h a l f b a k e r yA riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a rich, flaky crust
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
1 in 3 Chance Lottery
Real simple, buy a ticket for between $1 and $100, you have a 1 in 3 chance of doubling your money | |
A variation of Zeuxis' Binary Lottery idea.
The lottery has often been called a stupidity tax. You're
not
going to win anything but a few moments of false hope.
With
this lottery however, you play a couple of times, you
probably will
win.
The biz model is this: Out of every three players
buying a
1
dollar ticket,
two dollars goes back to one of them and 1 dollar goes to
the
lottery. Tickets would be available for 1, 5, 10, 50 and
$100.
This model might supply more of what people get from a
lottery: excitement. You really do have a pretty good
chance
of doubling your money, far more than with any other
gambling device. Will you net a gain as a regular player?
No,
but that's not the point of playing the lottery. What IS
the
point of playing the lottery? I'm not sure.
Anyway, the slogan could be "The more you play, the
more
you win!" Of course, this would not mean you would win
more
money, just that you would win more times. If you
played
100
times you would win about 33 times. 200 times about 66
etc,
so this would just be a play on semantics. However if
you've
got the moral turpitude to rob from the poor and
mentally
deficient you probably wouldn't have a problem with
this.
So that being said, lotteries are evil tools to take money
from
stupid people who are probably already poor so I wash
my
hands of this idea.
Probably been thought of already anyway.
A variation of this idea
Binary_20Lottery
sort of [doctorremulac3, Jan 06 2014]
Loved this...from about the 5 min mark
http://www.youtube....watch?v=U7f8j3mVMbc
almost even chance (43%) of no numbers at all...that says it all... [4whom, Jan 06 2014]
[link]
|
| |
[+] it's a more profitable lottery that mine was - mine
was just going to cream off the foam in order to keep
itself rolling - and, I figured, that ought to be enough
to keep a few people in jobs and a participating bunch
of folks entertained. |
|
| |
This one is more expensive for the punter - but vastly
more profitable for the administrator! |
|
| |
A better lottery would be one which passed on all its income to good causes. It would invent and publicise fictional lottery winners to make people think there was a chance of winning, but in fact all its income would be used for good causes. The only caveat to this is that the lottery would bank its income for a few days to generate (through interest) enough money to cover running costs. |
|
| |
//Will you net a gain as a regular player? No, but
that's not the point of playing the lottery. What is
the point of playing the lottery? I'm not sure.// |
|
| |
I don't play the lotter, so I don't know. But I think
the psychology of it is that you won't miss £1 per
day spent on lottery tickets, but a win would
change your life. |
|
| |
Thus, even though you will on average lose
money, the balance is between a probable but
negligible loss, and an improbable but hugely
positive win. Thus, this modified expectation is a
positive number. |
|
| |
In the case of a 3:1 lottery, the consequences of
winning are almost as negligible as the
consequences of losing, and hence there's no
incentive. |
|
| |
//In the case of a 3:1 lottery, the consequences of winning are almost as negligible as the consequences of losing, and hence there's no incentive.// |
|
| |
I don't know, I've seen people sitting at slot machines playing for hours for what practically amounts to about 1 in 5 or so odds, the bulk of the payoffs being five, ten bucks or so. |
|
| |
But ok, how's this? It's a two layer lottery, 1 in 3 chance of doubling your money, PLUS 1 in 10 million chance of making... whatever, some amount of millions. |
|
| |
So, basically a red or black bet on a roulette wheel,
but with worse odds? |
|
| |
...but without the wheel, yes. |
|
| |
//sitting at slot machines playing for hours for what practically amounts to about 1 in 5 or so odds// I think those are drug dealers laundering their dirty takings, it is worth the "loss" as a fee to be able to produce a receipt for the cash in their wallet. |
|
| |
May I make a suggestion? What about a one in "n" lottery? But with such linear odds we need to make it more interesting. This generalisation may require some thought... |
|
| |
inspired by [Zeuxis]' idea, [doctorremulac3]'s variation and [4whom]'s challenge- |
|
| |
Pick a real number between 0 and 1. |
|
| |
The winner(s) of the lottery are he, she or those who choose the number closest to the target number. The target number is generated after the lottery closes using a random length string of random digits. The prize is shared out between all those entries at the closest distance from the target, where distance is the difference between the number and the target. |
|
| |
you therefore also, for added interest, get to find out the distance of your number from the winning number. |
|
| |
I've heard that the chances of dying on your way to
buy a lottery ticket are greater than your chance of
winning. This might be used to get poor people to
stop
wasting what little money they have on such
nonsense. |
|
| |
"If you play the lottery, you'll die before you win." |
|
| |
Have a gypsy fortune teller be the mascot giving the
public service
announcement and tell how many people have died
on their way to buying their lottery ticket. Exact
numbers of people getting killed on the way to
buy a lottery ticket might be hard to find so you'd
probably have to make them up. "So you
think the lottery is worth dying for?
Heeeeheheheheh!" |
|
| |
Maybe that's the better idea, a campaign to tell poor
people not to blow what little money they have on
gambling. The spot shows a guy walking out of the
house holding a dollar with ten screaming kids
behind him. "Honey,
I'm going to buy a lottery ticket!" Cue screeching
brakes, the guy covering his head, then cut to the
dollar floating down and landing on the pavement
while sirens are heard in the distance. |
|
| |
(voice over) "Your chances of you dying on the way
to buy your lottery ticket are greater than of your
chances of winning.
So, just how lucky do you feel today?" (show the
Grim Reaper scratching off a lottery ticket with his
scythe and holding it up to the camera to show
three pictures of the dead guy's face
with Xs
for eyes, then it says "I win again!" and does that
Buuhhawhwhahahah!
laugh) "A public
service announcement from the Coalition To Ruin
Everybody's Fun" |
|
| |
How does it diminish your chump quotient if you only win chump change? Lotto has to offer the potential of the diamond stickpin wearing model on each arm strutting Robb Report reading (skimming) fattest of fat catness to attract those hard-earned dollar bills one at a time. |
|
| |
I'd argue (just for the sake of argument) that getting
nothing for your buck is the ultimate chump
(ex)change. |
|
| |
You know when I'd buy these? I'd take them in lieu of
change. |
|
| |
In fact, if I had a Quickie Mart I'd have a little wheel
of fortune on the counter and I'd say "Double or
nothing your change?" If the change was 2.45 for
instance I'd say "Spin the wheel?" If the person
wanted to, they spin the wheel and get double (to
the nearest dollar) what the change is with a 1 in 3
chance of winning. So they'd get
$5 back. Hell, I'd play that just to eliminate having to
get coins back. I think most people would do this. |
|
| |
I think THAT'S the idea here. Think I'll post that. |
|
| |