![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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". |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
wrote: Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote: "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? Remove .spam.sux to reply. Not buying the ticket does not reduce your chance of winning to ZERO. There is also a chance that will find the winning ticket on the ground outside of a C-store. The probablility that you will find a ticket AND that the ticket is a winner is so small that by buying a ticket you've increased your odds by slightly less than infinity. It all boils down to the fact that the chance for any individual of winning the lottery is so small that coming up with fun little statically silly nuggets about it and the thoughts of what you'd do with the winnings are really the only thing one can hope to gain from them. A movie costs $12 and lasts about 90 minutes. A lotto ticket costs $1 and I can daydream about the planes I'd buy with $30,000.000 for days. It's cheap entertainment. It all boils down to the fact that they are a tax on people who are really bad a math. Well, I didn't get much beyond partial differential equations, so you may have a point. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A movie costs $12 and lasts about 90 minutes.
A lotto ticket costs $1 and I can daydream about the planes I'd buy with $30,000.000 for days. It's cheap entertainment. Add the fact that it is better for your health than drinking, and it pretty much sums up my feelings about the issue as well. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics | Kingfish | Piloting | 192 | June 19th 06 07:06 PM |
reporting dangerous aircraft | [email protected] | General Aviation | 4 | October 20th 05 09:15 AM |
Okay, so maybe flying *is* dangerous... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 51 | August 31st 05 03:02 AM |
Dangerous Stuff | [email protected] | Rotorcraft | 21 | July 16th 05 05:55 PM |
Flying - third most dangerous occupation | David CL Francis | Piloting | 16 | October 22nd 03 02:38 AM |