Mega Millions

Quote: Hullabaloo

Probably not a good idea... especially if you get caught.

I would say it is only a bad idea if you get caught.

Quote: Hullabaloo

Probably not a good idea... especially if you get caught.

excerpt:

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/nov/17/news/mn-34537

Wow! She tried to make sure that she wouldn't have to share her Lottery winnings with her husband so she pulled that stunt and now he gets all of her Lottery Winnings. She is a prime example of a Smart Idiot. Hope she enjoys throwing away 25 years of a GOOD marriage for money she doesn't even get a penny of. {<:(

Quote: wizard

I asked this before, but if anyone has suggestions of financial instruments that accept in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars with clearly defined rules, I'm all ears.

Look no farther than CNBC. The stock market has been a game for big players for over a hundred years and very often the player's expectation is positive. The simile was suggested in the book Wall Street The Other Las Vegas by Nicholas Darvas. There are 7,000 stocks traded on American exchanges but I look at only the 2,000 most actively traded ones. I think I could place $100 Billion within three days.

Edward O. Thorp, the same one who discovered advantage play in blackjack, became a hedge fund manager and realized a return of 20% a year using a strategy involving arbitrage. He describes this in his new book A Man For All Markets. With your mathematical skills I think you could do quite well with a little instruction and I would be willing to provide it.

I play the stock market with $100,000 chips and get good executions with market orders. I could play with $1,000,000 chips if I were willing to wait fifteen minutes for a fill. There are also block trading desks that large mutual funds use. Because of the size of my account I pay only $2 per trade commission regardless of the size of the trade.

There is a technique called short selling that isn't used by ordinary investors, but can be profitable when the market goes down. Jesse Livermore made $100 Million in the crash of October 1929 when other traders were losing their shirts. One advantage of stocks sold short is that you don't have to pay for them. All you need is margin money, which can be kept earning interest.

For smaller players there are stock options and futures contracts. These are highly leveraged investments offering large gains (or losses) with a small bet, but they are not so attractive for high rollers because of large commissions.

I have read all of the books on investments but fail to see how Warren Buffett could have made all of his money following his own advice, so all I can learn from Warren Buffett is that I can learn nothing from Warren Buffett.

Sorry to wake up a sleeping thread, although I'm really not sorry.

The Mega Millions jackpot is at $830 million at the time, of this writing. The next drawing is at 11PM EST today.

Using my Lottery Ticket Sales Calculator, I predict 0.66 winners and a probability of 48.06% of at least one winner.

I hope there isn't a winner as it will mean more suckers buying tickets for the next drawing, which means more revenue for the government.

Quote: Wizard

I hope there isn't a winner as it will mean more suckers buying tickets for the next drawing, which means more revenue for the government.

You are wrong on both counts.

(1) Spending $2 on a ticket is not being a "sucker":

(a) If you get ≥$2 worth of enjoyment out of it. When you spend money on movies, bowling, or shows you don't get any of that money back, but nobody calls it being a "sucker".

(b) Because the total loss in other games is even more, which I've told you many times, but which you always ignore. According to the video below, in one state lottery players lost an average of $106/year, while slots/VP players lost $2564.

Incidentally, this means you've wrongly insulted every person on this forum who buys a lottery ticket.

(2) Lotteries don't generate extra money for the government, especially for education. Once a state passes a lottery, they reduce taxes in other areas so their education budget isn't any higher than it was pre-lottery.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

You are wrong on both counts.

(1) Spending $2 on a ticket is not being a "sucker":

(a) If you get ≥$2 worth of enjoyment out of it. When you spend money on movies, bowling, or shows you don't get any of that money back, but nobody calls it being a "sucker".

When I go to the movies or bowling, I am paying for a service. Nobody calls those who do suckers, because the service costs money to provide. However, if someone gets >=$2 worth of fun playing the lottery, then good for them. However, I've asked many people why they buy lottery tickets and they never say it's for the fun, but for the money, as if it is an educated risk.

Quote:

(b) Because the total loss in other games is even more, which I've told you many times, but which you always ignore. According to the video below, in one state lottery players lost an average of $106/year, while slots/VP players lost $2564.

I don't condone playing slots recreationally either. However, at least machine players get much more time playing than lottery players.

Quote:

Incidentally, this means you've wrongly insulted every person on this forum who buys a lottery ticket.

Per forum rules, one can make insulting generalizations as long as they don't single out particular people. However, if you wish to press charges, please do with with another moderator and I will accept their ruling

Quote:

(2) Lotteries don't generate extra money for the government, especially for education. Once a state passes a lottery, they reduce taxes in other areas so their education budget isn't any higher than it was pre-lottery.]

All other things being equal, lotteries bring in additional revenue. If lotteries mean taxes are reduced in other areas, which I don't dispute, then good for me and the others who don't play.

By the way, you didn't format your YouTube clip correctly. With your permission, I will fix your post.

Quote: Wizard

Sorry to wake up a sleeping thread, although I'm really not sorry.

The Mega Millions jackpot is at $830 million at the time, of this writing. The next drawing is at 11PM EST today.

Using my Lottery Ticket Sales Calculator, I predict 0.66 winners and a probability of 48.06% of at least one winner.

I hope there isn't a winner as it will mean more suckers buying tickets for the next drawing, which means more revenue for the government.
link to original post

A bit of interesting tax trivia...for UK citizens, lottery winnings, if won in the UK or in a country with which the UK has a tax treaty (the US is one), are tax free income.

This would seem to imply that for a UK citizen, MegaMillions at this level would be a fair bet.

Quote: Wizard

When I go to the movies or bowling, I am paying for a service. Nobody calls those who do suckers, because the service costs money to provide. However, if someone gets >=$2 worth of fun playing the lottery, then good for them. However, I've asked many people why they buy lottery tickets and they never say it's for the fun, but for the money, as if it is an educated risk.

I bought a $2 ticket and I definitely get $2 worth of entertainment from it just "planning" on how I will spend it.

Quote: UP84

This would seem to imply that for a UK citizen, MegaMillions at this level would be a fair bet.
link to original post

I'm not a tax expert, but I would interpret that to mean you would still have to pay US taxes, but not get hit again in the UK.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: MichaelBluejay

(2) Lotteries don't generate extra money for the government, especially for education. Once a state passes a lottery, they reduce taxes in other areas so their education budget isn't any higher than it was pre-lottery.]

All other things being equal, lotteries bring in additional revenue. If lotteries mean taxes are reduced in other areas, which I don't dispute, then good for me and the others who don't play.
link to original post

I don't think that's what he meant by "reduce taxes in other areas." I think he meant to say that they reduce tax spending in other areas.

Case in point: when California started its lottery in 1984 or so, it was stressed that about 1/3 of the revenues would go to education. However, the money in the state budget that went to education in previous years was reduced by about the same amount; for all intents and purposes, the lottery money went into the state's general fund.