h a l f b a k e r y
i v n i n seeks n e t o

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# 1 in 3 Chance Lottery

Real simple, buy a ticket for between \$1 and \$100, you have a 1 in 3 chance of doubling your money
 (+4, -1) [vote for, against]

A variation of Zeuxis' Binary Lottery idea.

The lottery has often been called a stupidity tax. You're not going to win anything but a few moments of false hope. With this lottery however, you play a couple of times, you probably will win.

The biz model is this: Out of every three players buying a 1 dollar ticket, two dollars goes back to one of them and 1 dollar goes to the lottery. Tickets would be available for 1, 5, 10, 50 and \$100.

This model might supply more of what people get from a lottery: excitement. You really do have a pretty good chance of doubling your money, far more than with any other gambling device. Will you net a gain as a regular player? No, but that's not the point of playing the lottery. What IS the point of playing the lottery? I'm not sure.

Anyway, the slogan could be "The more you play, the more you win!" Of course, this would not mean you would win more money, just that you would win more times. If you played 100 times you would win about 33 times. 200 times about 66 etc, so this would just be a play on semantics. However if you've got the moral turpitude to rob from the poor and mentally deficient you probably wouldn't have a problem with this.

So that being said, lotteries are evil tools to take money from stupid people who are probably already poor so I wash my hands of this idea.

Probably been thought of already anyway.

 — doctorremulac3, Jan 06 2014

A variation of this idea Binary_20Lottery
sort of [doctorremulac3, Jan 06 2014]

almost even chance (43%) of no numbers at all...that says it all... [4whom, Jan 06 2014]

 [+] it's a more profitable lottery that mine was - mine was just going to cream off the foam in order to keep itself rolling - and, I figured, that ought to be enough to keep a few people in jobs and a participating bunch of folks entertained.

This one is more expensive for the punter - but vastly more profitable for the administrator!
 — Zeuxis, Jan 06 2014

A better lottery would be one which passed on all its income to good causes. It would invent and publicise fictional lottery winners to make people think there was a chance of winning, but in fact all its income would be used for good causes. The only caveat to this is that the lottery would bank its income for a few days to generate (through interest) enough money to cover running costs.
 — hippo, Jan 06 2014

 //Will you net a gain as a regular player? No, but that's not the point of playing the lottery. What is the point of playing the lottery? I'm not sure.//

 I don't play the lotter, so I don't know. But I think the psychology of it is that you won't miss £1 per day spent on lottery tickets, but a win would change your life.

 Thus, even though you will on average lose money, the balance is between a probable but negligible loss, and an improbable but hugely positive win. Thus, this modified expectation is a positive number.

In the case of a 3:1 lottery, the consequences of winning are almost as negligible as the consequences of losing, and hence there's no incentive.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 06 2014

 //In the case of a 3:1 lottery, the consequences of winning are almost as negligible as the consequences of losing, and hence there's no incentive.//

 I don't know, I've seen people sitting at slot machines playing for hours for what practically amounts to about 1 in 5 or so odds, the bulk of the payoffs being five, ten bucks or so.

But ok, how's this? It's a two layer lottery, 1 in 3 chance of doubling your money, PLUS 1 in 10 million chance of making... whatever, some amount of millions.
 — doctorremulac3, Jan 06 2014

So, basically a red or black bet on a roulette wheel, but with worse odds?
 — MechE, Jan 06 2014

...but without the wheel, yes.
 — doctorremulac3, Jan 06 2014

//sitting at slot machines playing for hours for what practically amounts to about 1 in 5 or so odds// I think those are drug dealers laundering their dirty takings, it is worth the "loss" as a fee to be able to produce a receipt for the cash in their wallet.
 — pocmloc, Jan 06 2014

May I make a suggestion? What about a one in "n" lottery? But with such linear odds we need to make it more interesting. This generalisation may require some thought...
 — 4whom, Jan 06 2014

 inspired by [Zeuxis]' idea, [doctorremulac3]'s variation and [4whom]'s challenge-

 The aleph-1 lottery.

 Pick a real number between 0 and 1.

 The winner(s) of the lottery are he, she or those who choose the number closest to the target number. The target number is generated after the lottery closes using a random length string of random digits. The prize is shared out between all those entries at the closest distance from the target, where distance is the difference between the number and the target.

you therefore also, for added interest, get to find out the distance of your number from the winning number.
 — bhumphrys, Jan 06 2014

 I've heard that the chances of dying on your way to buy a lottery ticket are greater than your chance of winning. This might be used to get poor people to stop wasting what little money they have on such nonsense.

 "If you play the lottery, you'll die before you win."

 Have a gypsy fortune teller be the mascot giving the public service announcement and tell how many people have died on their way to buying their lottery ticket. Exact numbers of people getting killed on the way to buy a lottery ticket might be hard to find so you'd probably have to make them up. "So you think the lottery is worth dying for? Heeeeheheheheh!"

 Maybe that's the better idea, a campaign to tell poor people not to blow what little money they have on gambling. The spot shows a guy walking out of the house holding a dollar with ten screaming kids behind him. "Honey, I'm going to buy a lottery ticket!" Cue screeching brakes, the guy covering his head, then cut to the dollar floating down and landing on the pavement while sirens are heard in the distance.

(voice over) "Your chances of you dying on the way to buy your lottery ticket are greater than of your chances of winning. So, just how lucky do you feel today?" (show the Grim Reaper scratching off a lottery ticket with his scythe and holding it up to the camera to show three pictures of the dead guy's face with Xs for eyes, then it says "I win again!" and does that Buuhhawhwhahahah! laugh) "A public service announcement from the Coalition To Ruin Everybody's Fun"
 — doctorremulac3, Jan 09 2014

How does it diminish your chump quotient if you only win chump change? Lotto has to offer the potential of the diamond stickpin wearing model on each arm strutting Robb Report reading (skimming) fattest of fat catness to attract those hard-earned dollar bills one at a time.
 — bungston, Jan 09 2014

 I'd argue (just for the sake of argument) that getting nothing for your buck is the ultimate chump (ex)change.

 You know when I'd buy these? I'd take them in lieu of change.

 In fact, if I had a Quickie Mart I'd have a little wheel of fortune on the counter and I'd say "Double or nothing your change?" If the change was 2.45 for instance I'd say "Spin the wheel?" If the person wanted to, they spin the wheel and get double (to the nearest dollar) what the change is with a 1 in 3 chance of winning. So they'd get \$5 back. Hell, I'd play that just to eliminate having to get coins back. I think most people would do this.

I think THAT'S the idea here. Think I'll post that.
 — doctorremulac3, Jan 09 2014

 [annotate]

back: main index