I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: downstairs: TFA: The odds of Kinney winning the lottery were one in 5,040,000 but there are no exact calculations of the odds for winning a million dollar lottery twice.

Really?

I'm iffy on probabilities, but wouldn't you just do (1/5,040,000) * (1/5,040,000)? Or is there a more complicated but accurate way to do it?

That's what I came here to say. If you can calculate it exactly for this one and that one, you can do it for both of them together.

I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: downstairs: TFA: The odds of Kinney winning the lottery were one in 5,040,000 but there are no exact calculations of the odds for winning a million dollar lottery twice.

Really?

I'm iffy on probabilities, but wouldn't you just do (1/5,040,000) * (1/5,040,000)? Or is there a more complicated but accurate way to do it?

Try doubling it.

lucky bastard.

If he is STILL playing the lottery like that after the first time, who wants to be he will be broke in the next 5 years?

Subby just hates the 1%.

Better question: If you're already a millionaire, why are you still playing the lottery?

I'd be too busy sitting on a beach somewhere drinking something with an umbrella in it.

The Angry Hand of God: If he is STILL playing the lottery like that after the first time, who wants to be he will be broke in the next 5 years?

*bet

Evil Kirk vs Bad Ash: I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: downstairs: TFA: The odds of Kinney winning the lottery were one in 5,040,000 but there are no exact calculations of the odds for winning a million dollar lottery twice.

Really?

I'm iffy on probabilities, but wouldn't you just do (1/5,040,000) * (1/5,040,000)? Or is there a more complicated but accurate way to do it?

Try doubling it.

Doubling it isn't right. You multiply the probabilities by one another.

When you got that kind of money to blow on the lottery you most likely have a better chance to win again .

Good on 'im!

kidgenius: Evil Kirk vs Bad Ash: I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: downstairs: TFA: The odds of Kinney winning the lottery were one in 5,040,000 but there are no exact calculations of the odds for winning a million dollar lottery twice.

Really?

I'm iffy on probabilities, but wouldn't you just do (1/5,040,000) * (1/5,040,000)? Or is there a more complicated but accurate way to do it?

Try doubling it.

Doubling it isn't right. You multiply the probabilities by one another.

Why don't they call it "possibilities"......"probabilities" connotes a bit to much certainty for my taste

/I keed

Just so everyone is aware, the "Super Millions" scratch off lottery ticket is $20. I would bet he has bought hundreds if not thousands of these since he last won.

I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: downstairs: TFA: The odds of Kinney winning the lottery were one in 5,040,000 but there are no exact calculations of the odds for winning a million dollar lottery twice.

Really?

I'm iffy on probabilities, but wouldn't you just do (1/5,040,000) * (1/5,040,000)? Or is there a more complicated but accurate way to do it?

The correct mathematical term is a shiatload.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Delma Kinney, 50

JENKIES, FRED!

Now she'll be able to buy a nice diamond-studded neck strap to hold her glasses.

The odds of winning are not affected by previous winners, even if you were one of them.

Nothing magical happens to you when you win that makes you any more or less likely to win in the future than anyone else.

But still...that guy oughtta buy a lottery ticket or something.

I was told there would be no math. Dammit Drew!

Print shop i worked at had a customer who won 24mil in Ohio lotto. He moved to Florida and won 6mil there a few years later. He used to fly back to Toledo twice a year just to have our little shop print for him. He bought a bunch of land and started a motorcross league with Loretta Lynn for underprivileged kids. They gave away over 500 bikes a year. Nice fella. He said that was the only time he bought a lotto ticket after his first win, he just felt lucky that day.

Is it a scratch off ticket? Scratch off tickets are game-able through a combination of statistical analysis and working with a local retailer to supply large quantities of tickets (the person makes a deal with the retailer to give them a cut).

There's been a few multi-scratch-off winners that should be highly improbable. Like a professor of statistics from Texas who has won multi-millions 4 times.

Funny, this guy doesn't look like the type to be able to game the system, but that is exactly how I would want people to think.

I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: downstairs: TFA: The odds of Kinney winning the lottery were one in 5,040,000 but there are no exact calculations of the odds for winning a million dollar lottery twice.

Really?

I'm iffy on probabilities, but wouldn't you just do (1/5,040,000) * (1/5,040,000)? Or is there a more complicated but accurate way to do it?

Well, I think the answer depends on what exact probability you're trying to compute.

Take a simpler example: Roll a die, and you win if you roll a 1, and lose otherwise. The probability of winning in a single game is 1/6. What's the probability of winning twice? This isn't a very well-posed question, as the answer depends on how many times you will play. If you only play twice, then the probability is (1/6)*(1/6)=1/36. But if you play three times, then the probability of winning exactly twice is 3*(1/6)*(1/6)*(5/6)=15/216, roughly twice as good as the previous case. I bet the guy in TFA plays regularly.

Of course, it's probably a mistake to give credit to the article writer for thinking of such subtleties - after all, he/she misused the word "odds".

Mother effer

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Sock Ruh Tease: Now she'll be able to buy a nice diamond-studded neck strap to hold her glasses.

Or at least get the Mystery Machine tricked out, SOMETHING.

I really shouldn't ruin your fun, but isn't it Thelma (or Velma?) and not Delma? On second thought, it's close enough.

/sorry to be a meddling kid
//ruh roh

Klippoklondike: Why on earth does a person who has already won a million dollars still play the lottery? Obviously it CAN pay off though...

If you win a million dollars you take home about $775K through annuity (granted you live long enough) or about $425K lump sum. It's a nice amount either way but you are not set for life unless you really plan and manage the money. Regardless of your situation, planning and managing your money should be your number one priority in life unless you have a feasible way to change the system we operate in.

He probably doesn't have any money from the first million, as he used it all to buy tickets.

Lotteries are horrible. I'm not in favor of making them illegal, but I still think they stink. A couple of weeks ago when I posted in a lottery thread, I made a point that lotteries sell the hope of becoming rich overnight, but time and time again, it yanks away that hope from people. Although I'm not a sociologist, this seems like it can cause damage to society in ways that are very difficult to measure. I was really surprised at the justifications that came from people who play the lottery. The dream of riches has the power to make people dump money into a system that almost guarantees will get them nothing in return. Nothing except for a dream that dies as soon as someone else wins the money. People who play the lottery were actually saying "I know that I'll never win - I just like to participate because it's fun". Well, that's total bullshiat. If you had absolutely no hope of winning, playing would make about as much sense as running your dollar bills through a shredder. I can't believe people would deny that they're really hoping to win.

And with the wealth gap as large as it is currently, we really don't need any more mechanisms that take money out of the hands of the poor. Although I am not in favor of making lotteries illegal, I believe that anyone who receives public assistance in the form of welfare or food stamps should be prohibited from buying tickets and certainly should be prohibited from being able to collect their winnings. Those programs are supposed to be safety nets of last resort, and if those people have the funds to gamble away, they should not be given taxpayer money to prop up their irresponsible lifestyle.

I've never played the lottery in my life and I'm actually glad that Hawaii does not have a lottery.

Atomic Spunk: Lotteries are horrible. I'm not in favor of making them illegal, but I still think they stink. A couple of weeks ago when I posted in a lottery thread, I made a point that lotteries sell the hope of becoming rich overnight, but time and time again, it yanks away that hope from people. Although I'm not a sociologist, this seems like it can cause damage to society in ways that are very difficult to measure. I was really surprised at the justifications that came from people who play the lottery. The dream of riches has the power to make people dump money into a system that almost guarantees will get them nothing in return. Nothing except for a dream that dies as soon as someone else wins the money. People who play the lottery were actually saying "I know that I'll never win - I just like to participate because it's fun". Well, that's total bullshiat. If you had absolutely no hope of winning, playing would make about as much sense as running your dollar bills through a shredder. I can't believe people would deny that they're really hoping to win.

And with the wealth gap as large as it is currently, we really don't need any more mechanisms that take money out of the hands of the poor. Although I am not in favor of making lotteries illegal, I believe that anyone who receives public assistance in the form of welfare or food stamps should be prohibited from buying tickets and certainly should be prohibited from being able to collect their winnings. Those programs are supposed to be safety nets of last resort, and if those people have the funds to gamble away, they should not be given taxpayer money to prop up their irresponsible lifestyle.

I've never played the lottery in my life and I'm actually glad that Hawaii does not have a lottery.

Yea, those idiots, all that money going to education in their states, what were they thinking?

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Yea, those idiots, all that money going to education in their states, what were they thinking?

Meanwhile, I'm going to pick something in the government budget that I like and imagine that all my individual tax dollars go to that.

doodoobutter:
Well, I think the answer depends on what exact probability you're trying to compute.

Take a simpler example: Roll a die, and you win if you roll a 1, and lose otherwise. The probability of winning in a single game is 1/6. What's the probability of winning twice? This isn't a very well-posed question, as the answer depends on how many times you will play. If you only play twice, then the probability is (1/6)*(1/6)=1/36. But if you play three times, then the probability of winning exactly twice is 3*(1/6)*(1/6)*(5/6)=15/216, roughly twice as good as the previous case. I bet the guy in TFA plays regularly.

Of course, it's probably a mistake to give credit to the article writer for thinking of such subtleties - after all, he/she misused the word "odds".

You're also under the assumption that either A) He played the same scratch off game both times or B) All scratch off games have the same probability. If A is true, then the die example is accurate, if the B is true you must also account for the probability of picking those two specific scratch off games out of the multitude of other scratch offs available.

Furthermore, in your example of the die, you're assuming that he is either going to roll twice or three times, rather than roll until he gets two successive victories. In truth it's P(2 for 2) + P(2 for 3)*P(not 2 for 2) + P(2 for 4)*P(not 2 for 2 or 2 for 3) + P(2 for 5)*P(not 2 for 2, 2 for 3, or 2 for 4) + ... which is a far different probability altogether.

Obviously if you win the lottery it's best to take all your winnings and buy more lottery tickets. It can only get better!

CSS-

Working at a local liquor store, I met a man that liked to play lots of lottery numbers. About $50 a week, or so. He was such a curt, rude asshole. When he exited the store after the first time I'd met, I was informed by my boss (owner of said store) that he had won the lottery. Twice.
First time was one and a half million. Second time, on a promotional amount of 33&1/3 million.
He still lives in his split foyer, nearly quarter of an acre lot. Not McMansions, but more like WhiteCastleMansions. Nice yard.
Even got their very own county-issued dumpster on the road in front of their house.
His wife is one of the local yokels that got rich selling and building shopping centers. She's worth a pretty penny on her own, as she owns two large shopping plazas.

You'd think he'd be a happy man.
You'd be wrong.

good news: he won the lottery twice

bad news: he spent the first million on lottery tickets

Lt. Cheese Weasel:
Yea, those idiots, all that money going to education in their states, what were they thinking?

If someone is playing the lottery in order to fund education in their state, the lottery is probably the stupidest vehicle to do it. If someone wants to help fund education, they'd give the money directly to the schools which is a hell of a lot more cost effective than giving it to a lottery company who will take their cut, pay a bunch of administrative expenses, pay out the winnings then pass on the remainder to the schools.

People play the lottery with the hopes of winning big. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap. The bad thing about it is that a disproportionate amount of poor people play the lottery, and practically none of them ever win enough to make any kind of positive change in their lives. I'd prefer poor people use their scarce cash for necessities, not for gambling. Any reasonable person would feel the same way.

Atomic Spunk: Lt. Cheese Weasel:
Yea, those idiots, all that money going to education in their states, what were they thinking?

If someone is playing the lottery in order to fund education in their state, the lottery is probably the stupidest vehicle to do it. If someone wants to help fund education, they'd give the money directly to the schools which is a hell of a lot more cost effective than giving it to a lottery company who will take their cut, pay a bunch of administrative expenses, pay out the winnings then pass on the remainder to the schools.

People play the lottery with the hopes of winning big. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap. The bad thing about it is that a disproportionate amount of poor people play the lottery, and practically none of them ever win enough to make any kind of positive change in their lives. I'd prefer poor people use their scarce cash for necessities, not for gambling. Any reasonable person would feel the same way.

Very much this! There's also the P.R. ads that brag about how much money has been raised for education in a particular period of time that do not also disclose how much in lottery tickets have been sold. For example, here in Tennessee, an ad was recently run saying that $2b has been raised for education since its inception. Every time the ad ran, I thought that it's a sure bet that in that same period of time, they sold a lot more than $2b of lottery tickets.

Also, does anyone know why most lotteries require that winners allow for their identity to be disclosed to the general public? I don't play the lottery, but if I did and won big, I would want to remain anonymous so I don't get pestered by people wanting me to give them a piece of it.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Atomic Spunk: Lotteries are horrible. I'm not in favor of making them illegal, but I still think they stink. A couple of weeks ago when I posted in a lottery thread, I made a point that lotteries sell the hope of becoming rich overnight, but time and time again, it yanks away that hope from people. Although I'm not a sociologist, this seems like it can cause damage to society in ways that are very difficult to measure. I was really surprised at the justifications that came from people who play the lottery. The dream of riches has the power to make people dump money into a system that almost guarantees will get them nothing in return. Nothing except for a dream that dies as soon as someone else wins the money. People who play the lottery were actually saying "I know that I'll never win - I just like to participate because it's fun". Well, that's total bullshiat. If you had absolutely no hope of winning, playing would make about as much sense as running your dollar bills through a shredder. I can't believe people would deny that they're really hoping to win.

And with the wealth gap as large as it is currently, we really don't need any more mechanisms that take money out of the hands of the poor. Although I am not in favor of making lotteries illegal, I believe that anyone who receives public assistance in the form of welfare or food stamps should be prohibited from buying tickets and certainly should be prohibited from being able to collect their winnings. Those programs are supposed to be safety nets of last resort, and if those people have the funds to gamble away, they should not be given taxpayer money to prop up their irresponsible lifestyle.

I've never played the lottery in my life and I'm actually glad that Hawaii does not have a lottery.

Yea, those idiots, all that money going to education in their states, what were they thinking?

If I were to become rich, or even decently well-off, I'd feel it's my civic duty to play the lottery regularly.

Delma Kinney, 50

JENKIES, FRED!


Close but no cigar. It's Velma.

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf:
Also, does anyone know why most lotteries require that winners allow for their identity to be disclosed to the general public? I don't play the lottery, but if I did and won big, I would want to remain anonymous so I don't get pestered by people wanting me to give them a piece of it.

I think the lotteries require it because it's great promotion. The most effective way to sell lottery tickets is for people to hear about someone winning and think "That could be me". If a winner is presentable, the lottery companies will parade them around, showing how happy that person was to win the money.

Your point is true - it'd be way better to be able to remain anonymous, but that's against the best interests of the lotteries so most don't allow it.

Atomic Spunk: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf:
Also, does anyone know why most lotteries require that winners allow for their identity to be disclosed to the general public? I don't play the lottery, but if I did and won big, I would want to remain anonymous so I don't get pestered by people wanting me to give them a piece of it.

I think the lotteries require it because it's great promotion. The most effective way to sell lottery tickets is for people to hear about someone winning and think "That could be me". If a winner is presentable, the lottery companies will parade them around, showing how happy that person was to win the money.

Your point is true - it'd be way better to be able to remain anonymous, but that's against the best interests of the lotteries so most don't allow it.

That's what I thought, but then I still wonder why they think they need to identify the individual instead of referring to them as a John Doe or something

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Atomic Spunk: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf:
Also, does anyone know why most lotteries require that winners allow for their identity to be disclosed to the general public? I don't play the lottery, but if I did and won big, I would want to remain anonymous so I don't get pestered by people wanting me to give them a piece of it.

I think the lotteries require it because it's great promotion. The most effective way to sell lottery tickets is for people to hear about someone winning and think "That could be me". If a winner is presentable, the lottery companies will parade them around, showing how happy that person was to win the money.

Your point is true - it'd be way better to be able to remain anonymous, but that's against the best interests of the lotteries so most don't allow it.

That's what I thought, but then I still wonder why they think they need to identify the individual instead of referring to them as a John Doe or something


It's public money. You can imagine how there might be suspicions of where that money is going exactly should it always go to John Doe.

That said, some states allow the executors of blind trusts to claim the prize. The executor is public knowledge, while retaining some degree of anonymity for the winners in the press. It would still be possible with some sleuthing to determine who they were, if someone were interested enough.

TheDirtyNacho: It's public money. You can imagine how there might be suspicions of where that money is going exactly should it always go to John Doe.

That said, some states allow the executors of blind trusts to claim the prize. The executor is public knowledge, while retaining some degree of anonymity for the winners in the press. It would still be possible with some sleuthing to determine who they were, if someone were interested enough

I see what you mean and it would be nice if all states allowed for an executor to claim the prize