Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AdrenalinDragon

How old are you?

Age?  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. How old are you?

    • Less than 13
      2
    • 13-17
      16
    • 18-21
      11
    • 22-28
      8
    • 29+
      4


Recommended Posts

You could argue that it makes sense to tax the ignorant at higher rates, given that they're, by definition, not bright enough to realize that they're getting screwed. ;)

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Ramsey says lottery tickets are a tax on people who can't do math.

 

The way things are going there won't be any social security for us when we get there, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure most people who play the lottery know that it's a negative expectation game. Arguably, if you get a sufficient thrill from playing (as well as from the severely misplaced hope that you, too, may someday be an overnight millionaire), there's enough utility to make up for the 60% return on investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, lottery now emphasizes the "fun" aspect of it, but I'd imagine lot of people who do it for "enjoyment" would fall under the category of gambling addiction, which is not at all healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world who didn't get his driver's license at age 16. :P

I'm 20 and still don't have one. I had a permit once, but it expired a couple years ago.

 

I'm 69 and obviously will be 70 in August. Unlike most of the young ones here that are wishing to be older, I wouldn't mind being 18 again, except I don't like what the future looks like for all of you young bucks.

Ian Wilson

I honestly never wanted to be older. I didn't see the appeal and I liked being a kid.

 

Dave Ramsey says lottery tickets are a tax on people who can't do math.

Nice one! I've got to remember this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except I don't think it benefits to the poor to tax via lottery, as from what I see everyday, they're mostly bought by the poor since they have strong hope to redeem themselves and make their life easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I win the lottery, I'll treat all you CC Zone members a trip to Quebec! :P

 

In all seriousness, I think the tax is ridiculous and poorer countries could use that to expand and improve their lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While lottery tickets are always fun to do every now and then just for the fun of it, they are a rip-off otherwise as the chances of winning are lower than the money one loses for the tickets themselves. I'd rather discover a giant scientific breakthrough and make millions that way, effectively winning the lottery the very successful way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the kind of lottery you are talking about. If I won the lottery of chance by effortlessly picking the right numbers, I would probably put the money towards whatever I need it most for at the time, and donate some of it back to society who would really need it more than me. Of course, as I am only 15 I'm speaking in the future.

 

If you're talking about the lottery of life, where I actually DID something to earn the money, I would do the same but feel much more proud of myself for having given back to society in order to earn the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't exactly think it's the place to go philosophical about lottery. I'm assuming being all good at math, we all know that the odds of winning are ridiculous. As for me, it is my field of study, so 'course I know that. It's all hypothetical, there's no commitment nor prompting/incitement to buy lottery tickets, there's "if"s and only "if"s...

 

Also, I'll turn 23 in 2 days :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I ever achieve 437 on Blobnet, I might consider trying out the lottery again. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I ever achieve 437 on Blobnet, I might consider trying out the lottery again.

 

If you ever achieve 437 on Blobnet, I'd say you'd probably have used up the entirety of your good luck allotment.

 

(Hey, while we're talking about fallicious reasoning, might as well bring up the old "luck is a resource" philosophy.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck isn't exactly a resource. A better way to imagine tiny odds is to think that for every possible number combination you can pick for a certain lottery, a parallel universe is created for each combination, and only one of which involves you winning. Then, say in the universe you won, you went home to attempt Blobnet's 437 route, another set of millions of parallel universes will be created. While the odds of landing in both lucky parallel universes is atomically small, it can happen. This is how I like to disprove karma, too, but then of course you can debate it with the idea that the universe in which you win/lose gets heavier when you do good things, but that's getting way too complicated for me to imagine right now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself don't believe in "luck" or "free will" or any of that. Nothing is really random. You would be able to predict the lottery if you knew exactly how each ball would move and where each ball would start and end up, which you would be able to predict If you knew exactly what the person who positions the balls would be thinking, which you could predict if you knew exactly how everyone and everything would interact with him/her etc. There is no real luck involved.

I totally agree with the buddhist idea that everything is connected. (Y)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no real luck involved.

I totally agree with the buddhist idea that everything is connected. (Y)

 

Well. Luck only applies when things are not completely deterministic. Theoretically, either everything is deterministic or nothing is, depending on how you look at it and how many universes you think there are. Since chaos theory states that we can't possibly measure things closely enough, we might as well treat certain things as random even though they are completely deterministic.

 

The best you can do is minimize the possiblity of bad outcome and maximize the possibilty of the good. Hedge funds anyone?

 

I suppose that everything is connected, but not in a way we can actually measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best you can do is minimize the possiblity of bad outcome and maximize the possibilty of the good. Hedge funds anyone?

 

That also depends on the degree to which those outcomes are good and bad. People are massively risk averse in general, and this causes them to lose out on tons of expected value. An example from David Sklansky's book "DUCY?": (warning: a bit long)

 

 

Four middle-aged couples were sitting in the gourmet restaurant at Bob Stupak's Vegas World Casino anticipating that in about an hour one of them would be a millionaire. It was the culmination of a year-long slot tournament that was part of Bob's vacation packages. One member of each couple would go on the stage to play on one of the four machines assigned to them. Whoever did the best would win a million dollars.

 

Second prize was a steep reduction, $50,000. Third prize was $20,000. Fourth was $10,000. But even the small prizes were big money to these middle-class people who had gotten extremely lucky in this tournament's earlier rounds.

 

Several months earlier Bob Stupak had hired me as his consultant. As such, I was always looking for ways to make or save Bob's money. While observing these couples, an opportunity to save some serious money occurred to me. I pulled Bob aside and said "Offer them each a settlement of $60,000. They will still appear on the stage and go through the motions, but let's see if they will sign a contract specifying that, regardless of the outcome, they will all be paid $60,000."

 

Bob frowned, shook his head, and replied "No way they would make such a deal."

 

But my professional gambling experience had taught me something about human nature. Even though any serious gambler would laugh at this offer, these four couples might see it differently. From their point of view, it might appear better to take an offer that three-quarters of the time would give them more than they would get from playing. So I said "Bob, just ask them. It can't hurt to ask."

 

He did, and they all said "Yes." They agreed to take a total of $240,000 rather than a total of $1,080,000.

 

James edit: These people had a game that would have paid them $270,000 on average, and they all turned it down for $60,000. Granted, you can make exceptions for life-changing amounts of money (see: utility theory), but that can't justify taking this horrendous offer...also, an interesting segment related to this scenario later in the book:

 

 

We started this book by telling you about the astonishing settlement that the four slot tournament finalists were willing to take. At first, Bob was flabbergasted by their decision. Why would they take so much less than their EV?

 

As time passed, he realized something that I had known for years: Average gamblers disregard and misunderstand EV, especially when serious money is involved. Don't gamblers want to take risks? Nobody forces them to play slot machines, craps, and so on. They do it because they get a kick out of it. But, when the money gets serious, they get scared. I'll have a lot more to say about attitudes toward risk later. For the moment, let's finish the story.

 

Because of my suggestion, the finalists threw $840,000 of EV straight into Bob's pocket. Alas, he threw it right back at them. Don't ask me why. In fact, in a few hours he was kicking himself.

 

Our attorney told Bob that there was a reasonable chance that the ostensible winner, the man or woman who won on the stage, would later claim that he was under some sort of duress and would ask for the full million dollars. (None of the other entrants would sue because they all would have received more than their official prize money). For some strange reason Bob agreed with his attorney, let the tournament go forward, and paid all four winners the original prizes. Do you realize why it was a bad decision?

 

Because the upside reward was much greater than the downside risk. If his attorney was right, and the winner sued and won, Bob would have paid $100,000 more: $50,000 extra to fourth, $40,000 extra to third, and $10,000 extra to second. If the attorney was wrong, he saved $840,000. Thus he was getting 8.4-to-1 odds.

 

James edit: Sklansky then goes on to say how P(getting sued and losing) was really low anyway, but through some trivial calculations, we can show that even if P(getting sued and losing) was 89%, it still would have been better to offer the $60k deal and face a probable successful lawsuit. This is a sample of some of the math that goes on in the mind of a [successful] poker player.

 

 

 

On topic, I recently turned 19 and I'm nowhere near depressed. I don't know why depression would be the natural state for those in our age group...?

 

Also, +1 to Markus' post, mostly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That also depends on the degree to which those outcomes are good and bad. People are massively risk averse in general, and this causes them to lose out on tons of expected value. An example from David Sklansky's book "DUCY?": (warning: a bit long)

 

 

Four middle-aged couples were sitting in the gourmet restaurant at Bob Stupak's Vegas World Casino anticipating that in about an hour one of them would be a millionaire. It was the culmination of a year-long slot tournament that was part of Bob's vacation packages. One member of each couple would go on the stage to play on one of the four machines assigned to them. Whoever did the best would win a million dollars.

 

Second prize was a steep reduction, $50,000. Third prize was $20,000. Fourth was $10,000. But even the small prizes were big money to these middle-class people who had gotten extremely lucky in this tournament's earlier rounds.

 

Several months earlier Bob Stupak had hired me as his consultant. As such, I was always looking for ways to make or save Bob's money. While observing these couples, an opportunity to save some serious money occurred to me. I pulled Bob aside and said "Offer them each a settlement of $60,000. They will still appear on the stage and go through the motions, but let's see if they will sign a contract specifying that, regardless of the outcome, they will all be paid $60,000."

 

Bob frowned, shook his head, and replied "No way they would make such a deal."

 

But my professional gambling experience had taught me something about human nature. Even though any serious gambler would laugh at this offer, these four couples might see it differently. From their point of view, it might appear better to take an offer that three-quarters of the time would give them more than they would get from playing. So I said "Bob, just ask them. It can't hurt to ask."

 

He did, and they all said "Yes." They agreed to take a total of $240,000 rather than a total of $1,080,000.

 

James edit: These people had a game that would have paid them $270,000 on average, and they all turned it down for $60,000. Granted, you can make exceptions for life-changing amounts of money (see: utility theory), but that can't justify taking this horrendous offer...also, an interesting segment related to this scenario later in the book:

 

 

We started this book by telling you about the astonishing settlement that the four slot tournament finalists were willing to take. At first, Bob was flabbergasted by their decision. Why would they take so much less than their EV?

 

As time passed, he realized something that I had known for years: Average gamblers disregard and misunderstand EV, especially when serious money is involved. Don't gamblers want to take risks? Nobody forces them to play slot machines, craps, and so on. They do it because they get a kick out of it. But, when the money gets serious, they get scared. I'll have a lot more to say about attitudes toward risk later. For the moment, let's finish the story.

 

Because of my suggestion, the finalists threw $840,000 of EV straight into Bob's pocket. Alas, he threw it right back at them. Don't ask me why. In fact, in a few hours he was kicking himself.

 

Our attorney told Bob that there was a reasonable chance that the ostensible winner, the man or woman who won on the stage, would later claim that he was under some sort of duress and would ask for the full million dollars. (None of the other entrants would sue because they all would have received more than their official prize money). For some strange reason Bob agreed with his attorney, let the tournament go forward, and paid all four winners the original prizes. Do you realize why it was a bad decision?

 

Because the upside reward was much greater than the downside risk. If his attorney was right, and the winner sued and won, Bob would have paid $100,000 more: $50,000 extra to fourth, $40,000 extra to third, and $10,000 extra to second. If the attorney was wrong, he saved $840,000. Thus he was getting 8.4-to-1 odds.

 

James edit: Sklansky then goes on to say how P(getting sued and losing) was really low anyway, but through some trivial calculations, we can show that even if P(getting sued and losing) was 89%, it still would have been better to offer the $60k deal and face a probable successful lawsuit. This is a sample of some of the math that goes on in the mind of a [successful] poker player.

 

 

 

On topic, I recently turned 19 and I'm nowhere near depressed. I don't know why depression would be the natural state for those in our age group...?

 

Also, +1 to Markus' post, mostly.

 

Well the age has nothing to do with why I'm depressed. Just all the nonsense I've been forced to deal with the past couple of days. It tends to go away quickly though so no one should be concerned :) I feel fine being on the Zone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go through depression attacks sometimes, usually due to low self-esteem, but they pass once the problem has been resolved. I'm a very event-based person; something must happen to trigger a feeling or emotion inside me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently depressed and I'm only 20... You should consider yourself "lucky" I guess.

 

Well, I've been depressed for well over a decade now. Pretty much the only joy I get out of life is in pop music. I don't really see that changing in the near future; when I was a teenager I kept expecting it to, but it never did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×