That is actually commonly recommended for exactly that reason. Often right after recommending to not play the lottery at all ;)
I waste lots of money doing things that are fun experiences, or buying unnecessary foods or drinks, or gadgets or toys, etc.
I can understand recommending not to get addicted to playing, or not to spend money that should be going elsewhere, right? But when that admonishment is not qualified, then it is a little silly. Might as well say, never buy extra dip for your french fries or something.
It's true that I haven't bought lottery tickets in years, but spending a few hundred cents on some longshot jackpot can be its own kind of fun.
With extra dip sauce, you clearly value the sauce more than the money in your pocket. The dip tastes good, has calories, and maybe some bad health side effects.
Lotteries lack fundamental value, and the "little thrill" often turns into a bad health side effect.
That said, adults should be free to spend their money how they like. Those giving advice are worried that vulnerable people will get sucked into a "trap", like a gambling addiction.
The framing of dip as having fundamental value because it tastes good only seems to make sense if you already like dip and don't like gambling. Possibly reinforced by some perception that feelings are bad and ought to be ignored, while hard facts like calorie counts and chemical reactions are real and admissible as evidence (this is not meant as a personal attack, it's just something that our society often reinforces).
What if we start on the opposite side of the issue than you did? You get
"What is the value in buying dip? The expected value of the dip itself is negative, relative to its purchase price (the expected value is zero, if you acknowledge that extra calories are not inherently good or bad). So the buyer gets additional value from the 'little thrill' of the eating and tasting of the dip.
"With a lottery ticket, you clearly value the experience of having the ticket more than the money in your pocket. Gambling feels good, creates the possibility of financial gain, and maybe has some bad side effects.
"Junk foods lack fundamental value, and the 'little thrill' often turns into a bad side effect (eating disorders)."
Of course, it's possible for dip to have a much higher expected value if you need those calories, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. So what makes the sensation of enjoying how something tastes have 'fundamental value' and the sensation of enjoying the possibility of financial gain not?
Personally, I view the odds of finding a winning ticket to be only slightly less than buying the winning one, so that's how I play.
If you look at it purely monetarily, it's not rational to play the lottery because you're expected to lose money.
...my once-a-year flutter on the Grand National. Having skin in the game multiplies the excitement of this horse-race, which is already one of the most exciting races there is.
Making selections on a lottery ticket, or rubbing stuff off a scratch-card somehow doesn't have the same appeal; and doesn't give you nearly nearly 10 minutes of fun.
Last time I picked a winner was about 20 years ago. Last time I got a place was at least 6 years ago. I know my money's going down the sewer.
/me not a betting man; apart from the GN, I don't bet on sports; I don't gamble on cards, and I've only once been in a casino. I'm not much of an investor.
[0]: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/saturday-fun-...
> if you could afford to buy several hundred million tickets, the math says you should.
I mean, unless you happen to be filthy rich already.
This is how most VC backed unicorns have worked. The early investors made a lot, but the founders who mostly only risked their time, energy, and opportunity-costed salary made far, far, far better returns.
> What it means is that you would have to play the game for thousands of years with the jackpot being greater than 117 million each time in order to realize a positive expected return.
What lottery was that?
> [0] The probability of winning Mega Millions
If I have a lottery, and you have a 1 in a billion chance to gain 10 billion utility, tickets cost 1 utility. How much of your current utility wealth should you put in?
Classical expected value reasoning would pour in everything, even though you are almost guaranteed bankrupt at the end of that transaction.
The Kelly criterion recommends an exact (small) percentage for this style of lotteries, and is therefore probably more sensible than decision making based on expected values.
Also careful; I believe money-to-utility is already logarithmic for most people. We don't have a good intuition for what "billions of utility vs 1 utility" represents.
Surely after you finish playing one game, the next game you play (even if it's a completely different game) is the second round.
It doesn't if you're a house fly.
Average life expectancy at birth in OECD countries is around 4'000 weeks.
Kelly is equivalent to decision making based on expected values (of the logarithm of wealth).
Maybe you wanted to say "[...] gain 10 billion dollars, tickets cost 1 dollar. How much of your current dollar wealth [...]".
risking pocket change to win big is quasi-reasonable, even though it is a loosing bet. Because you don't notice the downside/drawdowns.
risking more than pocket change is not reasonable, because it is a loosing bet.
NB: I don't play the lottery.