Mega Millions

Quote: ThatDonGuy

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.

I think that is very typical. It is easy to sell it when you say it is going for education but they don't tell you that they are removing previous funding for education.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

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.
link to original post

I don't dispute that and have heard the same thing.

At the end of the day, if I donate money to Uncle Sam, then either the government can spend more, lower taxes, or some combination. Whatever way, it's good for taxpayers. I don't care that much about the shell game of what government entity gets money from what source.

Quote: Wizard

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.
link to original post

No. A UK citizen does not have to pay US taxes on US lottery earrings.

Quote: UP84

No. A UK citizen does not have to pay US taxes on US lottery earrings.

Why would anyone buy lottery earrings?

Quote: Wizard

{snip}
At the end of the day, if I donate money to Uncle Sam, then either the government can spend more, lower taxes, or some combination. Whatever way, it's good for taxpayers. I don't care that much about the shell game of what government entity gets money from what source.
link to original post

Money is fungible. That's all you have to remember. All money is fungible.

Quote: UP84

No. A UK citizen does not have to pay US taxes on US lottery earrings.
link to original post

It is possible I was wrong.

Quote: Wizard

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 propose that you misunderstood their answer. "For the money" doesn't mean they think they have a good shot of winning, but rather that the feeling of the *chance* to win a lot of money is the entertainment.

Quote: Wizard

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

It's the same for every casino game, not just slots. You would never call blackjack players suckers even though they lose more money than lotto players.

Also, time spent is not the best measure of entertainment. A zip line ride lasts 1-3 minutes while a movie lasts about 90. It's apples and oranges. And I get more entertainment out of a single lottery ticket purchase than an hour of blackjack.

Nobody hit the jackpot. Estimated next jackpot of $1.02b (602.5m cash option).

Quote: unJon

Nobody hit the jackpot. Estimated next jackpot of $1.02b (602.5m cash option).
link to original post

Yay! More donations to the government.

At a jackpot of $1.02 billion, I estimate for the next drawing:

Tickets sold: 248.35 million
Number winners: 0.82
Probability of 1+ winners: 56%.

Quote: unJon

Nobody hit the jackpot. Estimated next jackpot of $1.02b (602.5m cash option).
link to original post

How much goes to government out of each ticket sold?
Does it vary by state?
Do all states have the same distribution?

Thanks.

Edited to add:

Just did some research.

About 55% to 60% is paid to winners big and small.
About 10% of sales keeps the lottery business going.
Remaining revenue can go to education or general funds and it varies by state.

Nevada of course doesnt participate.

California uses all lottery profits for education with a huge majority of the money going to K-12 schools. Little goes to higher ed.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Wizard

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 propose that you misunderstood their answer. "For the money" doesn't mean they think they have a good shot of winning, but rather that the feeling of the *chance* to win a lot of money is the entertainment.

Quote: Wizard

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

It's the same for every casino game, not just slots. You would never call blackjack players suckers even though they lose more money than lotto players.

Also, time spent is not the best measure of entertainment. A zip line ride lasts 1-3 minutes while a movie lasts about 90. It's apples and oranges. And I get more entertainment out of a single lottery ticket purchase than an hour of blackjack.
link to original post

MB probably has me blocked. I don't buy lottery tickets, but I think I kinda agree with this. The entertainment comes from all the daydreaming people do about what they would do with the money if they were to win.

I usually only play if there is an office pool going. It's a $2 insurance policy against me being the only one who has to come to work the next day!

Do any of these EV calculations factor in the "second chance" drawings?

I start out daydreaming about real estate, super cars and exotic travel, but then I envision the headaches. How much should I help that distant relative who’s going through a tough time? When I do, how many other relatives will feel entitled? What about trust funds? Do I need a big time money manager? Will he rip me off?
I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong with me.

Just be like Oprah. "Here's $15,000!" for everyone you care about.
But I hear beef might be $100/pound by 2024.

Quote: JimRockford

I start out daydreaming about real estate, super cars and exotic travel, but then I envision the headaches. How much should I help that distant relative who’s going through a tough time? When I do, how many other relatives will feel entitled? What about trust funds? Do I need a big time money manager? Will he rip me off?
I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong with me.
link to original post

buy lotto tix in a state that doesnt require releasing your identity.
if you win, tell only your wife and have her tell noone!

Quote: 100xOdds

Quote: JimRockford

I start out daydreaming about real estate, super cars and exotic travel, but then I envision the headaches. How much should I help that distant relative who’s going through a tough time? When I do, how many other relatives will feel entitled? What about trust funds? Do I need a big time money manager? Will he rip me off?
I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong with me.
link to original post

buy lotto tix in a state that doesnt require releasing your identity.
if you win, tell only your wife and have her tell noone!
link to original post

Husband: Honey, I hit the lotto. Pack your bags!

Wife: Should I pack warm clothes or cold?

Husband: I don’t give a %#*$@ just get out of here.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: unJon

Nobody hit the jackpot. Estimated next jackpot of $1.02b (602.5m cash option).
link to original post

Yay! More donations to the government.

At a jackpot of $1.02 billion, I estimate for the next drawing:

Tickets sold: 248.35 million
Number winners: 0.82
Probability of 1+ winners: 56%.
link to original post

Sorry, Wiz, but I hope I am the 0.82. I know, I shouldn't, but I do it when the jackpot is high. Greedy, I don't want to share.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Wizard

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 propose that you misunderstood their answer. "For the money" doesn't mean they think they have a good shot of winning, but rather that the feeling of the *chance* to win a lot of money is the entertainment.

Quote: Wizard

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

It's the same for every casino game, not just slots. You would never call blackjack players suckers even though they lose more money than lotto players.

Also, time spent is not the best measure of entertainment. A zip line ride lasts 1-3 minutes while a movie lasts about 90. It's apples and oranges. And I get more entertainment out of a single lottery ticket purchase than an hour of blackjack.
link to original post

Great post. I organized a pool for ~70 coworkers the last time the jackpot went over a billion. It generated quite the buzz at our workplace and I think everyone was satisfied with the entertainment value they received from their $10 investment. Wiz doesn't get it.

Quote: unJon

Quote: 100xOdds

Quote: JimRockford

I start out daydreaming about real estate, super cars and exotic travel, but then I envision the headaches. How much should I help that distant relative who’s going through a tough time? When I do, how many other relatives will feel entitled? What about trust funds? Do I need a big time money manager? Will he rip me off?
I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong with me.
link to original post

buy lotto tix in a state that doesnt require releasing your identity.
if you win, tell only your wife and have her tell noone!
link to original post

Husband: Honey, I hit the lotto. Pack your bags!

Wife: Should I pack warm clothes or cold?

Husband: I don’t give a %#*$@ just get out of here.
link to original post

Or, conversely...

Quote: JimRockford

I start out daydreaming about real estate, super cars and exotic travel, but then I envision the headaches. How much should I help that distant relative who’s going through a tough time? When I do, how many other relatives will feel entitled? What about trust funds? Do I need a big time money manager? Will he rip me off?
I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong with me.
link to original post

The simple answer is to cut out all communication with relatives prior to winning. Then there will be no expectation if you win.

Quote: DRich

Quote: JimRockford

I start out daydreaming about real estate, super cars and exotic travel, but then I envision the headaches. How much should I help that distant relative who’s going through a tough time? When I do, how many other relatives will feel entitled? What about trust funds? Do I need a big time money manager? Will he rip me off?
I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong with me.
link to original post

The simple answer is to cut out all communication with relatives prior to winning. Then there will be no expectation if you win.
link to original post

Have an explanation for everything. I'm house sitting for a multimillionaire. Or, I finally cashed out all that change I found in the couch cushions. I got a job at an exotic car dealership. It's not my island. I wonder who lives there. They left the door open. The dog is friendly.

Quote: unJon

Nobody hit the jackpot. Estimated next jackpot of $1.02b (602.5m cash option)

Quote: Wizard

Yay! More donations to the government.

Casino gambling is taxed too, but you don't see the Wizard cheering about how casino play means "more" money for the government.

Though again, it's never "more" money for the government, because when gambling taxes increase they cut other taxes (like corporate taxes), which is why even though "money for education" is the promise of lottery and casino expansion, the reality is that spending on education typically remains flat or even decreases after a state adopts a lottery. (Below is the video on that, since the link didn't work the first time I posted it.) Works the same way in Nevada, where despite the enormous gambling tax revenue, the state ranks 44th out of 50 for spending per student.

Quote:

Yay! More donations to the government.

Ha.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Casino gambling is taxed too, but you don't see the Wizard cheering about how casino play means "more" money for the government.
link to original post

I have stock in casinos and hope those stocks do well. However, what's more important to me than that is my love of math. I see every casino game as a math problem. If the question is "What bets offer the worst odds?" The lottery would certainly be on that list. Others on the list would be obscure bets I've seen here and there that probably don't exist any longer.

Few have done more than me to disabuse the public that lottery tickets are a good bet. I've been writing for over 20 years what a terrible bet they are. However, I recognize that I can't save everybody. If a consenting adult still wants to play the lottery, then I say "thank you." That is more revenue to the government, which means less taxes I have to pay. Much like I thank the recreational gamblers who play at the casino groups whom I own stock in.

Quote: Wizard

If the question is "What bets offer the worst odds?" The lottery would certainly be on that list.

Exactly: you're asking the wrong question. You ignore both the intangible value a player gets as well as the context. (A lotto play is $1-2, and people playing the games with "good odds" lose more than lotto players.) I have a whole article on this kind of spurious argument: https://easy.vegas/gambling/lottery

Quote: Wizard

Few have done more than me to disabuse the public that lottery tickets are a good bet.

Well then, congratulations on championing a point that everyone already knows. Nobody plays lotto because they think the odds are good. That's not why they play.

Quote: Wizard

I've been writing for over 20 years what a terrible bet they are. However, I recognize that I can't save everybody.

That's some serious chutzpah, seeing yourself as some kind of hero, "saving" people from losing a tiny amount of money on lotto, while promoting games at which they'll actually lose more money (despite the better odds, because the bets are higher and the play is longer).

Instead of saving people, you do the exact opposite: In your Texas Lottery article, you advise people to throw their money away on the Extra option for Lotto Texas, because it has a lower edge than the base game, as though that matters. The only reason that people play lotto is for the chance of winning the top jackpot, but the Extra option neither improves the chances of winning nor increases the top jackpot amount. As such, the Extra option (which increases only the smaller prizes) is a waste of money for lotto players. It's amazing that you don't understand why people play lotto in the first place, and that's why you come up with bad conclusions.

If you cringe at any of this, remember that you fired the first shot by calling me and all other lotto players "suckers".

Quote: Wizard

If a consenting adult still wants to play the lottery, then I say "thank you." That is more revenue to the government, which means less taxes I have to pay. Much like I thank the recreational gamblers who play at the casino groups whom I own stock in.

And notably, proving my earlier point, you didn't thank the casino gamblers for "donating" "more" money to the government. You save that kind of thanks only for lotto players.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

And notably, proving my earlier point, you didn't thank the casino gamblers for "donating" "more" money to the government. You save that kind of thanks only for lotto players.
link to original post

I also thank tourists who come to Las Vegas and contribute to our economy, whether casino gamblers or not. Otherwise, I will let you have the last word, as I have nothing new to add to the topic.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Wizard

Few have done more than me to disabuse the public that lottery tickets are a good bet.

Well then, congratulations on championing a point that everyone already knows. Nobody plays lotto because they think the odds are good. That's not why they play.

Yes, we already know that the lottery has terrible odds, but based on personal observation, I would wager that the majority of lottery tickets are sold to people who neither know nor care about the odds.

I agree that from strictly an RTP standpoint, the lottery is the worst bet out there. Yet, from an overall financial viewpoint, it could also be the best for some people. For instance, it's a 4-hour drive to my nearest BJ table (not counting a cruise ship). I could spend $2 for a ticket or $100 on gas to get to a 3/2 BJ table. Which is the better bet for me?

Oh, and it is my contention that there is very little correlation between the federal government's revenue, and it's expenditures. Lottery money doesn't make a dent either way to taxes.

BTW, I just contributed $6 to our office pool for tomorrow's drawing, but like I said above, this is an insurance policy against me being the only one who has to show up for work on Monday! Am I a sucker?

No matter how much you think you're engaged in some important meaningful non-wasteful activity, there's always someone out there to declare: "who cares."

But then again, there's always some fellow compadre who is interested in that giant ball of string you collected for 20 years.

It is humbling when someone notices your most favorite pastime ever, and you begin to spin all your acquired knowledge and before you're a minute in, you notice their eyes are glazing over, and maybe they're looking for the exit sign soon if you don't stop.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Wizard

If the question is "What bets offer the worst odds?" The lottery would certainly be on that list.

Exactly: you're asking the wrong question. You ignore both the intangible value a player gets as well as the context. (A lotto play is $1-2, and people playing the games with "good odds" lose more than lotto players.) I have a whole article on this kind of spurious argument: https://easy.vegas/gambling/lottery

Quote: Wizard

Few have done more than me to disabuse the public that lottery tickets are a good bet.

Well then, congratulations on championing a point that everyone already knows. Nobody plays lotto because they think the odds are good. That's not why they play.

Quote: Wizard

I've been writing for over 20 years what a terrible bet they are. However, I recognize that I can't save everybody.

That's some serious chutzpah, seeing yourself as some kind of hero, "saving" people from losing a tiny amount of money on lotto, while promoting games at which they'll actually lose more money (despite the better odds, because the bets are higher and the play is longer).

Instead of saving people, you do the exact opposite: In your Texas Lottery article, you advise people to throw their money away on the Extra option for Lotto Texas, because it has a lower edge than the base game, as though that matters. The only reason that people play lotto is for the chance of winning the top jackpot, but the Extra option neither improves the chances of winning nor increases the top jackpot amount. As such, the Extra option (which increases only the smaller prizes) is a waste of money for lotto players. It's amazing that you don't understand why people play lotto in the first place, and that's why you come up with bad conclusions.

If you cringe at any of this, remember that you fired the first shot by calling me and all other lotto players "suckers".

Quote: Wizard

If a consenting adult still wants to play the lottery, then I say "thank you." That is more revenue to the government, which means less taxes I have to pay. Much like I thank the recreational gamblers who play at the casino groups whom I own stock in.

And notably, proving my earlier point, you didn't thank the casino gamblers for "donating" "more" money to the government. You save that kind of thanks only for lotto players.
link to original post

From your site, via the link you provided:

“Buying a single lottery ticket is a common play for that game.”

Care to back that up with some data? How did you come to this conclusion?

By the way, I wanted to leave a comment on your page, but that feature seems to be malfunctioning …or non-existent. Why is that, pray tell?

Thank you for your time!

Quote: camapl

“Buying a single lottery ticket is a common play for that game.”

Care to back that up with some data?

I already did. Also, in my life, witnessing hundreds of lotto ticket sales, I can't remember ever seeing anyone buy more than one lotto ticket at a time.

Quote: camapl

By the way, I wanted to leave a comment on your page, but that feature seems to be malfunctioning …or non-existent. Why is that, pray tell?

There is no comment feature. Easy Vegas is not a blog. There's no comment feature on Wizard of Odds, either, or on most articles on Wizard of Vegas.

Quote: Joeman

Yes, we already know that the lottery has terrible odds, but based on personal observation, I would wager that the majority of lottery tickets are sold to people who neither know nor care about the odds.

The first and second part of your sentence suggests a dichotomy that I don't think is there. There are two different kinds of odds here, which are often conflated. First is the jackpot odds. Most people couldn't tell you that the odds are around 1 in 300M (even though that figure is printed on every ticket), but knowing the exact figure is beside the point. Everyone knows it's a long shot even if they can't quote the actual number. And they play because it's fun to get a cheap entry for the chance of a big prize.

The second is the house edge resulting from the odds. Compared to knowing the jackpot odds, even fewer people have looked up the RTP, but again, it's beside the point, because nobody plays lotto because they think it has a good RTP, they play because of the chance to win a life-changing amount of money. The Wizard doesn't get this, which is why he offers the ridiculous advice that Texas Lotto players should throw their money away on the Extra option (based on the fact that the Extra option has a higher RTP than the base game), even though the Extra option doesn't increase the top jackpot or increase the chances of winning.

Quote: Joeman

I agree that from strictly an RTP standpoint, the lottery is the worst bet out there. Yet, from an overall financial viewpoint, it could also be the best for some people. For instance, it's a 4-hour drive to my nearest BJ table (not counting a cruise ship). I could spend $2 for a ticket or $100 on gas to get to a 3/2 BJ table. Which is the better bet for me?

Lotto, and not just because of the expenses you cited. Even if you had a casino next door, you'd lose more in an hour playing blackjack at $5 a round than you would buying a lotto ticket.

Quote: Joeman

Oh, and it is my contention that there is very little correlation between the federal government's revenue, and it's expenditures. Lottery money doesn't make a dent either way to taxes.

Lotto is a state thing, not a federal thing. And it's in fact well-documented that when states introduce lotteries, they reduce taxes in other areas (often corporate taxes).

Quote: Joeman

BTW, I just contributed $6 to our office pool for tomorrow's drawing, but like I said above, this is an insurance policy against me being the only one who has to show up for work on Monday! Am I a sucker? link to original post

The Wizard already said yes. And look how he worded the poll above: If you want to say "Yes" that you bought a ticket, you're required to admit that you're a "sucker".

My opinion, assuming you can afford the $6, is emphatically no.

So how much is 2nd prize? $100K? Is that enough with a billion dollar jackpot?

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Joeman

Yes, we already know that the lottery has terrible odds, but based on personal observation, I would wager that the majority of lottery tickets are sold to people who neither know nor care about the odds.

The first and second part of your sentence suggests a dichotomy that I don't think is there. There are two different kinds of odds here, which are often conflated. First is the jackpot odds. Most people couldn't tell you that the odds are around 1 in 300M (even though that figure is printed on every ticket), but knowing the exact figure is beside the point. Everyone knows it's a long shot even if they can't quote the actual number. And they play because it's fun to get a cheap entry for the chance of a big prize.

I agree that everyone thinks winning the Mega Millions is a "long shot." But the Jaguars winning Superbowl LVII is also a "long shot." My point is that many people equate the likelihood of these two events happening because they are both "long shots," when, in fact there is roughly a difference of 6 orders of magnitude between the two.

It's been suggested, and quite rudely, that I don't understand why people buy lottery tickets. In my 25 years of analyzing casino games, I have never endeavored to answer the why question about gambling in general nor for any particular bet. My advice to gamblers has always been that if you must play, at least try to lose as little as possible. Everything I have said for 25 years about gambling, in all forms, is predicated on that assumption.

In my goal to advise players on how to lose less, I suggest Texas lottery players to invoke the "Extra" option, because it offers a better value than the base game. Said advice is consistent with how I have analyzed games since 1997.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

The Wizard doesn't get this, which is why he offers the ridiculous advice that Texas Lotto players should throw their money away on the Extra option

Note: Emphasis added by me.

If you think that advice is "ridiculous" then I submit for your consideration that we simply do not see things in fundamentally the same way. However, let the record show I don't say your advise is "ridiculous."

However, I'd like to think I'm open minded and am willing to entertain the notion that maybe not everybody plays for the same reason I do. To take this further, let me submit for the consideration of the forum that some players are more risk-seeking than I am. Let's say that such players seek to maximize the standard deviation of a bet. However, the cost of the bet, measured by the expected loss should also be considered. To consider the two, I suggest a new statistic, what I'll call the Excitement Quotient (EQ).

Excitement Quotient = SD/ER

Where:
SD = Standard deviation
ER = Element of risk = (expected player loss)/(average amount bet, including subsequent wagers).

Here is the EQ for various games and bets, in order from highest to lowest.

Game	Rules	Standard deviation	Element of Risk	Excitement quotient
Mega Million	40M jackpot, no Megaplier	1158.38	81.04%	1429.38
Video poker	25-15-9 Deuces Wild	5.06	1.09%	465.68
Video keno	Pick-8 spot keno: 2,12,98,1652,10000	29.96	7.69%	389.56
Blackjack	Six decks, H17, DAS, RSA, Surrender	1.15	0.49%	236.60
Roulette	Double zero game, single number bet	5.76	5.26%	109.49
Baccarat	Banker bet	0.93	1.06%	87.74
Craps	Pass line	1.00	1.41%	70.71
Pai gow poker	Dealer banker, house way	0.75	2.72%	27.57
Roulette	Double zero game, even money bet	1.00	5.26%	18.97

Under this measurement, the Mega Millions is by far the best value.

They adjusted the estimated jackpot value +46m since first reporting it (present day value). Demand must be unexpectedly high.

Quote: ahiromu

They adjusted the estimated jackpot value +46m since first reporting it (present day value). Demand must be unexpectedly high.
link to original post

They tend to update it every day or so when the jackpot gets huge. If nobody hits the next one, I think we'll see a new record set for the following drawing.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: ahiromu

They adjusted the estimated jackpot value +46m since first reporting it (present day value). Demand must be unexpectedly high.
link to original post

They tend to update it every day or so when the jackpot gets huge. If nobody hits the next one, I think we'll see a new record set for the following drawing.
link to original post

I hope it hits soon, otherwise I will go broke $2 at a time.

People buy lottery tickets because of the fear of missing out, and because its cheap entertainment.

About 17 to 20 years ago my newsroom at KCAL-TV had a newsroom pool for one of the big lottery draws.

Everyone was in it for $1. We had about 220 employees.

And we hit for 5 out of 6 numbers.

I think the payoff was about $80 each. Maybe a little more or less.

Our noon news producer ran the pool. She came to work the next day with a shoebox of cash to pay everyone and each of us signed a tax document saying we were in the pool so our producer wouldn't get slammed with the federal taxes.

There were no state taxes on a lottery win.

Quote: Joeman

BTW, I just contributed $6 to our office pool for tomorrow's drawing, but like I said above, this is an insurance policy against me being the only one who has to show up for work on Monday! Am I a sucker?
link to original post

I can't answer "yes," not to say that I would, and stay within forum rules against personal insults.

Since there seem to be some sensitivity about my remark, let me try to explain. I've been saying for years that certain bets, namely side bets and the lottery are "sucker bets." By extension, the one buying lottery tickets becomes a sucker for that purchase. I am not saying lottery players are suckers in general, unless they do it to an excessive degree. Whenever I speak of sucker bets, I do so in a light and joking way. However, it is difficult to convey that sentiment in writing.

I invite anyone who feels offended at my remark to press charges with any moderator besides myself and I will happily serve whatever time they deep appropriate. I shall also be self-reporting the incident to all active moderators.

Quote: AlanMendelson

There were no state taxes on a lottery win.[

Amazingly, I believe that is still true in California.

Quote: 100xOdds

tell only your wife
link to original post

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

Quote: Wizard

It's been suggested, and quite rudely, that I don't understand why people buy lottery tickets. link to original post

You're in a poor position to play the "rude" card after unfairly calling a huge swath of people "suckers". And you've demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand why people buy lottery tickets. For starters, when I tried to explain the intangible value (entertainment) that players receive, you dismissed it, saying, "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."

Also, your Texas Lotto advice is to buy the Extra option, simply because it has a lower house edge than the base game, even though the Extra option neither increases the jackpot payout nor improves the chances of winning, which makes that option useless for reason people play lotto: to try to win a life-changing amount. The advice to buy the Extra option is made only by someone who doesn't understand the whole goal of lotto players. In that sense, "ridiculous" is the most *charitable* way I can describe the advice to buy the Extra option.

Quote: Wizard

My advice to gamblers has always been that if you must play, at least try to lose as little as possible. Everything I have said for 25 years about gambling, in all forms, is predicated on that assumption.

Except not. First of all, buying a $1 or $2 lotto ticket is the *very definition* of losing as little as possible, yet you call such people suckers. Second, you *actively encourage* higher losses by recommending that people make a junk bet (the Extra option in Texas Lotto).

You've got it exactly backwards. If you were really trying to advise on how to lose as little as possible while gambling, you'd recommend single-ticket purchases of lotto, and forgoing the Extra option. But you advise the exact opposite.

Quote: Wizard

[T]he one buying lottery tickets becomes a sucker for that purchase. I am not saying lottery players are suckers in general...

Oh please. This is talking out of both sides of your mouth. "They're suckers but they're not suckers." Whatever. You've made your disdain of lottery players very clear, based on your sole criteria of the house edge—ignoring bet size, total wagered, and entertainment value.

Quote: Wizard

I invite anyone who feels offended at my remark to press charges with any moderator besides myself...

The issue isn't whether you violated forum rules. The issue is that you wrongly painted a huge class of people as stupid (ironically, since your accusation is based on your own misunderstanding).

Quote: Wizard

To take this further, let me submit for the consideration of the forum that some players are more risk-seeking than I am....I suggest a new statistic, what I'll call the Excitement Quotient (EQ).

Risk-seeking?! First of all, a $1 or $2 lotto ticket purchase is not generally considered a big risk! Second, your new rating system is interesting, but, as usual, you ignore bet size and total amount wagered.

Total expected loss matters. That's why my Average Loss Calculator factors in bet size, speed of play, and total time played, not narrowly focusing on house edge alone as though it's the only thing that matters. A $1 or $2 ticket is not a large loss and it buys you something you simply cannot get with typical casino games, the chance to win multiple millions of dollars and the thrill that comes with it. (Megabucks excepted, though there again, nobody's Megabucks session consists of a single spin, while a single lotto ticket is a normal total wager for that game.)

Quote: Wizard

... I've been saying for years that certain bets, namely side bets and the lottery are "sucker bets." By extension, the one buying lottery tickets becomes a sucker for that purchase. I am not saying lottery players are suckers in general, unless they do it to an excessive degree. Whenever I speak of sucker bets, I do so in a light and joking way. However, it is difficult to convey that sentiment in writing.

I invite anyone who feels offended at my remark to press charges with any moderator besides myself and I will happily serve whatever time they deep appropriate. I shall also be self-reporting the incident to all active moderators.
link to original post

Edited for brevity

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Wizard

It's been suggested, and quite rudely, that I don't understand why people buy lottery tickets. link to original post

You're in a poor position to play the "rude" card after unfairly calling a huge swath of people "suckers".
...

Quote: Wizard

My advice to gamblers has always been that if you must play, at least try to lose as little as possible. Everything I have said for 25 years about gambling, in all forms, is predicated on that assumption.

Except not. First of all, buying a $1 or $2 lotto ticket is the *very definition* of losing as little as possible, yet you call such people suckers
....

Quote: Wizard

[T]he one buying lottery tickets becomes a sucker for that purchase. I am not saying lottery players are suckers in general...

Oh please. This is talking out of both sides of your mouth. "They're suckers but they're not suckers."
...

Quote: Wizard

I invite anyone who feels offended at my remark to press charges with any moderator besides myself...

The issue isn't whether you violated forum rules. The issue is that you wrongly painted a huge class of people as stupid (ironically, since your accusation is based on your own misunderstanding).

Edited for brevity. Bolding is mine.

Wizard has asked the other moderators to rule on whether he has failed to live up to the 'Higher Standards' expected of moderators here, in the application of forum rules on 'personal insults'.

He's concerned that he may be interpreted as insulting a cohort of members here by saying or implying that they are 'suckers', a pejorative term.

As possibly the first moderator awake, I'm reviewing this topic. I invite MichaelBlueJay and others to PM me their opinions, and 'evidence' to save me rummaging through the thread and so that I can collate any 'evidence' and share it with the other moderators. In particular, you may indicate to me where Wizard has allegedly issued any insult.

Let's take this 'complaint' outside of the forum to PM. I have an open mind and will share any 'evidence' with Dieter and Gordonm888 before we investigate and discuss. I'm confident that Wizard will accept any decision with good grace. Apart from contributing his 'case' wizard will not have any veto on any ruling.

Thanks in advance.

Quote: OnceDear

I'm confident that Wizard will accept any decision with good grace. Apart from contributing his 'case' wizard will not have any veto on any ruling.
link to original post

I will accept any ruling and waive my veto power.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: OnceDear

I'm confident that Wizard will accept any decision with good grace. Apart from contributing his 'case' wizard will not have any veto on any ruling.
link to original post

I will accept any ruling and waive my veto power.
link to original post

Sucker: 1. slang for a person who is easily deceived or swindled
2. slang for a person who cannot resist the attractions of a particular type of person or thing: he's a sucker for blondes.
3. a person or thing who sucks

P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute"
Donald Sutherland: "Fundamentally, people are suckers for the truth"
Queen Latifah: "I'm a sucker for a man who cries"
Rosalind Russell: " Life is a banquet. And most poor suckers are starving to death."

I believe that Wizard used the term "sucker" to mean "a person who is easily deceived or swindled" or perhaps as "a person who cannot resist the attractions of" gambling on the lottery. He apparently did not mean it as implying that members are " a person or thing who sucks."

The word "sucker" is a slang term that has valid uses in the American version of English and has a beneficial purpose when used in discussions of predatory gambling games. Wizard appropriately used it in that way. This is a forum devoted in part to discussion of games involving wagers and in my opinion the limited use of the term sucker is appropriate (especially in the context of predatory gambling games). If, however, a member were to abuse the word by taunting a person or persons with the term "sucker," then its use might be found to be objectionable in that instance and worthy of moderator intervention.

I find that the Wizard's use of the phrase "sucker" was appropriate to the American vernacular and to the context of the discussion. "Sucker" is not automatically a perjorative phrase: "sucker for blondes" or "sucker for a man who cries" simply implies a specific weakness that may deserve sympathy from others. My ruling is that there is neither penalty nor warning.

*****************************
As a side note, this entire issue seems to be a bit of confection - a recreational drama being created by Wiz and OD. I would find them both guilty of grandstanding if only the Rules had a prohibition against grandstanding. (Of course, if we did have a rule against creating drama then this forum would be almost devoid of life.)

Quote: gordonm888

(Of course, if we did have a rule against creating drama then this forum would be almost devoid of life.)

Please add that rule. It would be nice to read this forum without all of the drama. It would also be novel, a site with only quality content.

Quote: DRich

Quote: gordonm888

(Of course, if we did have a rule against creating drama then this forum would be almost devoid of life.)

Please add that rule. It would be nice to read this forum without all of the drama. It would also be novel, a site with only quality content.
link to original post

Personally, the rule I would most advocate for is one against "taunting."

By the way, I realize that I may not have covered every aspect of the "sucker" issue and invite other moderators to weigh in with their thoughts and even overrule me, if necessary. But I had some specific thoughts and ideas that I wanted to convey in my own words.

Quote: gordonm888

If, however, a member were to abuse the word by taunting a person or persons with the term "sucker," then its use might be found to be objectionable in that instance and worthy of moderator intervention.

I find that the Wizard's use of the phrase "sucker" was appropriate to the American vernacular and to the context of the discussion. "Sucker" is not automatically a perjorative phrase: "sucker for blondes" or "sucker for a man who cries" simply implies a specific weakness that may deserve sympathy from others. My ruling is that there is neither penalty nor warning.

*****************************
As a side note, this entire issue seems to be a bit of confection - a recreational drama being created by Wiz and OD. I would find them both guilty of grandstanding if only the Rules had a prohibition against grandstanding. (Of course, if we did have a rule against creating drama then this forum would be almost devoid of life.)
link to original post

Thanks Gordon,
The first I heard of this was this morning's PM where wizard self reported. I doubt either of us were grandstanding to respond to MichaelBlueJays 'accusation' of insulting a cohort of members. If you'd thought that, you might tackle us privately, rather than grandstanding yourself $:o)

You have ruled without consulting, but I'll confirm that I agree that there's no need for penalty or warning.

No-one came forward to me with any evidence.

I'd looked back through the thread for the 'insult' and the first I could see was https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/other-games/29888-mega-millions/7/#post856621 where wizard referred to "More suckers buying tickets".
I think suckers in that context was somewhat pejorative but light hearted*, and though some members here might play the lottery, it's quite a stretch to say that Wizard had insulted a lot of his members. If the cap fits, wear it.

Wizard has previously referred to the lottery as 'a sucker bet' because it's one of the worst value for money wagers. We might reasonably consider anyone who pays $1 for 50c of value to be a sucker, falling for a bad deal. But that's just relative to the guy that plays roulette and pays $1 for 97c of value, or the next guy that spends a day squeezing $1 of value out of some freeplay.
Had wizard said that all players of the lottery are suckers, I / We might have ruled against him. He didn't.
A lot of this site is geared towards supporting gamblers, whether they are AP's chasing +EV or whether they are recreational players happy to give their money to casinos or lotteries. We respect them all.

Maybe the Wizard should, in future, avoid any hint that he looks down on or risks offending any of the site's visitors. Else they might vote with their feet.

Quote: gordonm888

By the way, I realize that I may not have covered every aspect of the "sucker" issue and invite other moderators to weigh in with their thoughts and even overrule me, if necessary.
link to original post

... Today's lucky numbers inside?

There are still discussions ongoing.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: DRich

Quote: gordonm888

(Of course, if we did have a rule against creating drama then this forum would be almost devoid of life.)

Please add that rule. It would be nice to read this forum without all of the drama. It would also be novel, a site with only quality content.
link to original post

Personally, the rule I would most advocate for is one against "taunting."
link to original post

Taunting does happen. Some moderators are guilty of that and I agree it's a bad optic, when members or moderators taunt or deride each-other. But we have plenty of rules. Moderators can and sometimes do keep each-other in check privately.