4 ms·
From what I understand about the system, the article is incorrect. You don't NEED to invest $100k to get a return. Investing $1,000, for instance, will also hav
by x0054 11y ago
From what I understand about the system, the article is incorrect. You don't NEED to invest $100k to get a return. Investing $1,000, for instance, will also have the same probability of providing you proportionately equivalent return.
- bweitzman 11y agoWell there must be some minimum, otherwise we would have seen everybody who played on the right day win, right?
- notahacker 11y agoSpending lesser amounts means a higher volatility of returns. The expected return on a $1000 bet might be the same, but your chances of actually equalling (or bettering) that ROI are much lower than if you bet $100k, especially if the the prize money is concentrated at the top end. The Boston Globe article implies that the MIT syndicates bought so many tickets they actually affected the distribution of the prizes in their favour http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/07/31/inspector_general_says_lottery_allowed_gambling_syndicates_to_take_over_winfall_game/?page=2 http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012... Not to mention that having even just $1000 of free cash to "invest" in a positive sum gamble already puts you in a higher income/wealth bracket than most lotteries' most loyal players.
- j2kun 11y agoActually, I think this issue was brought up in the book "How Not to be Wrong" by Jordan Ellenberg, and the MIT students eliminated risk by taking advantage of a Steiner system. So I suppose it favors the intelligent, not necessarily the rich.