Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Doug Semler wrote:

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

"Statistically" buying a lottery ticket doesn't increase you chance of
winning. i.e. The chance of winning isn't increased enough to be relevant
"Statistically".

Depends on how you look at it "statistically".

If you don't buy, the chance of winning is zero.

If you do buy, the chance of winning is a non-zero number.

So you've essentially increased the odds by an infinite amount...

Aren't statistics fun?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.