Lucky lady- great read
She merely created a costly yet profitable job for herself.
But costly? I'm looking forward to the next installment, where the teaser says the govt helped with the costs.
Luck favors the prepared.
Quote: DRichTo me the most intriguing part of this story is that she has a Phd from Stanford.
It wouldn't be without precedent for an egghead to beat a lottery. MIT students (who else?) managed to crack a Massachusetts Lottery game and play only when it was +EV. A good rule of thumb - when the eggheads are playing big money, you're doing it wrong.
Quote: hwccdealerIt wouldn't be without precedent for an egghead to beat a lottery. MIT students (who else?) managed to crack a Massachusetts Lottery game and play only when it was +EV. A good rule of thumb - when the eggheads are playing big money, you're doing it wrong.
I agree, it is also interesting that she refuses to do interviews about it.
Quote: DRichI agree, it is also interesting that she refuses to do interviews about it.
Like a true hustler she doesn't want any competition. LOL.
Quote: hwccdealerIt wouldn't be without precedent for an egghead to beat a lottery.
In this case it's more a brute force, buy a lot of tickets method. That is, not much knowledge or skill required.
What I wonder is whether this would be a good idea for other scratch off games. One advantage is that all the prizes are available for purchase, though not necessarily at any particualr location. This makes it different from a lotto drawing where the jackpot may not even be awarded.
Quote: NareedThat is, not much knowledge or skill required.
Not much knowledge or skill to buy the tickets, but there may be knowledge and skill involved in buying the winning tickets. That is what makes this intriguing.
Good for her
EDIT: Ok, so I read the article linked below, and I can see where, in pricing the lower wins, the re-buys, and the tax write-offs, they can claim an effective discount on the total expenditure of bankroll that's considerable. But I can still see anybody who goes to a retailer and says, "I'm going to buy 10K/week minimum in tickets; give me a bulk discount." getting a deal for some percentage as well.
Quote: AxelWolfI thought I read something about how she got the tickets for .25 on the dollar, did I miss read somthing? I think that might be a big key to this, I want to know how she got tickets for .25 on the dollar.
Here's part two: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/lottery/How_lottery_legend_Joan_Ginther_used_odds_Uncle_Sam_to_win_millions.html
Short answer, she wrote off gambling losses against gambling winnings.
I really dislike the tone of the article.
Quote: NareedHere's part two: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/lottery/How_lottery_legend_Joan_Ginther_used_odds_Uncle_Sam_to_win_millions.html
Short answer, she wrote off gambling losses against gambling winnings.
I really dislike the tone of the article.
I'm interested to find out what tone you did not like from the article?
Me too. It's hard to make sense of what's going on, the writer rambles too much.Quote: NareedHere's part two: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/lottery/How_lottery_legend_Joan_Ginther_used_odds_Uncle_Sam_to_win_millions.html
Short answer, she wrote off gambling losses against gambling winnings.
I really dislike the tone of the article.
Quote: teddysMe too. It's hard to make sense of what's going on, the writer rambles too much.
I thought the writer did an OK job as the subject matter he was trying to put forward (gaming and mathematics) can be quite daunting to explain to a layman reader?
It isn't going to win any pulitzers but I didn't find it unreadable.
I prefer the readers of the article not know what the hell "expected value" is. This is where money can be made based on the ignorance of people who come up with lotteries, or casino games in general.
Even then, I feel most people won't do anything about opportunities that present itself. Just like the case with Revel. If you logically think about the 100% loss rebate with $100k, and you could realistically tie up that kind of money or even less you could get a great shot at making a lot more or busting out and picking it up over time. As long as you keep putting money in on situations where you expect more then the amount back, then you will be rich.
Aces all in preflop against a tight nit? If you do this all day every day you'd be swimming in chips. Free ace in blackjack? Same thing. Video poker promotions don't yield much EV but you can bet forever and a day. FPDW can make you tons of money if you can play every machine in the casino as fast as possible, theoretically.
Anyway the point of my rambling is I want people to not think about "expected value" in any way, because then that is more for me :)
Quote: TomspurI thought the writer did an OK job as the subject matter he was trying to put forward (gaming and mathematics) can be quite daunting to explain to a layman reader? It isn't going to win any pulitzers but I didn't find it unreadable.
Yes, I thought the writer did pretty good too, considering. The "25 cents on the dollar" thing is pretty simple. They were talking about the cost. The scratchoff was not totally worthless if she didn't make the big hit. I just analyzed a scratch off lotto game up here in Montana called Shake-A-Day:
You have to get a 5 of a kind to win. A ticket costs $3. Here is what is listed in the rules:
A Full House pays $3. The chances are 1 in 3.
A 4 of a Kind pays $50. The chances are 1 in 56
The 5 of a Kind is progressive, starts at $1000 and goes up with every ticket bought. The chances are 1 in 5000.
So what is the cost to produce the 5K.
Buying 5000 tickets would be an investment of $15,000 and return:
(5000/3 = 1666.66 X $3) will return $5000 on the Full Houses.
(5000/56 = 89.28 X $50) will return $4464 on the 4 of a Kinds
5000 + 4464 = $9464
Subtract the $9464 from the total wager, $15000, and the cost to run one cycle is $5536, or $1.107 per ticket.
1.107/3 = 36.9%, or a cost of 36.9 cents per dollar invested. Another way to look at it is you are getting dropped 37% between top line hits.
This is where the "25 cents on the dollar" thing came from. The scratch offs were returning 75% between top line hits. Though the scratch offs cost $50 apiece, her true cost was $12.50 per ticket.
Quote: TomspurI'm interested to find out what tone you did not like from the article?
The author makes missleading statements. For example, that the woman in question got the US government to pay for her lottery tickets. She just deducted gambling losses, same as any other gambler. Since in the end she won a great deal of money, she will wind up owing taxes anyway.
He also keeps repeating the people involved did not give interviews, over and over again. He brings up cheats, frauds, etc. In short, he's trying to make the whole thing look sinister. And he rambles too much and isn't very clear except when using innuendo.
Quote: NareedThe author makes missleading statements. For example, that the woman in question got the US government to pay for her lottery tickets. She just deducted gambling losses, same as any other gambler. Since in the end she won a great deal of money, she will wind up owing taxes anyway.
He also keeps repeating the people involved did not give interviews, over and over again. He brings up cheats, frauds, etc. In short, he's trying to make the whole thing look sinister. And he rambles too much and isn't very clear except when using innuendo.
But I think the writer was just discussing all the questions people want answers to. Was she just outrageously lucky? Was she cheating? Or did she have a solid AP plan?
My personal opinion is she was a brilliant woman who stumbled onto an unusual AP situation and exploited it.
Quote: mickeycrimmBut I think the writer was just discussing all the questions people want answers to. Was she just outrageously lucky? Was she cheating? Or did she have a solid AP plan?
My personal opinion is she was a brilliant woman who stumbled onto an unusual AP situation and exploited it.
+1
Quote: mickeycrimmBut I think the writer was just discussing all the questions people want answers to. Was she just outrageously lucky? Was she cheating? Or did she have a solid AP plan?
Maybe. but making missleading statements about how "Uncle Sam" financed her lottery spree is plain journalistic misconduct.
In addition stressing over and over that private citizens did not want to be interviewed is also inapropriate. Public figures who wield power over others, such as politicians, have an obligation to be accountable to the public at large. If they don't want to answer questions, related to their offices, then, yes, rake them over the coals until they speak. but private citizens not invovled in criminal activity have no obligation to answer any questions from anyone, least of all an intrusive reporter.
The press can be too arrogant, with some reporters believing they're entitled to infomration whether people want to part with it or not. That's just wrong.
Quote: NareedMaybe. but making missleading statements about how "Uncle Sam" financed her lottery spree is plain journalistic misconduct.
In addition stressing over and over that private citizens did not want to be interviewed is also inapropriate. Public figures who wield power over others, such as politicians, have an obligation to be accountable to the public at large. If they don't want to answer questions, related to their offices, then, yes, rake them over the coals until they speak. but private citizens not invovled in criminal activity have no obligation to answer any questions from anyone, least of all an intrusive reporter.
The press can be too arrogant, with some reporters believing they're entitled to infomration whether people want to part with it or not. That's just wrong.
I agree with you there, Nareed. I think she has a couple of reasons not to high profile herself. First, lotto winners get pounded on to give money away. Second, I don't think she wants to talk about her strategy.
Quote: NareedThe author makes missleading statements. For example, that the woman in question got the US government to pay for her lottery tickets. She just deducted gambling losses, same as any other gambler. Since in the end she won a great deal of money, she will wind up owing taxes anyway.
He also keeps repeating the people involved did not give interviews, over and over again. He brings up cheats, frauds, etc. In short, he's trying to make the whole thing look sinister. And he rambles too much and isn't very clear except when using innuendo.
I think he did say that Uncle Sam paid for part of it in the first article but in the 2nd one he went to great lengths to explain what he meant in the first. I would assume it is a way to get the readers to tune into the next instalment? I would assume again that writers have certain "freedoms" that they are able to exploit for company gain?
I know very little about writing so just a thought is all.
Quote: TomspurI think he did say that Uncle Sam paid for part of it in the first article but in the 2nd one he went to great lengths to explain what he meant in the first. I would assume it is a way to get the readers to tune into the next instalment?
How honest would it be to say that the government paid for your vacation, because after all you did deduct expenses in accordance to the law and paid less in taxes than you would otherwise have? It's the same thing.
Not to mention the more abstract implication that all money belongs to the government, and that making use of deductions, in accordance to the law, is a form of cheating the government out of its revenue.
Quote:I would assume again that writers have certain "freedoms" that they are able to exploit for company gain?
A journalist is supposed to inform, not to mislead. In fiction, depending on the genre and the kind of story, the author is supposed, and often expected, to mislead her audience. This builds suspense and keeps the reader interested. In nonfiction the rules are different. you are not supposed to string the audience along by making sensational accusations, then backpedaling them when you get to the actual facts. For one thing is not fair to the reader, for another it borders on libel.
Quote: NareedA journalist is supposed to inform, not to mislead. In fiction, depending on the genre and the kind of story, the author is supposed, and often expected, to mislead her audience. This builds suspense and keeps the reader interested. In nonfiction the rules are different. you are not supposed to string the audience along by making sensational accusations, then backpedaling them when you get to the actual facts. For one thing is not fair to the reader, for another it borders on libel.
By this standard every ignorant journalist should be shot. What's the big deal here? Did I miss something? I thought the piece was about a woman who exploited the lottery. Not some ignorant journalist.
Quote: mickeycrimmBy this standard every ignorant journalist should be shot.
Does the phrase "ignorant journalist" not strike you as an oxymoron? How is a journalist to inform the public if he's ignorant?
As to the rest, suppose you read in an article that "..the House is considering impeachment. Read all about it on our next installment." Ok? so you red the next part and find out, about halfway down the piece, that one fringe representative in the House wants the president impeached.
What would you think of such a piece?
Quote:“We're having a lot of trouble coming up with a plausible explanation for how Ginther wins,” said James Harvey, co-organizer of the MIT group that mined Massachusetts’ CashWinfall.
“Even with her odds of winning the big prize being doubled, I'm still skeptical that she was simply lucky and that her ability to win the big prizes was due simply to playing way more than anyone ever realized,” said Mohan Srivastava, the Toronto statistician who “cracked the scratch lottery code.”
Pretty interesting. The major hurdle is the RTP is so low. You really need very top heavy games with a significantly increased chance of getting the top prize in order to get to positive territory. If you can return tickets, this game is crushable. Since you can't in most places, it's very difficult, but I think a small edge can be gained.
Quote: NareedDoes the phrase "ignorant journalist" not strike you as an oxymoron? How is a journalist to inform the public if he's ignorant?
I think the word "ignorant" is actually usually redundant when it used with journalist.
Quote: NareedDoes the phrase "ignorant journalist" not strike you as an oxymoron? How is a journalist to inform the public if he's ignorant?
As to the rest, suppose you read in an article that "..the House is considering impeachment. Read all about it on our next installment." Ok? so you red the next part and find out, about halfway down the piece, that one fringe representative in the House wants the president impeached.
What would you think of such a piece?
No, "ignorant journalist" does not strike me as an oxymoran. And I don't care much for parsing words.
Quote: strictlyAPpretty much every state publishes this info , the variance on this play must be incredibe- and a huge bankroll is needed not to mention the human interaction and dealing with buying all this ticket is just insane
She evidently had the bankroll and she could pay friends to scratch the tickets. For someone with an enormous bankroll, lots of time, and attention to the math it would probably be a good play.
Quote: mickeycrimmAnother part of her equation was the tax liability. She drew a $270,000 a year annuity from her gambling win. Since she could write off losses against the wins she was reducing her tax liability with every scratcher bought.
This is huge - with $270K in gambling winnings guaranteed every year through 2012 and a 35% tax rate, she was effectively buying every ticket with pre-tax dollars so a $1 ticket had a real cost of $0.65.
By monitoring the publicly available state lottery prize data, she could easily identify when an advantage play was available and had the resources to buy tons of tickets to try and capitalize on that play. Given her results, I'd say she was both smart AND lucky.
Quote: WizardHere is how I think she did it. The Texas Lottery publishes how many big winners of a given game have been redeemed. For example, here is their page for $500 Million Frenzy. When a disproportionate number of big wins haven't been cashed yet she plays.
Did you click on "number of prizes claimed"? I think you would agree even with that information and the obvious poor randomization, you can't gain a significant edge. If you think otherwise, you have my permission to delete this post.
Also, keep in mind that several times people will have the winning lottery ticket and not redeem it due to things like pending divorce, financial planning, etc. So, in this instance, for the $500 Million Frenzy, you can probably see where that happened.
