So who's giving up the lotto in October?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Greg66 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
dieselgrunt said:
Those who do it for fun, why not put the £2 in a jar and have the same dreams. because it's never going to be a reality.
Calculating probability not your strong point then?If the chances are 14 million to one, with one draw a week, and buying 1 ticket a week, you'd have to wait 14 million weeks to be guaranteed a win. Or 269,230 years. "Never", for all practical purposes.
Two draws a week, five tickets per draw and your win is guaranteed in 26,923 years.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And, as I've already explained, for £2 I get hours of pleasure spending my possible (but highly unlikely) winnings. Now I fully accept that you may not get pleasure from that even if you did play, but tell me, out of interest, what do you spend £2 on that gives you hours of pleasure?
Good question.
10^(-100) (for example) is infinitely greater than 0.
But 10^(-100) is still a f
king small number.
I accept one cannot put a price on enjoyment though.
ETA: I can spend hours spending an imaginary fortune too. It costs me nothing to do so. Usin your imagination is, umm, free.
I never realised marketing was quite this powerful!
But 10^(-100) is still a f
king small number. I accept one cannot put a price on enjoyment though.
ETA: I can spend hours spending an imaginary fortune too. It costs me nothing to do so. Usin your imagination is, umm, free.
I never realised marketing was quite this powerful!
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 5th September 16:48
Greg66 said:
ETA: I can spend hours spending an imaginary fortune too. It costs me nothing to do so. Usin your imagination is, umm, free.
The Marketing Department said:
But for two measly quid you can infinitely increase your chances of turning imagination into reality...
Would you enjoy it though?!
turbobloke said:
Greg66 said:
ETA: I can spend hours spending an imaginary fortune too. It costs me nothing to do so. Usin your imagination is, umm, free.
A bloke overheard in The Honest Statistician's Arms said:
But for two quid you will not materially increase your chances of turning imagination into reality...Or you can buy most of a paper cup of overpriced coffee...
back atcha!
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
Greg66 said:
ETA: I can spend hours spending an imaginary fortune too. It costs me nothing to do so. Usin your imagination is, umm, free.
A bloke overheard in The Honest Statistician's Arms said:
But for two quid you will not materially increase your chances of turning imagination into reality...Or you can buy most of a paper cup of overpriced coffee...
back atcha!
They don't pour well and taste awful (allegedly).
In all seriousness, when I have pondered my imaginary fortune, I end up faltering at the transport stage.
Once I had set up my 8-10 houses around the world, furnished and staffed them (well, actually, I'd have other staff to sort out the staffing and furnishing), I'd want to work out a schedule. When to go to each. And there's the rub, see, because air travel is not that great even in the very very pointy bit of the plane. But you try finding a private jet smaller than a 737/A320 that will do London to the West Coast, or the West Coast to Aus/SE Asia without having to refuel. It's a veritable 21st century nightmare, I tell you!
And then there's ground traffic. Unlike many here I think I would have drivers rather than drive myself. But money won't buy you a bus lane. Helicopters are convenient, but not that great once they start falling, and helipads aren't exactly ten a penny.
Once I had set up my 8-10 houses around the world, furnished and staffed them (well, actually, I'd have other staff to sort out the staffing and furnishing), I'd want to work out a schedule. When to go to each. And there's the rub, see, because air travel is not that great even in the very very pointy bit of the plane. But you try finding a private jet smaller than a 737/A320 that will do London to the West Coast, or the West Coast to Aus/SE Asia without having to refuel. It's a veritable 21st century nightmare, I tell you!
And then there's ground traffic. Unlike many here I think I would have drivers rather than drive myself. But money won't buy you a bus lane. Helicopters are convenient, but not that great once they start falling, and helipads aren't exactly ten a penny.
Some of the opinions on this thread remind me of:
I play the lottery, I can afford to do it and there is a infinitesimal chance I might win a life-changing sum of money.
If I couldn't afford to play I wouldn't.
It is freedom of choice to play it or not and not playing it doesn't make anyone a 'better person'.
I play the lottery, I can afford to do it and there is a infinitesimal chance I might win a life-changing sum of money.
If I couldn't afford to play I wouldn't.
It is freedom of choice to play it or not and not playing it doesn't make anyone a 'better person'.
TheJimi said:
Jesus. Some of you guys have your heads lodged firmly up your own arses.
For the sake of two quid, I have the possibility of winning a life changing amount of money. Sure, incredibly st odds, but nonetheless, the chance is there.
What's hard to understand about that?
The failure to comprehend doesn't appear to be on the part of those who don't play the lottery. I couldn't give a sFor the sake of two quid, I have the possibility of winning a life changing amount of money. Sure, incredibly s
t odds, but nonetheless, the chance is there.What's hard to understand about that?
t how you waste your money, I merely choose to waste my own in a different fashion. What's so hard to understand about that?Einion Yrth said:
The failure to comprehend doesn't appear to be on the part of those who don't play the lottery.
Ah right, yes. We are the willing payers of the stupidity tax, thus comprehension isn't quite our strong point.Good thing we have all you superior beings who don't play, preaching to us about the fallacy of our ways.
Except, no, it's all actually really quite pathetic. We've even got one guy boasting how he got a ticket as a gift and didn't bother checking it. Well, I'm assuming it's a boast, coz why mention it within the context of this thread otherwise?
TheJimi said:
Einion Yrth said:
The failure to comprehend doesn't appear to be on the part of those who don't play the lottery.
Ah right, yes. We are the willing payers of the stupidity tax, thus comprehension isn't quite our strong point.Good thing we have all you superior beings who don't play, preaching to us about the fallacy of our ways.
Except, no, it's all actually really quite pathetic. We've even got one guy boasting how he got a ticket as a gift and didn't bother checking it. Well, I'm assuming it's a boast, coz why mention it within the context of this thread otherwise?
I'll play the Euromillions when they do their 10 UK millionaires draws, no idea what the odds are - obviously, the number of uk tickets sold/10*number of tickets I buy, I don't know how many they sell when they do the 10 millionaires - but I like the idea of there being at least 10 guaranteed UK winning tickets.
Boydie88 said:
I'll play the Euromillions when they do their 10 UK millionaires draws, no idea what the odds are - obviously, the number of uk tickets sold/10*number of tickets I buy, I don't know how many they sell when they do the 10 millionaires - but I like the idea of there being at least 10 guaranteed UK winning tickets.
Talking of selective playing, when the Euromillions draw has a rollover at around £80m or more, the most prolific lottery sales outlets are in Canary Wharf and Ken&Chel, according to Camelot as quoted in an article a few years back. When the rollover spikes occur, the toppest sales slot is in Canary Wharf.turbobloke said:
Talking of selective playing, when the Euromillions draw has a rollover at around £80m or more, the most prolific lottery sales outlets are in Canary Wharf and Ken&Chel, according to Camelot as quoted in an article a few years back. When the rollover spikes occur, the toppest sales slot is in Canary Wharf.
Surely the city boys playing the numbers would buy online? No point in risking the ticket getting lost or wasting time checking the numbers.Jobbo said:
turbobloke said:
Talking of selective playing, when the Euromillions draw has a rollover at around £80m or more, the most prolific lottery sales outlets are in Canary Wharf and Ken&Chel, according to Camelot as quoted in an article a few years back. When the rollover spikes occur, the toppest sales slot is in Canary Wharf.
Surely the city boys playing the numbers would buy online? No point in risking the ticket getting lost or wasting time checking the numbers.I've found what I believe was the original article that I'd read some time ago, see what you think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/re...
Article said:
A spokesman for Camelot said that when the prize reached £80m, the company noticed that sales of tickets suddenly started to spike in some of the richest areas of London, including the City, Canary Wharf, Kensington and Chelsea. “We have a core base of regular EuroMillions players but, when the jackpots on offer become huge, typically over the £80 million mark, we also see lots of new and occasional players taking part. Top-selling stores on these occasions are usually located in the City and Canary Wharf, and the overall number one selling store is regularly one of our retailers based in Canary Wharf.
We presume that people working in these areas only think it is worth playing when the prize has got into the stratospheric levels."
We presume that people working in these areas only think it is worth playing when the prize has got into the stratospheric levels."
The thing about the Lotto is that currently, almost every week, someone wins the jackpot.
When they fek around with the odds like they are going to do, that will no longer be true.
Its likely that someone will win it every 2-3 weeks, or longer.
I think they believe that the larger roll over prizes will generate 'lottery fever' and more people will play, like in the early days when the Jackpot would grow to 30-40 million.
But I think they misjudge the public, who have grown jaded with the lottery. It think many people will choose only to play until when its grown to a large rollover.
Which effectively means they will take less money, over time.
When they fek around with the odds like they are going to do, that will no longer be true.
Its likely that someone will win it every 2-3 weeks, or longer.
I think they believe that the larger roll over prizes will generate 'lottery fever' and more people will play, like in the early days when the Jackpot would grow to 30-40 million.
But I think they misjudge the public, who have grown jaded with the lottery. It think many people will choose only to play until when its grown to a large rollover.
Which effectively means they will take less money, over time.
TTmonkey said:
The thing about the Lotto is that currently, almost every week, someone wins the jackpot.
When they fek around with the odds like they are going to do, that will no longer be true.
Its likely that someone will win it every 2-3 weeks, or longer.
When it first started, and each weekly jackpot was at least £7million ( and at £1 a ticket that meant well over 7 million tickets sold ), then rollovers were rare. These days, even at £2 a ticket, it's rare to see a jackpot over £2.5million unless it is one of the now frequent rollovers, thanks to declining sales.When they fek around with the odds like they are going to do, that will no longer be true.
Its likely that someone will win it every 2-3 weeks, or longer.
Fewer tickets being sold means less chance of the jackpot being won, hence more rollovers.
This changing of the odds by adding more numbers will make it even less likely for a jackpot win to occur, so will generate even more rollovers. It will be interesting to see what tomorrows jackpot figure is - I suspect it will drop a lot with reduced ticket sales unless Camelot chuck a load of their cash into the pot to bump it up
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff