4 ms·
I find the tone of the article, which I would characterize as righteous indignation that the group was able to partially unrig a mostly rigged game to their fav
by shawn-furyan 11y ago
I find the tone of the article, which I would characterize as righteous indignation that the group was able to partially unrig a mostly rigged game to their favor, baffling.
The fact that everyone involved apparently got what they wanted[1] out of the situation makes that posture even more absurd.
[1] viz. per the article, the MIT group got a 15-20% return, the Lottery profited from the tickets the MIT group bought, and the normal lottery winners, presumably got a mildly lower EV, but were never completely deprived of their shot at the jackpot (which is the only thing they apparently care about, since if they were sensitive to EV, they wouldn't be playing the lottery without a strategy like the MIT group's).
- whyaduck 11y agoWell, the Lottery profited from the game - they lost money on the tickets purchased by the MIT group.
- shawn-furyan 11y agoI suppose that's true from a technical perspective, if the group was making any return. But the article says that game officials understood what the group was doing and facilitated it because it 'increased revenues and made the lottery even more successful'. So they weren't making money on those specific tickets, but still supposedly knew what was going on and allowed it to continue because they were getting what they wanted out of the situation, so my main point still stands, even with regards to the game officials.