It was pointed out that I may have lost in the lotteries by not
playing. My statement was that I had never lost, not that I never
played. So the assumption that I never played is a probabalistic (sp?)
one. As is the statement that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I'll
accept both as correct logic.
The same assumptions about probabilities and expected values, especially
after Brian's analysis showing negative expected values, which has to be
true since the state takes a cut and winnings come only from money put in,
shows that I probably did maximize my gains by not playing. In other words,
the statement that I did not lose has the same degree of truth (high) as
the conclusion that I never played.
All of which isn't intended to convey some deep truth. What I have foundmost interesting in the
discussion is that some of us don't play because
of our mathematical understanding of the situation, and some would play
in spite of it. In fact this is all related to the notion that expected
value is a very hard concept to pin down if it's supposed to model human
behavior in some way. Clearly the pure definition of expected value
doesn't apply to human behavior, at least in this case. I can live with
that. After all, who ever saw a straight line, or the number one, but
we use those all the time too.
Phil Mahler
Middlesex CC
Bedford, MA