At a convenience store with a hilltop view of Williams-Brice Stadium, Jeff Connor scribbles five numbers on a Palmetto Cash 5 lottery slip.
"If I've got 20 extra dollars, I'll put 10 percent or so into the lottery. Just like tithing," he said.
Connor estimates he spends $20 to $30 per week on lottery games for a very simple reason: "I'd like to be a millionaire."
Meet the bread and butter for the Palmetto State's lotto.
They're residents who play regularly but have never won big. And they continue playing even though they don't directly benefit.
Connor, 44, has no children so the lottery-funded scholarships won't help him out. And he's already finished school himself.
"The lottery wasn't around when I was at USC," he said. "Otherwise, I wouldn't be paying on these student loans."
And while he's won a few times, including $40 and $80 pots, his millionaire dreams are still just dreams.
The lottery's architects say it's not their job to look out for people like Connor.
"It's a voluntary decision (to play). Nobody's arm is being twisted," said former Gov. Jim Hodges.
State Rep. John Scott, R-Richland, said people take equally risky chances all the time.
"It's the same choice you make if you want to use alcoholic beverages - you don't have to do it," Scott said. "You've got a 401(k)? You're gambling. Got stocks? You're gambling."
Connor said he takes solace in the fact that his money is providing scholarships for worthy students, even if they're not his children.
"We have children in need of an education," he said. "They may not be my kids, but it takes a village. We're all one village."
That's a good attitude because just like in Vegas, the house almost always wins.
Connor's odds of matching up all five numbers on his play slip and winning the $100,000 pot is one in 501,942.
"We shouldn't be sending the message that you can change your circumstances by playing the lottery," said Ernie Passailaigue, executive director of the S.C. Education Lottery Commission. "Because, chances are, you won't win."
I don't think this is news to most lottery players. I think we know that most players will never get a big hit, but that won't stop me from believing that one day I will see a big payoff. So yeah, I'm going to keep playing.
Thank you Todd for posting this article. I doubt if it will change any attitudes here, but maybe somebody will wake up and smell the coffee and realize the lottery is a shot at a big win, but far from a guarantee. I read so many posts here that say "I know I'll win the PB" and the chances are so slim. I often think I'm going to win too, even after 30 years. I still hope I do someday, but I realize it might never happen.
I'm glad I continued reading the entire article, because at first it said the 44 year old man didn't benefit from the funds generated by the state lottery, since he has no children in school. I was ready to dispute that comment. Then the player said "it takes a village" which is so true. When I'm looking for a place to live, someone will say that good schools aren't critical because of my age and my answer is "Yes, but that's not entirely true." I want to live in an area where a child's quality of education is important to the community. I've been looking at homes in SC which is why this article caught my attention in the first place.
I'm with ThatScaryChick, this is not news to most players.
From the OP:
Meet the bread and butter for the Palmetto State's lotto.
Very true.
Anyone who looks at the lotto as anything other than entertainment or a $1 or a few dollars worth of the chance to "run a toothpick into a lumberyard" is just not being real.
Recreation money is one thing, expecting a ROI (return on "investment") in any form of gambling is economic suicide. Eventually the house edge will destroy you, it is designed to destroy you.
When the overall odds of winning any prize are 1:40 or worst and most of those prizes are $1-$2, most players think they are lucky if they get back a dollar for every $10 spent when they don't win the big prize and they are.
Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on Dec 17, 2007
Thank you Todd for posting this article. I doubt if it will change any attitudes here, but maybe somebody will wake up and smell the coffee and realize the lottery is a shot at a big win, but far from a guarantee. I read so many posts here that say "I know I'll win the PB" and the chances are so slim. I often think I'm going to win too, even after 30 years. I still hope I do someday, but I realize it might never happen.
I'm glad I continued reading the entire article, because at first it said the 44 year old man didn't benefit from the funds generated by the state lottery, since he has no children in school. I was ready to dispute that comment. Then the player said "it takes a village" which is so true. When I'm looking for a place to live, someone will say that good schools aren't critical because of my age and my answer is "Yes, but that's not entirely true." I want to live in an area where a child's quality of education is important to the community. I've been looking at homes in SC which is why this article caught my attention in the first place.
I agree it takes a village. Just not the kind of village Hillary Clinton would create.
Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on Dec 17, 2007
I'm with ThatScaryChick, this is not news to most players.
From the OP:
Meet the bread and butter for the Palmetto State's lotto.
Very true.
Anyone who looks at the lotto as anything other than entertainment or a $1 or a few dollars worth of the chance to "run a toothpick into a lumberyard" is just not being real.
Recreation money is one thing, expecting a ROI (return on "investment") in any form of gambling is economic suicide. Eventually the house edge will destroy you, it is designed to destroy you.
it is designed to destroy you.
Maybe it has. I always thought I had a chance, then I got on LP and thought I had more of a chance, and now I'm reading I'm a fool to even dream about it. So, no matter how intelligent or rational a person is, the idea of being that 1 in a million or even one in 20 million, still creates temptation. Whether it's greed or hope, logic is cast aside by these illusions.
I dont think you need to tell lottery players that chances are youre not going to hit the jackpot... We all know by the odds that probably not, but as long as you have 1 CHANCE, you got one more chance than the guy who dont play... Its kinda like lightning hitting you...most likely you wont get hit by it...but tell that to the 1000's with burnt shirts and shoes!
Sure it's unlikely that you'll ever hit the "Big One", but I do know that you can't win if you don't play. I also don't spend myself into the poorhouse buying tickets.
I wager comfortably within my budget about $25 a week on Cash 5, Colorado Lotto and Powerball. That money is purely discretionary income that I could spend any number of ways but I choose to buy lottery tickets.
I've won a few small prizes including $200 twice on 4 of 5 in Cash 5.
I hope to win the "Big One" someday, but you can take it to the bank that I will keep on playing as long as I live.
Didn't this article come out last week in The Daily Obvious?
"State Rep. John Scott, R-Richland, said people take equally risky chances all the time.
"It's the same choice you make if you want to use alcoholic beverages - you don't have to do it," Scott said. "You've got a 401(k)? You're gambling. Got stocks? You're gambling."
Spoken like a true politician, who's either putting a hell of a lot of spin on his position, or doesn't have a clue about reality. Sure, people lose money on investments now and then, but on average, investing is just as sure to increase your worth as gambling is to decrease it.
Let me expound a bit on "designed to destroy you".
By that I mean the house edge, regardles of the game, is always going to prove itself out.
I'm sure there's people here (LP) that don't spend on lotto in a month what some other people spend on one night out.
Those aren't the kind of people I'm talking about.
I'm talking about someone, that for whatever reason, one day decides they have got a game beat. Those are the ones that are going to get destroyed by the house edge.
Think about the game of Blackjack. Everyone who has ever written a Blackjack book says never take insurance. Well, the stats they use to back that up are based on millions and millions of hands. no one is going to play that many hands.
Someone who just read that goes to Vegas and this is the one time in their life they're betting $100 on a hand of cards and the dealer looks at them and asks, "Insruance?"
And that's blackjack, a game with a very low house edge.
People get slaughtered with 6 & 8 dice systems, betting the Don't, etc.... and yet people think they're going to consistently beat a lotto game?
Any form of gambling is as much the ego business as it is the gambling and entertainment business.
Quote: Originally posted by time*treat on Dec 17, 2007
"You've got a 401(k)? You're gambling. Got stocks? You're gambling."
The main dfferences between stocks and lottery are stigma and rates of return.
A 401(k) is only risky if the employee invests in the company stock (like Enron) or a mutual fund that doesn't perform well and his portfolio isn't adequately diversified. Usually he/she has a choice and can pick a fixed annuity and/or bonds as well. Even if the investment is conservative, 4% or 5% over time is better than nothing, especially if a company offers to match contributions. A little more risky, but relatively conservative, portfolio of stocks will usually average 8% over 25 years. If you buy lottery tickets for 25 years and don't win anything, you just have a shoebox filled with lottery tickets. But I'm a gambler, so I'm hoping I can afford new shoes soon! :-)
Coin Toss - Funny you should mention that! Seemed as if every time I said no to "insurance?" I lost!
KY Floyd wrote: Didn't this article come out last week in The Daily Obvious?
This is a story about a S.C. player and the S.C. lottery.
With that said. S.C. high School students have one of the highest dropout rates in The U.S.. That trend needs to be reversed as there are fewer jobs available year after year for dropouts. There are more and more jobs becoming available as industries move into in S.C. that require a higher education.
South Carolina is on an upward trend economcaly and the education levels needs to move in the same direction.
Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on Dec 17, 2007
A 401(k) is only risky if the employee invests in the company stock (like Enron) or a mutual fund that doesn't perform well and his portfolio isn't adequately diversified. Usually he/she has a choice and can pick a fixed annuity and/or bonds as well. Even if the investment is conservative, 4% or 5% over time is better than nothing, especially if a company offers to match contributions. A little more risky, but relatively conservative, portfolio of stocks will usually average 8% over 25 years. If you buy lottery tickets for 25 years and don't win anything, you just have a shoebox filled with lottery tickets. But I'm a gambler, so I'm hoping I can afford new shoes soon! :-)
Coin Toss - Funny you should mention that! Seemed as if every time I said no to "insurance?" I lost!
KY Floyd wrote: Didn't this article come out last week in The Daily Obvious?
Where does the money come from to pay you 4 or 5%?
What is your rate of return if you are paid 4 or 5% nominal return, while actual inflation (loss of purchasing power) is 8%? Here's a hint, it's less than zero.
Now, many people buy the big lie about how purchasing the Dow 30 components in some given year and holding on over so many years would return so much percent. This is garbage. When a Dow company falls on hard times, it gets taken out of the index and replaced with a successful company. The index average value, however, is not changed. In any other industry this would be fraud.
~~~~
A lottery is only risky if the player invests in the daily or a jackpot game that doesn't perform well and his wheel isn't adequately diversified. Usually he/she has a choice and can pick a scratch-off and/or raffle as well. Even if the player is conservative, 4% or 5% over time is better than nothing, especially if a game offers free quick picks. A little more risky, but relatively conservative, system of playing will usually average 8% over 25 years. If you buy stocks and mutual funds for 25 years and don't profit, you just have a shoebox filled with brokerage statements.
I agree totally...think of all the people who say "im not going to win" and the next day theyre buying new houses and cars.... I think people with a gambling problem should refrain from lottery games, but for others who know self control, have fun and take a chance at fortune.. Everydrawing that goes by and i miss it totally, i just say "at least i tried". Maybe one day ill be in for a pleasant suprise. As for now, im not counting my chickens till the eggs hatch! I know ill keep trying till my last breathe of air, why? because i want the chance to have my dreams come true.. Till then ill just be a working class guy!
Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on Dec 17, 2007
Let me expound a bit on "designed to destroy you".
By that I mean the house edge, regardles of the game, is always going to prove itself out.
I'm sure there's people here (LP) that don't spend on lotto in a month what some other people spend on one night out.
Those aren't the kind of people I'm talking about.
I'm talking about someone, that for whatever reason, one day decides they have got a game beat. Those are the ones that are going to get destroyed by the house edge.
Think about the game of Blackjack. Everyone who has ever written a Blackjack book says never take insurance. Well, the stats they use to back that up are based on millions and millions of hands. no one is going to play that many hands.
Someone who just read that goes to Vegas and this is the one time in their life they're betting $100 on a hand of cards and the dealer looks at them and asks, "Insruance?"
And that's blackjack, a game with a very low house edge.
People get slaughtered with 6 & 8 dice systems, betting the Don't, etc.... and yet people think they're going to consistently beat a lotto game?
Any form of gambling is as much the ego business as it is the gambling and entertainment business.
The casino is designed to destroy you and they do it with a 5% or smaller house edge. It is like a roller coaster ride with lots of ups and downs, but always trending toward ground zero at the end of the ride.
I've always considered it a mistake to compare the big lottery games with casino games because with lottery you only need to win once to recover your entire investment and become a multi-millionaire.
With the lottery we have the oppertunity to make our own luck. We pick the numbers, we decide how many tickets to play and when we play them. It is the choices WE make that determine whether we win or lose.
Every week the lottery makes dozens of people millionaires across this great country of ours. It is possible to win the lottery, people do it all the time.
What the story needs to also make clear is that, sometimes you do match all of the numbers and still not see a big payout because other people also matched all the numbers.
I don't expect that a win will change my life, but I've matched 5 of 5 before via my own system so it's possible to happen again with hopefully a better payout. For now I am happy if a win gets me a new TV set or even a visit to TGI Friday's.
If everyone who played at some point won a big jackpot, then everyone would have so much money that demand on products would be overwhelming and shortages would be commonplace, gas would be $500/gallon, milk $600/gallon, and that's if you could find anyone still wanting to serve you due to also a severe labor shortage. Can you say "Zimbabwe"? Somebody has to make the donuts. The only way to produce a $million winner is to have 2 million $1 losers.
When you buy a ticket and lose you contribute to the extreme joy of the one or few people that win!
Stocks = a return on your money, an 8% return on a security is 8% of what you invested, the investment still being there!, or you sell and get the original invstment and the 8% back.
Playing $1,000 a year and cashing winning tickets for $100, let's say, does in no way, shape, or form, mean you had a 10% return, it means you blew $900. Big difference.
Lotto = a return as a portion of your money, and that's all folks, the original money went to the lotto. And the examples given in this thread are very doubtful, highly optimistic and over rated.. A very, very few people get "struck by lightning" (hit a jackpot), and as LckyLary stated above, everyone else contributed to that jackpot. Most of the lower tier prizes just go right back into the lotto.
Thinking of lotto as a savings account or any form of gambling as an investmnent is heading for trouble.
Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on Dec 18, 2007
You don't invest $1 or $2 or chump change in stocks.
Anyone who plays lotto to the extent that they could have invested that much needs some serious help.
Unless they win. If they lose, they won't need any more help than the people who owned Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, KMart, or any of the lesser known companies that get delisted every week. They will, however, get more sympathy. But, last I checked, that had no monetary value.
I know some are chomping at the bit to tell me that Kmart is still in business. Well, the KMart shares that were owned when the company went into bankruptcy were canceled and are not the same Kmart shares that exist as part of Sears Holdings, today. Like two different people with the same name.
Quote: Originally posted by time*treat on Dec 18, 2007
Unless they win. If they lose, they won't need any more help than the people who owned Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, KMart, or any of the lesser known companies that get delisted every week. They will, however, get more sympathy. But, last I checked, that had no monetary value.
I know some are chomping at the bit to tell me that Kmart is still in business. Well, the KMart shares that were owned when the company went into bankruptcy were canceled and are not the same Kmart shares that exist as part of Sears Holdings, today. Like two different people with the same name.
Same with Delta, stockholders took a bath when stock was canceled coming out of bankruptcy. They reissued anew now doing pretty well.
Also what about mutual funds which "spread" risk which have lost money due to sub-prime mortgage investments at the hands of "astute" brokers who socked investors' money into them? Those "astute" brokers collected commissions which was their #1 agenda.
Frankly if I'm going to lose any money I'd rather do it myself ... win or lose .... and have only myself to blame for mistakes. The lottery provides just that.
"It's the same choice you make if you want to use alcoholic beverages - you don't have to do it"
No but they still are allowed to have advertisements on TV to entice you drink it. But yet adds for cigarettes were banned because the state does not control it and they don't think people should smoke!
You don't have to gamble either but yet I see commercials on TV telling you to do so!
Ban the lottery commercials as well! We don't need to see a ground hog on TV telling us to keep on scratching thinking we might win one of their bigger prizes if we do! What a bunch of hog wash!
Quote: Originally posted by time*treat on Dec 18, 2007
Unless they win. If they lose, they won't need any more help than the people who owned Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, KMart, or any of the lesser known companies that get delisted every week. They will, however, get more sympathy. But, last I checked, that had no monetary value.
I know some are chomping at the bit to tell me that Kmart is still in business. Well, the KMart shares that were owned when the company went into bankruptcy were canceled and are not the same Kmart shares that exist as part of Sears Holdings, today. Like two different people with the same name.
Well, yes, that happens but all too often people caught in something like that were way too greedy.
Employees with stock options don't have much choice, but most of those investors were not employees.
You never go in without a known low, "buy for $25, if it gets down to $18 SELL, if it goes up, SELL at $34", etc....
Even if you take a bath, there's "income averaging and losses in the market - try "income averaging" lottery losses.
While it is true that putting $1 a week in the bank won't help you to retire, saying that deducting part of your income every week in a savings plan at work or an IRA (both use pre-tax dollars) and averaging 5% over 30 years is the same as playing the lottery is absurd. I can't even think of a word for saying the lottery is a better way of investing your money than saving for retirement. By law, a company can't tell you where to put your money. They need to offer you choices (think 3 is the minimum) So you don't have to buy their stock to be in the 401(k) plan. That's illegal.
Suggesting that when you put money into a retirement plan at work you have no control over it, but you do have control when you buy a lottery ticket is just plain ridiculous. How does anyone have control of a game where numbered balls at bounced around and are sucked through a tube?
I was going to write much more, but I think anyone with common sense can figure these things out. After all, just do the math. Like Coin Toss wrote, even if you don't make a fortune, you still have your principal. If it were up to me, I'd make every LP member a jackpot winner but I fear that so many will be quoting Bob Seger who laments "I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then."
Of course many people can't invest because they need every dime to feed & clothe their kids, but this discussion isn't about that subject. Time*treat, you can bring up inflation all you want, but the fact is that the wealthiest segment of our society today started out making less than $150 a week. The reason is that most people who were born 70 years ago had different values.
Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on Dec 18, 2007
While it is true that putting $1 a week in the bank won't help you to retire, saying that deducting part of your income every week in a savings plan at work or an IRA (both use pre-tax dollars) and averaging 5% over 30 years is the same as playing the lottery is absurd. I can't even think of a word for saying the lottery is a better way of investing your money than saving for retirement. By law, a company can't tell you where to put your money. They need to offer you choices (think 3 is the minimum) So you don't have to buy their stock to be in the 401(k) plan. That's illegal.
Suggesting that when you put money into a retirement plan at work you have no control over it, but you do have control when you buy a lottery ticket is just plain ridiculous. How does anyone have control of a game where numbered balls at bounced around and are sucked through a tube?
I was going to write much more, but I think anyone with common sense can figure these things out. After all, just do the math. Like Coin Toss wrote, even if you don't make a fortune, you still have your principal. If it were up to me, I'd make every LP member a jackpot winner but I fear that so many will be quoting Bob Seger who laments "I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then."
Of course many people can't invest because they need every dime to feed & clothe their kids, but this discussion isn't about that subject. Time*treat, you can bring up inflation all you want, but the fact is that the wealthiest segment of our society today started out making less than $150 a week. The reason is that most people who were born 70 years ago had different values.
When I started my 401(k) I was making about $500 a week and had 10% ($50) deducted from my paycheck, but the difference in my take home pay was less than $50 because my tax base was lowered to $450. The plan allowed me to invest in almost any stock in the three major stock markets plus a large number of mutual funds.
Money market funds were the safest investment but their yields were usually lower than the stocks offering dividends. I read an article by Warren Buffett that simply suggested researching the companies making a product or a business you liked. Ask anybody that bought Wal Mart in the 1980s how much their stock is now worth.
I never thought borrowing from a 401(k) was a good idea but instead of paying a lender 10% and the principle, the 10% and the principle went into your account.
It can be said the stock market is a form of gambling but you can't compare it to buying lottery tickets.
I figure there is chance I could win - After all I met my wife. Not sure what the odds are but - she was going to U of Iowa - home in Council Buffs IA for the week end. I was in Air Force in Omaha. I usually did not go to bars but that night I did. I asked her to Dance at the HEET lounge in Omaha and she said yes! And we have been married for 30 some years. When I think of the hours of the year - the chances we both were there - that the lightening DID strike at our hearts. Sure I will win!! (won $1 on Cash 5 just tonight!!)
I also believe that if I am to win that spending more than $1 on a draw is a waste of money.
Quote: Originally posted by richnc on Dec 20, 2007
I figure there is chance I could win - After all I met my wife. Not sure what the odds are but - she was going to U of Iowa - home in Council Buffs IA for the week end. I was in Air Force in Omaha. I usually did not go to bars but that night I did. I asked her to Dance at the HEET lounge in Omaha and she said yes! And we have been married for 30 some years. When I think of the hours of the year - the chances we both were there - that the lightening DID strike at our hearts. Sure I will win!! (won $1 on Cash 5 just tonight!!)
I also believe that if I am to win that spending more than $1 on a draw is a waste of money.
I figure there is chance I could win - After all I met my wife.
That's probably the best thing I've ever read here when discussing the odds of winning!
"Most lottery players never see big payoff"
as true as it is.....thats not something I wanna hear right before I go to buy tickets...lol
I don't think this is news to most lottery players. I think we know that most players will never get a big hit, but that won't stop me from believing that one day I will see a big payoff. So yeah, I'm going to keep playing.
Thank you Todd for posting this article. I doubt if it will change any attitudes here, but maybe somebody will wake up and smell the coffee and realize the lottery is a shot at a big win, but far from a guarantee. I read so many posts here that say "I know I'll win the PB" and the chances are so slim. I often think I'm going to win too, even after 30 years. I still hope I do someday, but I realize it might never happen.
I'm glad I continued reading the entire article, because at first it said the 44 year old man didn't benefit from the funds generated by the state lottery, since he has no children in school. I was ready to dispute that comment. Then the player said "it takes a village" which is so true. When I'm looking for a place to live, someone will say that good schools aren't critical because of my age and my answer is "Yes, but that's not entirely true." I want to live in an area where a child's quality of education is important to the community. I've been looking at homes in SC which is why this article caught my attention in the first place.
If he wants to be a millionare why is he playing a Cash 5 game?
I'm with ThatScaryChick, this is not news to most players.
From the OP:
Meet the bread and butter for the Palmetto State's lotto.
Very true.
Anyone who looks at the lotto as anything other than entertainment or a $1 or a few dollars worth of the chance to "run a toothpick into a lumberyard" is just not being real.
Recreation money is one thing, expecting a ROI (return on "investment") in any form of gambling is economic suicide. Eventually the house edge will destroy you, it is designed to destroy you.
When the overall odds of winning any prize are 1:40 or worst and most of those prizes are $1-$2, most players think they are lucky if they get back a dollar for every $10 spent when they don't win the big prize and they are.
I agree it takes a village. Just not the kind of village Hillary Clinton would create.
it is designed to destroy you.
Maybe it has. I always thought I had a chance, then I got on LP and thought I had more of a chance, and now I'm reading I'm a fool to even dream about it. So, no matter how intelligent or rational a person is, the idea of being that 1 in a million or even one in 20 million, still creates temptation. Whether it's greed or hope, logic is cast aside by these illusions.
I dont think you need to tell lottery players that chances are youre not going to hit the jackpot... We all know by the odds that probably not, but as long as you have 1 CHANCE, you got one more chance than the guy who dont play... Its kinda like lightning hitting you...most likely you wont get hit by it...but tell that to the 1000's with burnt shirts and shoes!
Sure it's unlikely that you'll ever hit the "Big One", but I do know that you can't win if you don't play. I also don't spend myself into the poorhouse buying tickets.
I wager comfortably within my budget about $25 a week on Cash 5, Colorado Lotto and Powerball. That money is purely discretionary income that I could spend any number of ways but I choose to buy lottery tickets.
I've won a few small prizes including $200 twice on 4 of 5 in Cash 5.
I hope to win the "Big One" someday, but you can take it to the bank that I will keep on playing as long as I live.
Didn't this article come out last week in The Daily Obvious?
"State Rep. John Scott, R-Richland, said people take equally risky chances all the time.
"It's the same choice you make if you want to use alcoholic beverages - you don't have to do it," Scott said. "You've got a 401(k)? You're gambling. Got stocks? You're gambling."
Spoken like a true politician, who's either putting a hell of a lot of spin on his position, or doesn't have a clue about reality. Sure, people lose money on investments now and then, but on average, investing is just as sure to increase your worth as gambling is to decrease it.
"You've got a 401(k)? You're gambling. Got stocks? You're gambling."
The main dfferences between stocks and lottery are stigma and rates of return.
Let me expound a bit on "designed to destroy you".
By that I mean the house edge, regardles of the game, is always going to prove itself out.
I'm sure there's people here (LP) that don't spend on lotto in a month what some other people spend on one night out.
Those aren't the kind of people I'm talking about.
I'm talking about someone, that for whatever reason, one day decides they have got a game beat. Those are the ones that are going to get destroyed by the house edge.
Think about the game of Blackjack. Everyone who has ever written a Blackjack book says never take insurance. Well, the stats they use to back that up are based on millions and millions of hands. no one is going to play that many hands.
Someone who just read that goes to Vegas and this is the one time in their life they're betting $100 on a hand of cards and the dealer looks at them and asks, "Insruance?"
And that's blackjack, a game with a very low house edge.
People get slaughtered with 6 & 8 dice systems, betting the Don't, etc.... and yet people think they're going to consistently beat a lotto game?
Any form of gambling is as much the ego business as it is the gambling and entertainment business.
A 401(k) is only risky if the employee invests in the company stock (like Enron) or a mutual fund that doesn't perform well and his portfolio isn't adequately diversified. Usually he/she has a choice and can pick a fixed annuity and/or bonds as well. Even if the investment is conservative, 4% or 5% over time is better than nothing, especially if a company offers to match contributions. A little more risky, but relatively conservative, portfolio of stocks will usually average 8% over 25 years. If you buy lottery tickets for 25 years and don't win anything, you just have a shoebox filled with lottery tickets. But I'm a gambler, so I'm hoping I can afford new shoes soon! :-)
Coin Toss - Funny you should mention that! Seemed as if every time I said no to "insurance?" I lost!
KY Floyd wrote: Didn't this article come out last week in The Daily Obvious?
A few dollars for education and a shot that it could be your day.
Like he said he has student loans to pay off. So why not lighten the financial load of those that want a higher education.
This is a story about a S.C. player and the S.C. lottery.
With that said. S.C. high School students have one of the highest dropout rates in The U.S.. That trend needs to be reversed as there are fewer jobs available year after year for dropouts. There are more and more jobs becoming available as industries move into in S.C. that require a higher education.
South Carolina is on an upward trend economcaly and the education levels needs to move in the same direction.
Where does the money come from to pay you 4 or 5%?
What is your rate of return if you are paid 4 or 5% nominal return, while actual inflation (loss of purchasing power) is 8%? Here's a hint, it's less than zero.
Now, many people buy the big lie about how purchasing the Dow 30 components in some given year and holding on over so many years would return so much percent. This is garbage. When a Dow company falls on hard times, it gets taken out of the index and replaced with a successful company. The index average value, however, is not changed. In any other industry this would be fraud.
~~~~
A lottery is only risky if the player invests in the daily or a jackpot game that doesn't perform well and his wheel isn't adequately diversified. Usually he/she has a choice and can pick a scratch-off and/or raffle as well. Even if the player is conservative, 4% or 5% over time is better than nothing, especially if a game offers free quick picks. A little more risky, but relatively conservative, system of playing will usually average 8% over 25 years. If you buy stocks and mutual funds for 25 years and don't profit, you just have a shoebox filled with brokerage statements.
Regardless of the odds, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO WIN, and the only person guaranteed not to win is the person without a ticket.
I agree totally...think of all the people who say "im not going to win" and the next day theyre buying new houses and cars.... I think people with a gambling problem should refrain from lottery games, but for others who know self control, have fun and take a chance at fortune.. Everydrawing that goes by and i miss it totally, i just say "at least i tried". Maybe one day ill be in for a pleasant suprise. As for now, im not counting my chickens till the eggs hatch! I know ill keep trying till my last breathe of air, why? because i want the chance to have my dreams come true.. Till then ill just be a working class guy!
The casino is designed to destroy you and they do it with a 5% or smaller house edge. It is like a roller coaster ride with lots of ups and downs, but always trending toward ground zero at the end of the ride.
I've always considered it a mistake to compare the big lottery games with casino games because with lottery you only need to win once to recover your entire investment and become a multi-millionaire.
With the lottery we have the oppertunity to make our own luck. We pick the numbers, we decide how many tickets to play and when we play them. It is the choices WE make that determine whether we win or lose.
Every week the lottery makes dozens of people millionaires across this great country of ours. It is possible to win the lottery, people do it all the time.
BobP
What the story needs to also make clear is that, sometimes you do match all of the numbers and still not see a big payout because other people also matched all the numbers.
I don't expect that a win will change my life, but I've matched 5 of 5 before via my own system so it's possible to happen again with hopefully a better payout. For now I am happy if a win gets me a new TV set or even a visit to TGI Friday's.
If everyone who played at some point won a big jackpot, then everyone would have so much money that demand on products would be overwhelming and shortages would be commonplace, gas would be $500/gallon, milk $600/gallon, and that's if you could find anyone still wanting to serve you due to also a severe labor shortage. Can you say "Zimbabwe"? Somebody has to make the donuts. The only way to produce a $million winner is to have 2 million $1 losers.
When you buy a ticket and lose you contribute to the extreme joy of the one or few people that win!
Stocks = a return on your money, an 8% return on a security is 8% of what you invested, the investment still being there!, or you sell and get the original invstment and the 8% back.
Playing $1,000 a year and cashing winning tickets for $100, let's say, does in no way, shape, or form, mean you had a 10% return, it means you blew $900. Big difference.
Lotto = a return as a portion of your money, and that's all folks, the original money went to the lotto. And the examples given in this thread are very doubtful, highly optimistic and over rated.. A very, very few people get "struck by lightning" (hit a jackpot), and as LckyLary stated above, everyone else contributed to that jackpot. Most of the lower tier prizes just go right back into the lotto.
Thinking of lotto as a savings account or any form of gambling as an investmnent is heading for trouble.
You don't invest $1 or $2 or chump change in stocks.
Anyone who plays lotto to the extent that they could have invested that much needs some serious help.
Unless they win. If they lose, they won't need any more help than the people who owned Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, KMart, or any of the lesser known companies that get delisted every week. They will, however, get more sympathy. But, last I checked, that had no monetary value.
I know some are chomping at the bit to tell me that Kmart is still in business. Well, the KMart shares that were owned when the company went into bankruptcy were canceled and are not the same Kmart shares that exist as part of Sears Holdings, today. Like two different people with the same name.
Also what about mutual funds which "spread" risk which have lost money due to sub-prime mortgage investments at the hands of "astute" brokers who socked investors' money into them? Those "astute" brokers collected commissions which was their #1 agenda.
Frankly if I'm going to lose any money I'd rather do it myself ... win or lose .... and have only myself to blame for mistakes. The lottery provides just that.
I have to agree 100% with this statement!
And the fact, that if, Hillary was elected as president of the United States, I will seriously consider leaving the country!
"It's the same choice you make if you want to use alcoholic beverages - you don't have to do it"
No but they still are allowed to have advertisements on TV to entice you drink it. But yet adds for cigarettes were banned because the state does not control it and they don't think people should smoke!
You don't have to gamble either but yet I see commercials on TV telling you to do so!
Ban the lottery commercials as well! We don't need to see a ground hog on TV telling us to keep on scratching thinking we might win one of their bigger prizes if we do! What a bunch of hog wash!
Well, yes, that happens but all too often people caught in something like that were way too greedy.
Employees with stock options don't have much choice, but most of those investors were not employees.
You never go in without a known low, "buy for $25, if it gets down to $18 SELL, if it goes up, SELL at $34", etc....
Even if you take a bath, there's "income averaging and losses in the market - try "income averaging" lottery losses.
While it is true that putting $1 a week in the bank won't help you to retire, saying that deducting part of your income every week in a savings plan at work or an IRA (both use pre-tax dollars) and averaging 5% over 30 years is the same as playing the lottery is absurd. I can't even think of a word for saying the lottery is a better way of investing your money than saving for retirement. By law, a company can't tell you where to put your money. They need to offer you choices (think 3 is the minimum) So you don't have to buy their stock to be in the 401(k) plan. That's illegal.
Suggesting that when you put money into a retirement plan at work you have no control over it, but you do have control when you buy a lottery ticket is just plain ridiculous. How does anyone have control of a game where numbered balls at bounced around and are sucked through a tube?
I was going to write much more, but I think anyone with common sense can figure these things out. After all, just do the math. Like Coin Toss wrote, even if you don't make a fortune, you still have your principal. If it were up to me, I'd make every LP member a jackpot winner but I fear that so many will be quoting Bob Seger who laments "I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then."
Of course many people can't invest because they need every dime to feed & clothe their kids, but this discussion isn't about that subject. Time*treat, you can bring up inflation all you want, but the fact is that the wealthiest segment of our society today started out making less than $150 a week. The reason is that most people who were born 70 years ago had different values.
I 'Income average" by having my girl-friend buy some of the tickets with her money but I keep the winnings...
and by the way I am kidding!
When I started my 401(k) I was making about $500 a week and had 10% ($50) deducted from my paycheck, but the difference in my take home pay was less than $50 because my tax base was lowered to $450. The plan allowed me to invest in almost any stock in the three major stock markets plus a large number of mutual funds.
Money market funds were the safest investment but their yields were usually lower than the stocks offering dividends. I read an article by Warren Buffett that simply suggested researching the companies making a product or a business you liked. Ask anybody that bought Wal Mart in the 1980s how much their stock is now worth.
I never thought borrowing from a 401(k) was a good idea but instead of paying a lender 10% and the principle, the 10% and the principle went into your account.
It can be said the stock market is a form of gambling but you can't compare it to buying lottery tickets.
I figure there is chance I could win - After all I met my wife. Not sure what the odds are but - she was going to U of Iowa - home in Council Buffs IA for the week end. I was in Air Force in Omaha. I usually did not go to bars but that night I did. I asked her to Dance at the HEET lounge in Omaha and she said yes! And we have been married for 30 some years. When I think of the hours of the year - the chances we both were there - that the lightening DID strike at our hearts. Sure I will win!! (won $1 on Cash 5 just tonight!!)
I also believe that if I am to win that spending more than $1 on a draw is a waste of money.
I figure there is chance I could win - After all I met my wife.
That's probably the best thing I've ever read here when discussing the odds of winning!
lol i love it
you can't win if you don't ever play the game.