Why is it not worth it to you at a prize lower than that?Same here. If it gets over $300m I'll go drop $20-30. Fully worth it in my opinion.
More prize = more players, odds go down. You'd be better off only playing the low pot games.
Why is it not worth it to you at a prize lower than that?Same here. If it gets over $300m I'll go drop $20-30. Fully worth it in my opinion.
your odds don't change, just the chance of having to split it increase with more players.Why is it not worth it to you at a prize lower than that?
More prize = more players, odds go down. You'd be better off only playing the low pot games.
If more than one person has the same numbers picked, why would you not split it?I see. Why do they make you split it?
It absolutely is a racket. The "odds" in favor of the house are astounding. They can't lose, but the players sure can, and do.I don't understand anything about lotteries.
Odds don't change, but if you and other people pick the same winning numbers, you have to split the prize with each other and then give half of your slice to the government so they can print more food stamps?
Sounds like a racket.
Your logic is correct, but your reasoning is off. Let me explain. Any jackpot will set you up for life, therefore if any jackpot amount is worth buying a ticket for then every jackpot amount is worth it. Additionally, it's not possible to buy enough tickets for enough draws for the odds to be in your favor.If that was correct, then any time the lotto big prize (ignoring the smaller ones) is larger than the odds of winning, it's a "good bet" and you should participate, right? (Also assuming the ticket is $1. If tickets are $2, the payout needs to be more than double the odds against you.)
Is that correct? Or do I have a basic bad assumption or misunderstanding in there somewhere?
Then why are all the winners right back where they started within 5 years?Any jackpot will set you up for life,
The same reason they played in the first place, no money sense.Then why are all the winners right back where they started within 5 years?
I think it depends what the definition of the "odds being in your favor" is.Your logic is correct, but your reasoning is off. Let me explain. Any jackpot will set you up for life, therefore if any jackpot amount is worth buying a ticket for then every jackpot amount is worth it. Additionally, it's not possible to buy enough tickets for enough draws for the odds to be in your favor.
Yes. Odds are not in your favor (depending on how you define it) for a single roll, but the risk vs. reward is. If you are allowed to take that bet as often as you want it becomes a no-brainer. Each roll may be against you, but taken as a whole some number of rolls the odds (statistical chance you come out ahead) flips to your favor. If you were allowed 100 rolls for example and received 10x your bet for every 6, you are virtually guaranteed to profit.But do you agree you should always take the bet if someone is offering to pay you $10 for landing a 1-sided die on 6 for a $1 bet?
Yes. Odds are not in your favor (depending on how you define it) for a single roll, but the risk vs. reward is. If you are allowed to take that bet as often as you want it becomes a no-brainer. Each roll may be against you, but taken as a whole some number of rolls the odds (statistical chance you come out ahead) flips to your favor. If you were allowed 100 rolls for example and received 10x your bet for every 6, you are virtually guaranteed to profit.
I'm ignoring your type-o of rolling a "1-sided" die, I'm pretty sure you meant rolling a 6-sided die once.