Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicgrev103 | Hacker News Reader

People pay for a lottery ticket to dream about what their life could be like if they won (similar to people who never launch that buiness idea). Many people derive a lot of happiness from this, moreover (in the uk) a large proportion of the takings goes to good causes and people generally accept it is extremely unlikely they will win but instead of just donating to charity they at least have a slim chance of a massive gain.

View on HN

> People pay for a lottery ticket to dream about what their life could be like if they won (similar to people who never launch that buiness idea).

That might describe the median player, but I doubt it describes the median ticket. It only takes one ticket per draw to dream of winning, but many players purchase multiples. That suggests that they are motivated by something other than the entertainment of fantasy.

But buying 10 tickets means your odds are 10x higher! /s

10 times a number approximating zero is still a number approximating zero.

The thinking that changed me is that my odds of winning are approximately the same whether I buy a ticket or not.

eh, I wouldn't consider possible and not possible approximately the same no matter how close they are.

> That suggests that they are motivated by something other than the entertainment of fantasy.

My father purchases multiple tickets, but he has no system and is clearly doing it for the high of hope.

When the pool gets deep into the 9 figure territory, a group of us from work (and a few alumni) pool some money and buy tickets to the "one in a million" level of odds (around $600 for the pool).

That doesn't change that the primary value is in the bonding and fantasy; we're not doing it because it's a rational/+EV investment.

I'm not so sure. If they're buying multiple back to back, they're still getting another little "I might win" dopamine hit with each one - decreasing perhaps, but still not zero. Same thing you see with casino gamblers. Buying multiple at the same instant is harder to explain. Maybe they're getting a slightly bigger hit because their odds are (almost infinitesimally better), but that's inefficient use of funds even compared to the quick-succession method.

> moreover (in the uk) a large proportion of the takings goes to good causes

We have charity lottery things in the US too but those aren't the tickets you buy if you're trying to win.

We generally pretend that state lotteries fund schools but then take away normal funding in similar amounts...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com