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
>      --
>      David Cassell, OAO Corp.                           Cassell.David@epa.gov
>      Senior computing specialist
>      mathematical statistician