Hacker News Reader

Comment by jallen_dot_dev | Hacker News Reader

Great analysis. I want to share my thoughts on EV because they seem to go against what pretty much everyone else is saying. I think even if the EV was >$2, it would still be irrational to play. I say this because I think it's silly to talk about the EV of buying a single ticket when the odds of winning are 1 in 300 million.

Like, you still aren't going to win the jackpot. Your odds didn't improve just because the jackpot got bigger. I guarantee you are going to find out tonight that you wasted $2, just as you would have wasted $2 at any other time when the jackpot is/was smaller.

I think it's just people rationalizing what they know is an irrational behavior. They're fooling themselves into believing they are making a rational choice because they want in on the fun/excitement despite paying the "poor tax."

Anyway, good luck to anyone who decided to buy a ticket and enjoy a few hours of fantasizing about what you'd do with the winnings :)

View on HN

Most of what you're describing is captured by the Kelly Criterion: it tells you the "optimal" fraction of your bankroll you should bet to maximize returns given the odds and EV. For a game with positive EV and 1 in 300M odds, you should be betting a very small fraction of your overall bankroll -- well below $2 for anyone not already in the 0.01% wealth bracket. So indeed, it would be irrational (suboptimal) to participate in the lottery unless you were already very wealthy.

Even beyond the Kelly Criteria, you could also tweak your EV based on the marginal utility of a dollar -- i.e. going from $0 in savings to $10M would have a massive impact on your quality of life, whereas 10x'ing from there ($100M) would provide marginal additional benefit comparatively. Thus, (ignoring Kelly) the "quality of life EV" for a $10M jackpot with 1 in 5M odds is vastly better than a $100M jackpot with 1 in 50M odds despite having the same EV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

Nice, I had heard of the Kelly Criterion before but never thought to consider applying it to this situation. It's fantastic if the mathematically correct amount to wager (for any ordinary person) is less than $2 which rounds to 0 tickets which supports my intuition to not play.

Your second paragraph touches on another thought I had, which is why people think it's only worthwhile to play when the jackpot is $600M+. Any of us would be happy to win just $20M so why not play for every jackpot? Again it comes down to that misleading EV calculation, which I believe doesn't even matter if you are only going to buy 1 ticket only. Wagering based on the EV would only make sense if it was feasible to buy on the order of 100M tickets. Then you'd have a reasonable shot of winning each jackpot. And playing enough jackpots, you would come out ahead.

They say you can't win if you don't play (pay). But that's not true! There is an epsilon chance that someone dropped their lottery ticket and the wind blew it away and they gave up in getting it back and while taking your groceries to your vehicle in a parking lot it blows by you and you pick it up. And there's an epsilon prime chance that it will be the winning ticket. So there is an epsilon times epsilon prime chance that you win the lottery without actually playing (paying inti) it. ;)

I like to say that your odds don't significantly change if you pay for a ticket or not. Both non-zero but very close.

You could flip the perspective and look at it as helping out the winner.

Still for most people, their biggest return is being able to day dream for 5 minutes what it would be like to win.

Totally. And it becomes a cultural phenomenon - neighbors and coworkers are chatting about it … you want to be part of that moment. Here’s what I wonder - what is the maximum frequency of big media hyped jackpots? Would we all do this again next week, next month? I don’t think so. Maybe next year?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com