Chinjut's multiple posts here have argued much more eloquently than I can about "utility" or what is "rational" to different people. Here's my simple way of exp

Chinjut's multiple posts here have argued much more eloquently than I can about "utility" or what is "rational" to different people. Here's my simple way of explaining why I will buy a ticket tomorrow if the prize isn't won tonight: If, for a $1 bet, you offer people a 1/2 chance of winning $2, most people won't bother. However, if you offer those same people a 1/1000000 chance of winning $1000000, many more people would become interested. Winning $2 isn't meaningful to most people. But a chance of winning a sufficiently large amount of money that they could significantly change their lifestyle is a much more "rational" decision for them to make. And that, in a nutshell, is why lotteries exist at all. I do love the idea of the Kelly criterion, and I do try to keep it in mind when investing. Unfortunately my "edge" in most investment situations so small that I shouldn't be betting, err I mean "investing" anything!