Doug Semler wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:48 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how these stats are derived. I've been reading stats
all my life for this and for that. If there's one thing I've learned
about statistics it's that they can be skewed in just about any
direction desired by the manipulation of the micros involved to produce
the macros desired.
Another thing about statistics; take gambling as a perfect example.
There is an extremely high possibility that someone will win the
lottery. This is what motivates those who play the lottery.
On the other hand, the odds that the someone who wins will be you is
quite another matter.
It always amazes me that people insist on using the first analogy
instead of the second when considering a play on the lottery.
My wife and I have been playing the lottery game in abstentia for many
years. Each day we IMAGINE we have played our house and phone number to
the tune of a 2 dollar lottery ticket. We started doing this in 1965. It
is now 2007. We have played this "game" for 42 years based on the second
analogy of us NOT being the number that comes up.
As of today, we have placed 42 years worth of ticket bets at 365x2= 730
dollars a year x 42 years= 30,660 dollars worth of lottery tickets.
We haven't won naturally, but by using an unskewed statistic, we have
SAVED $30,660 dollars by NOT buying lottery tickets!
Not bad really. I enjoy playing the lottery :-))
Dudley Henriques



One point I would make, Dudley, and that is that your statistic is
still slightly "skewed." Although that I agree that you have "saved"
30,000-some-odd dollars, you have placed an inherint assumption in
your "statisitic" that you will NEVER win. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the lottery is not a
zero sum game. Your statisitic has not taken into consideration any
winnings that your 42 years of "ticket buying" would have produced.
However, because of the fact that the ODDS are sufficiently low, I
guess you could consider the skew close enough to zero to not consider
it.

Either way, it is just another example of how statistical data is
subject to interpretation, and further explains why statisticians have
jobs g


I agree with you. There is always the chance of a win. What we have done
is just as you have said; play the potential gain of money saved against
the possibility of money won. The "stats" were deemed so slim that
playing was never an option.
I should add that so far, this logic model has proven to have been correct.
Naturally, I assume I will be royally ****ed off if I die next Tuesday
and the numbers come up on Wednesday :-))
DH