Lotto Winner Miserable - Life an absolute living hell.

[Kyuu]

Actually in America, most people who play the lottery don't play for amusement, they play expecting that it will eventually pan out.

I'm not sure Sander was arguing the contrary, but you are right. The lotto isn't really an entertainment device. People play because it's only a couple bucks, and they believe (or at least hope very fervently) that it will pan out at some point. Of course, for the vast, vast majority of people, they only lose a few thousand dollars over the course of their lifetime (that's an estimate off the top of my head, I dunno the actual figure for a lifetime player), and never see much, if any, return.

Of course, lottos do raise a helluva lot of money for public schools, which is why state governments let them run in the first place.

And those in the lowest income brackets probably do actually spend more playing the lotto, as they're the most desperate (which is what I meant to say with my "$100 to spare" comment before). Most middle- or upper-class are comfortable enough financially that they don't feel the need to sink money into it (I believe, I don't know any actual statistics).

 

[quietfanatic]

But lotto is not gambling? Middle-class and very wealthy people can blow ridiculous amounts of money at say, the races or casino, rather than using a little ol' lotto ticket. But for them it is acceptable entertainment? Lotto is a calculated risk that does have entertainment value, using excess funds. A bit of thrill and excitement to liven life up a bit, even a dose of hope and optimism for the price of a cup of coffee.

Gambling can also have social and cultural significance.

A much larger problem we have here is with people addicted to poker machines (and many other forms of gambling). They do see money occasionally, which just makes things worse.

I believe that the majority of lotto players are not addicted. Most are well aware that the chances of winning are remote, but they decide to take the risk. That might not be a wise financial move, but painting them as chumps is more than a little unfair.

It could make sense that people who take unacceptably high financial risks might be more likely to be poor money managers, but they would not be gambling primarily because they are poor.

 

[Sander]

But lotto is not gambling? Middle-class and very wealthy people can blow ridiculous amounts of money at say, the races or casino, rather than using a little ol' lotto ticket. But for them it is acceptable entertainment?

It still has a negative expected value. You will not, ever, win with it in the long run unless you are lucky. It isn't 'calculated risk', it's stupid risk.

Lotto is a calculated risk that does have entertainment value, using excess funds. A bit of thrill and excitement to liven life up a bit, even a dose of hope and optimism for the price of a cup of coffee.

Gambling can also have social and cultural significance.

A much larger problem we have here is with people addicted to poker machines (and many other forms of gambling). They do see money occasionally, which just makes things worse.

I believe that the majority of lotto players are not addicted. Most are well aware that the chances of winning are remote, but they decide to take the risk. That might not be a wise financial move, but painting them as chumps is more than a little unfair.

Why? They take a nonsenical risk that'll only lose them money in the hope that they get lucky. That's pretty chump-like to me.

 

[quietfanatic]

Doing the stats you will obviously always lose in the real long term. But my point is that hope and excitement itself can have value. The magical thought that someone has to win, and it could be you.

To go into extreme generalisation/analogy, one might do something for entertainment that isn't practically useful. One is not criticised because the intention is to gain amusement, even if at a small price. Now if that past-time is gambling and involves a negative expected value, that doesn't magically remove entertainment as an important motivating factor and reward.

 

[Kyuu]

But my point is that hope and excitement itself can have value. The magical thought that someone has to win, and it could be you.

Yes, but this is mostly the vehicle by which susceptible people are taken advantage of, because it's mostly self-delusion.

One is not criticised because the intention is to gain amusement, even if at a small price. Now if that past-time is gambling and involves a negative expected value, that doesn't magically remove entertainment as an important motivating factor and reward.

True, perhaps, but even if it's argued as a form of entertainment, it provides very little return for your money. After all, how much excitement can even the most excitable person get? About 30 seconds worth while they're watching the number-balls fall out of the machine? The only thing I can imagine with a crappier entertainment-to-money-put-in-ratio would be slot machines. Put a dollar in, watch the dials spin for a few seconds, lose, put another dollar in, rinse and repeat ad infinitum...

 

[welsh]

For those interested-

here is a story from a guy who used to be in the business of talking lottery winners into accepting lump sum payments for their winners. He talked to thousands of lottery winners and the majority are less happy after winning than before.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=329

The thing about money is this- for its own sake its just gold. It's not the gold that matters but what you do with it.

 

[quietfanatic]

As I said, the pokies (slot machines) can be much more dangerous and conducive to the development of addictive behaviour. There are flashing lights, rapidly moving images, sound, the potential illusion of more interactivity, importantly with a much higher rate of turn over. As one can potentially go again and again, there is a much better chance that one will see the gold clinking into your hands in a relatively short amount of time, although you would have likely spent enormous sums.

EDIT: Coincidentally in the news just now, Russel Crow and friends are pushing to have the pokies removed from the premises of their rugby club. I hope it works out well.

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

As I said, the pokies (slot machines) can be much more dangerous and conducive to the development of addictive behaviour. There are flashing lights, rapidly moving images, sound, the potential illusion of more interactivity, importantly with a much higher rate of turn over. As one can potentially go again and again, there is a much better chance that one will see the gold clinking into your hands in a relatively short amount of time, although you would have likely spent enormous sums.

Newsflash: Shiny lights cause weak-minded creatures to become obsessed with them.

Flies, mosquitos, ravens, gamblers, etc.