A game with a windfall for a knowing few
boston.com
A game with a windfall for a knowing few
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: A game with a windfall for a knowing few
#2Neatly summarized by this comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2320#c...
Re: A game with a windfall for a knowing few
#3State-owned lotteries transfer wealth from one group of people to another group without any coercion. I don't see why private individuals can't participate in the transfers also.
More generally, this is an example of how simple changes (the rolldown) can have surprising consequences. TBQH I'm surprised the lottery operators aren't just keeping the surplus funds rather than doing a "roll down".
Re: A game with a windfall for a knowing few
#4Group buy anyone?
Re: A game with a windfall for a knowing few
#5How come there aren't any lottery start-ups?
Re: A game with a windfall for a knowing few
#6State-owned lotteries transfer wealth from one group of people to another group without any coercion. I don't see why private individuals can't participate in the transfers also. More generally, this is an example of how simple changes (the rolldown) can have surprising consequences. TBQH I'm surprised the lottery operators aren't just keeping the surplus funds rather than doing a "roll down".
They usually have to publish a payout rate, it is a common requirement for most forms of pure chance gambling. If people dont win you need some form of rollup. However if you keep it purely on the single big win it does not lead to schemes like this.
Re: A game with a windfall for a knowing few
#7State-owned lotteries transfer wealth from one group of people to another group without any coercion. I don't see why private individuals can't participate in the transfers also. More generally, this is an example of how simple changes (the rolldown) can have surprising consequences. TBQH I'm surprised the lottery operators aren't just keeping the surplus funds rather than doing a "roll down".
Apparently, this particular lottery was created to pay out a bigger percentage of revenue than other lotteries. That is not entirely a bad idea: if people are going to gamble, it's better that they don't lose too much money.
This particular scheme pays out most of the money to a select few, though, which defeats the point.
Re: A game with a windfall for a knowing few
#8State-owned lotteries transfer wealth from one group of people to another group without any coercion. I don't see why private individuals can't participate in the transfers also. More generally, this is an example of how simple changes (the rolldown) can have surprising consequences. TBQH I'm surprised the lottery operators aren't just keeping the surplus funds rather than doing a "roll down".
Apparently, this particular lottery was created to pay out a bigger percentage of revenue than other lotteries. That is not entirely a bad idea: if people are going to gamble, it's better that they don't lose too much money. This particular scheme pays out most of the money to a select few, though, which defeats the point.
> This particular scheme pays out most of the money to a select few, though, which defeats the point.
Does it? To me the only point of a lottery is for the operator to make a predictable profit; that predictability is why governments like them so much.
Who wins the jackpot is pretty close to irrelevant.
Re: A game with a windfall for a knowing few
#9How come there aren't any lottery start-ups?
Because it is a state-run monopoly in most jurisdictions, and in the remaining ones would likely require a legal staff substantially larger than the programming staff.
Re: A game with a windfall for a knowing few
#10State-owned lotteries transfer wealth from one group of people to another group without any coercion. I don't see why private individuals can't participate in the transfers also. More generally, this is an example of how simple changes (the rolldown) can have surprising consequences. TBQH I'm surprised the lottery operators aren't just keeping the surplus funds rather than doing a "roll down".
They usually have to publish a payout rate, it is a common requirement for most forms of pure chance gambling. If people dont win you need some form of rollup. However if you keep it purely on the single big win it does not lead to schemes like this.
Is the published payout rate based on calculated odds or on the historical payouts made?