Stupid things people thought about Finance

[LuxLiving]

Originally Posted by Jacklad

But they don't do stories on the millions of people who lost. Or the people who spend the grocery money on lottery tickets. Or stories comparing people who throw $10 at the lottery every week for twenty years to those who saved $10 week over the same period.

Lotteries are a state sponsored tax on the stupid.

Jackie

Jackie - this just made me cackle right out loud! I posted you over on the Financial Quotes thread!

[Jacklad]

Originally Posted by LuxLiving

Jackie - this just made me cackle right out loud! I posted you over on the Financial Quotes thread!

<laugh> That's nothing - the main page just now had this "Money Fun Fact":

You are 15 times more likely to die from flesh-eating bacteria (one in 1 million) than to win the lottery (one in 15 million).

Yikes! So I hit reload for a few more:

More than 90 percent of lottery winners use up their winnings within 10 years -- some go through their money in weeks or months.

If your car gets 25 miles per gallon, and each Lotto ticket purchased equals a gallon of gas in your car, it would take 730 round-trips to the moon before anyone won the jackpot.

Statistical odds of winning the average state lottery are about one in 15 million (although the figure can vary slightly from state to state, depending on how large the pot gets). At the rate of 2,600 tickets a year over 5,000 years, you would only be mathematically guaranteed to hit the lucky numbers after an investment of roughly $13 million dollars.

You know that the odds of winning the lottery are not good, but do you realize how difficult it is? If you purchase 50 Lotto tickets each week, you will win the jackpot every 5,000 years.

It is three times more likely for a person driving 10 miles to purchase a Lotto ticket to be killed in a car accident than to win the jackpot.

And yet, I actually know people who budget in lottery tickets. Go figure.

Jackie

[wannabefree]

I love that quote- Lottery is a tax on people who don't know how to do math.

[LuxLiving]

Originally Posted by wannabefree

wow these forums are sweet do I get credit for this thread hijack

Only if your FICO is high enough!

Try this link:

http://www.bankrate.com/nltrack/fico...?lpid=BKRATE29

[Mathew Green]

Originally Posted by Jacklad

Think of it this way - I am Mary. I make my choice. What do I know? I know that I have a 1/3 chance of having the car. But I also know that there is a 2/3 chance that I don't. I also know with 100% certainty that at least one of the non-chosen ones is a goat. When that goat is revealed, it doesn't change anything that I already know - there is still a 2/3 chance that I didn't choose the car, so it's in my best interest to switch. Make more sense that way?

What makes this confusing is that the same logic applies to Susie, and it's in her best interest to switch as well. That's not impossible, because a 2/3 chance of success still implies a 1/3 chance of failure.

Well at least you've given me my laugh for the day!

And I'll return the favor by conceeding that if there is only one contestant, there is be a theoretical advantage in switching doors.

But in this case (where Monty opens the door that neither girl picked) each girl is left with a 50-50 chance of already having the right door. So there's a 50-50 chance she'll be wrong if she switches. In essense the switch question has become, "One of you has a car and the other has a goat, but I won't tell you which one. Would you like to switch?" That still looks like 50-50 to me.

Back to the original problem:

As presented on the tv show, there were two contestants who chose two different doors. As I see it, having two contestants makes a difference, and I think that's part of the reason we disagree about this problem. With two contestants, there's twice as much chance that one of them will pick the right door. (Dare I say there's a 2/3 chance one of them has chosen the right door?) So it could be equally well argued that after one contestant is eliminated, the remaining contestant has a better chance of winning by not switching.

It's things like that that make me feel like my first impression was correct, but I think you've made a convincing enough case that there is at least a slight advantage in switching. Thank you for an interesting discussion. It's been fun.

[Mathew Green]

Originally Posted by Jacklad

Of course, if I had the choice between a car and a goat, my kids (pun intended) would be voting for the goat. They are awfully cute .

Your children or the goats?

[Jacklad]

Originally Posted by Mathew Green

Your children or the goats?

Both. But I think the goats are a little less stubborn (and if you've ever dealt with goats on the hoof, so to speak, you'll know that's saying something).

Jackie

[Mathew Green]

Originally Posted by Jacklad

The bigger question, though, is why so many people play the lottery.

Two reasons:

1) When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose.

2) When you've got enough extra money to buy a little excitement once a week, lottery tickets are a cheap thrill.

What kills me is the people who always play the same numbers because "They have to come up sooner or later!"

Of course I always played the same numbers too, but I did it because I'd feel like a horse's rear end if the numbers I played last week won this week. For the same reason, when I didn't have a ticket, I made it a point to not know which numbers won.

I still buy an occasional ticket, just for the heck of it, but now I'm more likely to buy a scratch off. They have better odds of winning. Either way, it's a cheap way to rent a dream for a few days.

The sad thing is all the people who really think they have a decent change of winning.

[Broken Arrow]

Bah! You'll never get me to play.

[wannabefree]

Originally Posted by LuxLiving

Only if your FICO is high enough!

Try this link:

http://www.bankrate.com/nltrack/fico...?lpid=BKRATE29

My goal is a zero FICO so no luck for me!