Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 230 posts

Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous

#81

Post by giarc »

joezydeco wrote: post #75
throw7 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the moral is... do not talk/sign/call/anything, walk, no run, to a good lawyer well versed in the area of: "I've just won the lottery, please help."

A lot of people are cheated out of their winning each year by sales clerks that check the ticket, tell the buyer "nope, it's a loser", then pull the ticket out of the trash once the buyer has left. Signing the back upon purchase is a strong defense against this fraud. So it's not as black-and-white as it seems.

I can only talk about Canada, but in both Ontario and western Canada they scan your ticket and an audible sound is made if you are a winner (or loser). For both winners and non-winners, a receipt prints out and the clerk gives you both.

Additionally there is a self scan kiosk where you can check your ticket. And there's always publicly listed winning numbers.

Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous

#83

Post by LaGrange »

wgerard wrote: post #6

I hope she wins. There's a pretty funny (or sad, I suppose) reddit comment about winning the lottery that seems pretty true: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_... Winning the lottery (publicly, at least) seems to be a real monkey's paw wish.

> If you are really paranoid, you might consider picking another G7 or otherwise mainstream country other than the U.S. according to where you want to live if the United States dissolves into anarchy or Britney Spears is elected to the United States Senate.

Ah, 2014. Such a bright, optimistic time to be alive.

Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous

#84

Post by PaulRobinson »

jonbarker wrote: post #59

Related: I wonder if any analysis on the life outcomes of another jackpot system, "sold company for a windfall", have been done. I appreciate the bad lotto result stories because they confirm my correct bias that lotto should not be played because it is a tax on not understanding probability (except at about 350M for powerball, in which case your enemy is not expected value but variance). However, no such analysis se…

As somebody who lived as a professional gambler for a while, I would agree that your assessment of value of most lotteries is correct: they are poor value and should be avoided.

However, we're not expecting people to deploy Kelly criterion here, nobody is playing lotto for EV and a need to maximise returns on known value parameters.

But I play lotto. And I know all this more than most. I have literally paid my rent with money earned from understanding this and exploiting it. WTF am I doing playing poor odd games?

When you're playing $5k to win $5k on something where you think true odds are more like 55% in your favour, you are doing so most likely knowing $5k is 10% of your total bank (based on Kelly), and that you're 45% likely to lose. You're going to hopefully play over and over again and in the long run make money.

When you're playing $2 to win $100m, do you actually care?

The $2 is likely such a tiny part of your bank that you could literally lose it down the back of the sofa and not care, but the payout is so large and life-changing, that not having access to that very remote possibility - given the cost is so tiny and marginal and unnoticeable - is short-sighted.

Yes, the maths don't work from a probability angle, but arguing that playing the lottery is a tax on ignorance is juvenile and short-sighted. Optimising your bank at that level is like trying to make sure you don't leave a single grain of rice on your plate at dinner.

The maths of starting a business are pretty harsh, the costs of failure are higher and yet still, many people choose to do it. Are they fools? Perhaps. But they consider the cost and potential payouts to be worth it.

See the bigger picture from time to time.

Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous

#85

Post by jvagner »

nebulous1 wrote: post #21

The lottery/state officials' story seems to be somewhat at odds with itself. They say that they have to be open (makes sense) but they also allow you to claim via an anonymous trust, but she can't do that because she signed it. Feels like they could privately identify her to make sure she's the name on the ticket and then do the public part via a trust. This might not fit the way the relevant laws are written, but th…

Because the lottery commission isn't responsible for the legalities of the anonymous trust, state law is.

They don't want to be involved in that, but they're willing to use an externally valid mechanism, which they can't influence.

Personally, there was a way to stay anonymous, and she goofed it up. No sense in changing the system for someone who can't help themselves.

The lottery commission shouldn't be allowed to hide results.

Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous

#86

Post by rabidrat »

wahern wrote: post #61
wyldfire wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She can't do that either. But, why? Because she accidentally signed the ticket before realizing that it invalidated that option? She holds the winning ticket, just let her redact her signature from it legitimately and claim her winnings.

The question is whether the law establishing the lottery permits that, and if so what clear limits the court can put into place so that the agency operating the lottery doesn't have to contend with too many complex scenarios that could ultimately result. Money attracts litigation, especially when the rules aren't crystal clear. It sucks for this woman, but technically she could always forgo the winnings altogether. N…

If she forgoes the winnings she should at least get the ticket price refunded.

Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous

#88

Post by [deleted] »

kodablah wrote: post #73
baddox wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see the value in sticking to this legal technicality. She could have accepted the ticket using an anonymous trust, but since she signed it with her own name instead, she’s not allowed to change it. Since anonymous trusts are already legal there, there’s no threat of “losing openness.” I mean come on, that’s such a petty technicality for such a massive life event. Just let her set up the anonymous trust and mo…

I don't really appreciate skirting "technicalities", especially in a precedent-setting legal decision. If the law is wrong (or even if the spirit/intent of the law does not apply here), she should win and the law should change or be struck down. I wouldn't mind if the judge decided "it's illegal to make someone who signed a lottery ticket with their real name not change to a trust and keep their name hidden." But I w…

[deleted]

Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous

#89

Post by pronoiac »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #20
wgerard wrote: post #6

I hope she wins. There's a pretty funny (or sad, I suppose) reddit comment about winning the lottery that seems pretty true: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_... Winning the lottery (publicly, at least) seems to be a real monkey's paw wish.

Note: The text of this comments is (AFAIK) originally from this 2008 forum post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-749519/

Heh, and that was a user reposting their previous comment: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____What...

Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous

#90

Post by bonestamp2 »

Pharylon wrote: post #16
Waterluvian wrote: post #5

My understanding is that the lotto wants free advertising at the cost of the winners being made very public. It seems like this individual is doing a tremendous public service by taking this to court. I think most of us would balk at the risk of somehow losing the millions of dollars.

The point of it is to avoid fraud.

They allow trusts though, so they just need to let her replace her signature with the name of a trust and everybody is happy.
Post reply on HN