Skip to main content

Lotteries, plane crashes and lightning

As anyone in the final week before an election knows, statistics are easy to misuse, whether accidentally or intentionally. It really quite saddens me to see friends, who know enough science not to massage figures to present the case they want, cherry picking, mislabelling and generally giving statistics as much mangling as they like as long as it shows the opposition in a bad light (it's odd, but they much more often seem to use stats to show how another party is bad, rather than the positives of their favoured party).

Occasionally I point out one of these errors, but this tends to get me labelled an enemy of the cause, so it probably isn't worth it. However, there's another example of statistics being manipulated where I shouldn't feel the wroth of political sensibilities, and that is on the matter of lotteries.

For some reason those with a scientific bent love to produce a flurry of probabilities that show how entering lotteries is for suckers, because the odds are so astronomical. As I point out in Dice World, my book on probability and randomness, this is often due to a total misunderstanding of the nature of entering a lottery. Seen as an investment, it is certainly ridiculous. However, seen as a game, it's a different matter. What lottery players pay for is not the statistical benefit of the prize times the chance of winning - an unimpressive payback - but the anticipation. It's about the chase, more than the kill.

Another popular way to label lottery players mathematical losers is to compare the odds of winning with those of being in a fatal plane crash, or being struck by lightning, which are considered to be on the same order of magnitude. Here there's a double error. As well as not understanding the gaming nature of lottery play, these comparisons aren't even good probability, for several reasons.

First, the comparison is only ever made with the probability of winning the jackpot. Pretty well all lottery games have a range of prizes depending how many balls you match. Matching three balls is significantly more likely to occur than six. Okay the prize is a lot less, but the fact remains that with the UK Lotto, for instance, you can win not with the usual 1 in 14 million chance given for the jackpot, but more like 1 in 54 for all the possible ways of winning. That's a very different figure.

Secondly, the UK lottery has several games. If instead of playing the Lotto you play Thunderball there is a significantly better chance of winning. Okay, the main prize is only £500,000 - but 'only' applied to £500,000 is something of an oddity. Here the jackpot remains a painful 1 in 8 million away (though this beats Lotto), but the chances of winning plunge to the very accessible 1 in 13. if the naysayers are telling me that's my chance of being struck by lightning, someone up there doesn't like me.

And finally, in making the comparison with messy ways to die, our statistical misery guts are committing a classic statistical error - applying a statistic from a skewed population to everyone in the population. If you buy a lottery ticket, the stated statistics apply to your single ticket. But you can buy more than one lottery ticket and change those statistics. (With Thunderball, for instance, you can guarantee a win with 14 tickets.) Those struck by lightning or in a plane crash don't have an equivalent option. Even more interestingly, the statistics for these two hazards aren't those that apply to most of the population at large - and are way out for many individuals.

Take the chances of being in a plane crash. Clearly this depends on how frequently you fly. As some people fly weekly or even daily, their chances will push the averaged probability up significantly. If you only fly for a holiday once a year, your chances will be significantly lower. Even more so for me - I've flown once in the last 25 years, and have no intention of flying again. So don't tell me the chances of my being in a plane crash are the same as my winning the lottery.

A similar argument applies to being struck by lightning. People who spend a lot of time in at-risk environments are more likely to be struck than those who avoid exposed high places. So golfers and national park rangers, for instance, will have a significantly higher risk than a city dweller, pushing up the apparent risk.

I'm not denying that you are vanishingly unlikely to buy a ticket that will win the jackpot in a major lottery. But I do think those who use probability and statistics to sneer at lottery players, ought to think through their maths (and psychology) a little more.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou