The Kelly criterion recommends an exact (small) percentage for this style of lotteries, and is therefore probably more sensible than decision making based on expected values. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      That sounds sensible
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      Notable: Kelly only works if you're playing a multi-round game. Also careful; I believe money-to-utility is already logarithmic for most people. We don't have a good intuition for what "billions of utility vs 1 utility" represents.
      - ReflectedImage 4y ago
        How can you have a game that isn't multi-round? Surely after you finish playing one game, the next game you play (even if it's a completely different game) is the second round.
        lupire 4y ago
        You have considered if the number of rounds is large enough. A weekly lottery doesn't have many rounds. A "huge jackpot" is even more rare.
        kgwgk 4y ago
        > A weekly lottery doesn't have many rounds. It doesn't if you're a house fly. Average life expectancy at birth in OECD countries is around 4'000 weeks.
- fny 4y ago
  It actually depends on the size of the pot. There have been times where there was positive expectancy. [0]: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/saturday-fun-when-the-lottery-bet-has-a-positive-expected-value/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/saturday-fun-...
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    But that still says you shouldn’t :D > if you could afford to buy several hundred million tickets, the math says you should. I mean, unless you happen to be filthy rich already.
    - fny 4y ago
      The article is wrong. You should still play if there's positive expectancy and the money you spent won't be missed (i.e. you won't be ruined.) See https://quantwolf.com/doc/powerball/powerball.html https://quantwolf.com/doc/powerball/powerball.html
      - Semaphor 4y ago
        My reading is different, it’s more "together with the kelly criterion or a weaker version of it, you can say it doesn’t matter if you do". This is still "eh maybe I’ll be lucky" and not "it’s mathematically sensible" because > What it means is that you would have to play the game for thousands of years with the jackpot being greater than 117 million each time in order to realize a positive expected return.
      - okintheory 4y ago
        If any expected value matters, it's utility, not wealth. If you think utility is linear in wealth, you need to check Jeff Bezos' instagram more.
    - onion2k 4y ago
      The key to getting rich and staying rich is figuring out how to risk other people's money. If you want to buy millions of lottery tickets, or launch a startup, or start a poker career, or anything really, it's far better to do it without risking your own security. Let other people invest in your venture for a reasonable return if you succeed, but also make sure you some non-trivial amount of equity for yourself so you make a killing if it's wildly successful. This is how most VC backed unicorns have worked. The early investors made a lot, but the founders who mostly only risked their time, energy, and opportunity-costed salary made far, far, far better returns.
- checkyoursudo 4y ago
  I never understood the admonishment not to play the lottery at all. I waste lots of money doing things that are fun experiences, or buying unnecessary foods or drinks, or gadgets or toys, etc. I can understand recommending not to get addicted to playing, or not to spend money that should be going elsewhere, right? But when that admonishment is not qualified, then it is a little silly. Might as well say, never buy extra dip for your french fries or something. It's true that I haven't bought lottery tickets in years, but spending a few hundred cents on some longshot jackpot can be its own kind of fun.
  - Tainnor 4y ago
    If you find the act of playing itself fun, all the more power to you. That said, personally, I don't think the act of buying a lottery ticket would give me anywhere near the same amount of pleasure as... a dip for french fries, for example. If you look at it purely monetarily, it's not rational to play the lottery because you're expected to lose money.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > I don't think the act of buying a lottery ticket would give me anywhere near the same amount of pleasure as... ...my once-a-year flutter on the Grand National. Having skin in the game multiplies the excitement of this horse-race, which is already one of the most exciting races there is. Making selections on a lottery ticket, or rubbing stuff off a scratch-card somehow doesn't have the same appeal; and doesn't give you nearly nearly 10 minutes of fun. Last time I picked a winner was about 20 years ago. Last time I got a place was at least 6 years ago. I know my money's going down the sewer. /me not a betting man; apart from the GN, I don't bet on sports; I don't gamble on cards, and I've only once been in a casino. I'm not much of an investor.
  - RickHull 4y ago
    What is the value in buying a lottery ticket? The expected value of the ticket itself is negative, relative to its purchase price. So the buyer gets additional value from the "little thrill" of the purchase and observing the results. With extra dip sauce, you clearly value the sauce more than the money in your pocket. The dip tastes good, has calories, and maybe some bad health side effects. Lotteries lack fundamental value, and the "little thrill" often turns into a bad health side effect. That said, adults should be free to spend their money how they like. Those giving advice are worried that vulnerable people will get sucked into a "trap", like a gambling addiction.
yeellow 4y ago
I read once about a famous mathematician who claimed that whenever he plays lottery he chooses the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6 because nobody else would. Also it seems strange that so many people would choose a sequence that most people would call "not random" and suspicious (hence the article). Maybe those people follow the advice of this famous mathematician. Authorities should check the occurrence of this series in the previous games to see if that many people really like this sequence or if it was a one time event. Thinking about this, it would be interesting to see what numbers people choose, if there are some outliers preferred by many. I wonder if there are lotteries that publish such data?
- jmharvey 4y ago
  I've bought the number 1,2,3,4,5,6 on numerous occasions, but my lottery play isn't really representative of the typical player. A few years back, the Quebec Lottery published its most frequently played numbers. It seems the original press release has been lost to the sands of time, but IIRC 1,2,3,4,5,6; 1,7,13,19,25,31; and 4,8,15,16,23,42 were the most common sequences (corresponding to the top row of the play slip, the first column of the play slip, and the mystical numbers from the TV show Lost, respectively). Oh, and if you're interested in digging more, in my experience, the Texas lottery is quite forthcoming with their open records; you could probably find out what's popular in 2022.
- thegabriele 4y ago
  From an algorithmic information theory, i wouldn't choose any easily reproducible sequence. If you were presented with two array of integers: - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - 95, 10, 39, 45, 6, 47 ...which one would you say it's random? Still, from a frequentist point of view both are. Where's my mistake?
  - lupire 4y ago
    You are correct. PP's mathematician was making a bold psychological/sociological claim. Maybe he has seen some research to that effect, but I doubt it.
    - 4y ago
geysersam 4y ago
I wonder if the lottery companies takes this into consideration when setting the price of their tickets. If all your players pick the same numbers, you as the lottery seller is in a much better spot, and you could safely lower the prices or increase the pot to draw more people into the game. However, if you do that and people start picking random sequences you risk losing a lot of money.

by fny 4y ago

Semaphor 4y ago

That is actually commonly recommended for exactly that reason. Often right after recommending to not play the lottery at all ;)

katrotz 4y ago
Remember reading in some book on probability and statistics that one will be better off betting insignificant amounts of money rather than not playing at all.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Sounds wrong, that would essentially be saying one should play the cheapest level of all lotteries.
  - mellavora 4y ago
    naw, it is probably based on the assumption that the payout can be life-changing big. risking pocket change to win big is quasi-reasonable, even though it is a loosing bet. Because you don't notice the downside/drawdowns. risking more than pocket change is not reasonable, because it is a loosing bet. NB: I don't play the lottery.
    - lupire 4y ago
      Similarly, you should make small high-upside bets bets like "strike up a chat with a as stranger"
- 317070 4y ago
  You might be thinking about the Kelly criterion [0]. It does go the other way around: even if the expected value of a lottery were positive, you should only bet insignificant amounts. If I have a lottery, and you have a 1 in a billion chance to gain 10 billion utility, tickets cost 1 utility. How much of your current utility wealth should you put in? Classical expected value reasoning would pour in everything, even though you are almost guaranteed bankrupt at the end of that transaction. The Kelly criterion recommends an exact (small) percentage for this style of lotteries, and is therefore probably more sensible than decision making based on expected values. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    That sounds sensible
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    Notable: Kelly only works if you're playing a multi-round game. Also careful; I believe money-to-utility is already logarithmic for most people. We don't have a good intuition for what "billions of utility vs 1 utility" represents.
    - ReflectedImage 4y ago
      How can you have a game that isn't multi-round? Surely after you finish playing one game, the next game you play (even if it's a completely different game) is the second round.
      - lupire 4y ago
        You have considered if the number of rounds is large enough. A weekly lottery doesn't have many rounds. A "huge jackpot" is even more rare.
        kgwgk 4y ago
        > A weekly lottery doesn't have many rounds. It doesn't if you're a house fly. Average life expectancy at birth in OECD countries is around 4'000 weeks.
fny 4y ago
It actually depends on the size of the pot. There have been times where there was positive expectancy. [0]: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/saturday-fun-when-the-lottery-bet-has-a-positive-expected-value/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/saturday-fun-...
- Semaphor 4y ago
  But that still says you shouldn’t :D > if you could afford to buy several hundred million tickets, the math says you should. I mean, unless you happen to be filthy rich already.
  - fny 4y ago
    The article is wrong. You should still play if there's positive expectancy and the money you spent won't be missed (i.e. you won't be ruined.) See https://quantwolf.com/doc/powerball/powerball.html https://quantwolf.com/doc/powerball/powerball.html
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      My reading is different, it’s more "together with the kelly criterion or a weaker version of it, you can say it doesn’t matter if you do". This is still "eh maybe I’ll be lucky" and not "it’s mathematically sensible" because > What it means is that you would have to play the game for thousands of years with the jackpot being greater than 117 million each time in order to realize a positive expected return.
    - okintheory 4y ago
      If any expected value matters, it's utility, not wealth. If you think utility is linear in wealth, you need to check Jeff Bezos' instagram more.
  - onion2k 4y ago
    The key to getting rich and staying rich is figuring out how to risk other people's money. If you want to buy millions of lottery tickets, or launch a startup, or start a poker career, or anything really, it's far better to do it without risking your own security. Let other people invest in your venture for a reasonable return if you succeed, but also make sure you some non-trivial amount of equity for yourself so you make a killing if it's wildly successful. This is how most VC backed unicorns have worked. The early investors made a lot, but the founders who mostly only risked their time, energy, and opportunity-costed salary made far, far, far better returns.
checkyoursudo 4y ago
I never understood the admonishment not to play the lottery at all. I waste lots of money doing things that are fun experiences, or buying unnecessary foods or drinks, or gadgets or toys, etc. I can understand recommending not to get addicted to playing, or not to spend money that should be going elsewhere, right? But when that admonishment is not qualified, then it is a little silly. Might as well say, never buy extra dip for your french fries or something. It's true that I haven't bought lottery tickets in years, but spending a few hundred cents on some longshot jackpot can be its own kind of fun.
- Tainnor 4y ago
  If you find the act of playing itself fun, all the more power to you. That said, personally, I don't think the act of buying a lottery ticket would give me anywhere near the same amount of pleasure as... a dip for french fries, for example. If you look at it purely monetarily, it's not rational to play the lottery because you're expected to lose money.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > I don't think the act of buying a lottery ticket would give me anywhere near the same amount of pleasure as... ...my once-a-year flutter on the Grand National. Having skin in the game multiplies the excitement of this horse-race, which is already one of the most exciting races there is. Making selections on a lottery ticket, or rubbing stuff off a scratch-card somehow doesn't have the same appeal; and doesn't give you nearly nearly 10 minutes of fun. Last time I picked a winner was about 20 years ago. Last time I got a place was at least 6 years ago. I know my money's going down the sewer. /me not a betting man; apart from the GN, I don't bet on sports; I don't gamble on cards, and I've only once been in a casino. I'm not much of an investor.
- RickHull 4y ago
  What is the value in buying a lottery ticket? The expected value of the ticket itself is negative, relative to its purchase price. So the buyer gets additional value from the "little thrill" of the purchase and observing the results. With extra dip sauce, you clearly value the sauce more than the money in your pocket. The dip tastes good, has calories, and maybe some bad health side effects. Lotteries lack fundamental value, and the "little thrill" often turns into a bad health side effect. That said, adults should be free to spend their money how they like. Those giving advice are worried that vulnerable people will get sucked into a "trap", like a gambling addiction.

yeellow 4y ago

I read once about a famous mathematician who claimed that whenever he plays lottery he chooses the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6 because nobody else would. Also it seems strange that so many people would choose a sequence that most people would call "not random" and suspicious (hence the article). Maybe those people follow the advice of this famous mathematician. Authorities should check the occurrence of this series in the previous games to see if that many people really like this sequence or if it was a one time event. Thinking about this, it would be interesting to see what numbers people choose, if there are some outliers preferred by many. I wonder if there are lotteries that publish such data?

jmharvey 4y ago
I've bought the number 1,2,3,4,5,6 on numerous occasions, but my lottery play isn't really representative of the typical player. A few years back, the Quebec Lottery published its most frequently played numbers. It seems the original press release has been lost to the sands of time, but IIRC 1,2,3,4,5,6; 1,7,13,19,25,31; and 4,8,15,16,23,42 were the most common sequences (corresponding to the top row of the play slip, the first column of the play slip, and the mystical numbers from the TV show Lost, respectively). Oh, and if you're interested in digging more, in my experience, the Texas lottery is quite forthcoming with their open records; you could probably find out what's popular in 2022.
thegabriele 4y ago
From an algorithmic information theory, i wouldn't choose any easily reproducible sequence. If you were presented with two array of integers: - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - 95, 10, 39, 45, 6, 47 ...which one would you say it's random? Still, from a frequentist point of view both are. Where's my mistake?
- lupire 4y ago
  You are correct. PP's mathematician was making a bold psychological/sociological claim. Maybe he has seen some research to that effect, but I doubt it.
  - 4y ago

geysersam 4y ago

I wonder if the lottery companies takes this into consideration when setting the price of their tickets. If all your players pick the same numbers, you as the lottery seller is in a much better spot, and you could safely lower the prices or increase the pot to draw more people into the game. However, if you do that and people start picking random sequences you risk losing a lot of money.