Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:23:03 -0400
Reply-To: Jim Agnew <agnew@HSC.VCU.EDU>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Jim Agnew <agnew@HSC.VCU.EDU>
Organization: Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia
Subject: Re: In Celebration of a milestone!!!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Well, in Virginia, I stand in line behind people in Seven-11's waiting patiently while they cought up 10, 50, 100 bucks for slight
chanches... i really feel for 'em, i really do, but stupidity brings it's own punishment....
They did a study on the Penna lottery winners, and w/o exception, all the winners were bankrupt when their money ended. now, i'd
expect maybe 50%, but *ALL* of them????
ew.. that alone keeps me outta those lotteries..
> "Mitchell, Brian [EESUS]" wrote:
> Actually there's a very good reason for non-rich people to play high stakes
> lotteries even though "on average" they will lose. In economic terms, it
> has to do with a non-linear utility function so that they are willing to give up
> a small portion of their current income, an amount that has little effect on
> their standard of living, for a miniscule chance of being catapulted to riches.
> They may be poor but they're not stupid!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David L. Cassell [SMTP:Cassell.David@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV]
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:51 AM
> To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: In Celebration of a milestone!!!
> Jules Bosch wrote [in reply to Mark Dehaan]:
> > Ah, yes, the statistical aspect of lotteries.
> > I think rule #1 is that Lotteries are primarily for people who flunked
> > statistics.
> I prefer:
> Lottery, n., a tax on the math-impaired.
> David Cassell, OAO Corp. Cassell.David@epa.gov
> Senior computing specialist
> mathematical statistician