Skip to main content

Why I don't agree with lottery Scrooges

It's traditional for those with some grasp of probability to belittle those who enter the National Lottery. 'Clearly idiots,' they say. 'These people don't understand probability, or they wouldn't play.'

I must admit, I've taken this stance a little in the past. Imagine, I've said, that the lottery balls came out one Saturday as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. There would be questions in the House no doubt. A new scandal to rival phone hacking - how could the National Lottery draw be so obviously rigged? Last Saturday's draw numbers were 4, 9, 13, 15, 18, 40 (as the website kindly sorts them into numerical order, I don't know what order they were drawn in). But in drawn order, that sequence of numbers had exactly the same probability of coming up as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Our natural suspicion of the ordered set arises because it makes it more obvious just how unlikely it is that a particularly sequence will be drawn - yet the same goes for the numbers on your ticket. It is ridiculously unlikely that your numbers will be drawn. So why bother? It's a waste of money.

But here's the thing. I play the lottery. Every four weeks I allow myself £10 to play. No more - very tightly controlled. I don't enter the main Lotto draw, but rather the Thunderball draw, which has lower winnings (£500,000 for matching a full set) - but that would be enough to change my life, I don't want to be multi-millionaire, and the lower jackpot comes with better odds. Even so, it's an immense longshot. So why do I do it?

Essentially it's a kind of utility that conventional economics is not very good at reflecting. If the sum involved is so small that I can consider it negligable (we're talking a coffee and cake for two at Starbucks per month), then I can effectively mentally lose it and easily offset it against a very low chance of winning a rather exciting amount. To add to the benefit side of the equation, with this style of play I get a win about once every couple of months. This will inevitably be for between £3 and £10, but there are still a few minutes of delicious anticipation after getting the 'Check your account' email from the National Lottery when it could be oh so much better.

One of the important factors in making the decision to play rational to me is I totally forget about my entry unless I do get one of those emails. I don't anxiously check my numbers. I don't know what my numbers are. As far as I am concerned, once the payment has been made the money has gone, just as if I had spent it on those coffees. That way, any win is pure pleasure, because it has no cost attached to it. Let's face it, the only thing I'm likely to get the day after a visit to Starbucks is indigestion.*

All in all, then, I say pish and tush to those who put down lottery players. If it's done in the right frame of mind, and in a controlled fashion, why not? Of course you aren't going to win the jackpot. But is there anything wrong with having a dream? After all, one thing is certain. If you don't take part you will certainly never win anything.

* This is not casting aspersions on Starbucks, espresso-based coffee always gives me indigestion.

Comments

  1. I'm with you on this one Brian. Compared to the utter banality and disappointment that comes with most products costing a few quid on the high street - such as from coffee chains etc, the occasional frisson from a little flutter appears to be quite good value.

    And if you can apply rationality to such things, using the 'lucky dip' function appears to be the one way of slightly tipping the "expected return on your investment" in your favour as you are less likely to pick numbers that are shared by others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point, M. Canard. Those who try to apply purely monetary values to these transactions know nothing of frissons and flutters.

    I also take the point about the lucky dip function. I either use this or play the game 'can I pick a set of numbers other people wouldn't like,' which can be very entertaining (if you are easily entertained). I don't pick 1,2,3,4,5,6 - though until I recently I assumed no one would pick these, but apparently they're quite popular.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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