Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 11:02 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

is anyone making an income from lottery

Topic closed. 629 replies. Last post 4 years ago by Stack47.

Page 23 of 42
4.76
PrintE-mailLink
RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19831 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 30, 2013, 12:32 pm - IP Logged

How do you figure? Every income from lottery or otherwise is taxable income. It's just that the IRS doesn't bother with small wins, however, just like RJOH wrote, his name is plastered all over the winner's list for about 5 years now. Do you really think he'd take a chance like that? I doubt it.

Below is the link to the winner's list which has names in alphabetical order. Just scroll down to the bottom to see the names that have an "S" for St. Pierre, Peter. At the top you can change the dates to see his wins going back about 5 years now,

 

http://www.nhlottery.com/WinnersGallery/BigWinners.aspx

I was surprised to see wins as small as $600 on that list, I don't ever recall seeing a win less than $5K on any lists posted by Ohio.

 * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
   
             Evil Looking       


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 30, 2013, 12:41 pm - IP Logged

    Ronnie, just to prove your idea of positive thinking, I declare tonights mega ball to be "# 30 ". Someday, just someday, I want to be a lottery player like you......

    Green laugh


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 30, 2013, 12:48 pm - IP Logged

      I suppose SOMEONE has to be the laughing stock of LP.

        Avatar
        Kentucky
        United States
        Member #32652
        February 14, 2006
        7325 Posts
        Online
        Posted: April 30, 2013, 2:32 pm - IP Logged

        "It's useless for you to give the probability against it happening when there is a chance."

         

        LOL.  Really?  If I knew you, and if it was legal, I'd give you 749 to 1 against you for any Pick 3 straight number anyday.  Hell, I'd even give you 799 to 1.  There's always a chance, you know?  (That's right, I don't care what method you use.  I'd still lay you better than the states do if it was legal, which I'm fairly certain it is NOT.)

         

        Of course it matter WHAT the probability is.  Obviously most people playing the lottery know the odds against them, but many don't seem to understand the implications of the odds, or even the odds themselves.  If you believe that there is any methodology you can utilize to improve your odds, then you DON'T understand the odds, you just understand that there is a chance.

         

        Since you apparently only care that there is a chance, would you take that gamble?  Would you play the Pick 3 every day for 20 years knowing that the odds against you being ahead or something ridiculous like just a couple percent?  And that if you are ahead, it's likely by a very small amount?

         

        I understand WHY people play jackpot games.  That's different.  They aren't good bets, but they are the only bets that pay out so much for so little risk.  The Pick 3, however, offers virtually no chance of striking it rich.  The only chance you'll have of that is if you wager huge, and it's a terrible, terrible, terrible bet.

        "If I knew you, and if it was legal, I'd give you 749 to 1 against you for any Pick 3 straight number anyday.  Hell, I'd even give you 799 to 1.  There's always a chance, you know?"

        You're making it sound like betting $799 to win $1 is a really good bet. Will all your probabilities help you pay off a $5000 bet at 799 to 1 odds?

        Every state lotteries knows there are numbers that are heavily played and are "betting" those numbers will be drawn less often than the lightly played numbers. The odds always favor the house, but there is always a possibility a few huge bets will cut deeply into their profits.

        "Obviously most people playing the lottery know the odds against them, but many don't seem to understand the implications of the odds, or even the odds themselves."

        My first post on LP questioned why an Online lottery site would pay $900 to 1 when any player is getting 3 to 2 odds by betting $1 on 600 numbers. It's exactly the same as Free Odds bets on the 5 and 9 on any Crap table. The casinos pays even money on Pass Line bets that favor the house by 3 to 2 while the Online sites were paying 50% more on virtually the same type of bet.

        By betting $1 on five different numbers, a pick-3 player is getting a 0.5% chance of winning $500. By betting $5 on one number another player is getting a 0.1% chance of winning $2500. The implications are simple, by taking a slightly less chance and 0.004 is a slightly less chance, the second player can win $2000 more.

        It's easy enough to figure the probabilities of any three digit number being drawn in the next 1000 drawings, but the results of the last 1000 drawings show many of the three digit numbers weren't drawn and several were drawn multiple times. Why is it your probabilities never match the facts?

        "Would you play the Pick 3 every day for 20 years knowing that the odds against you being ahead or something ridiculous like just a couple percent?"

        I never said I was making an income from pick-3 winnings, just saying it's possible somebody is. I think Keith Price is taking advantage of his several wins by selling picks, but I doubt he is betting thousands more than he wins to get his picture taken. In 20 years a player would have to win 15 times to show a tiny profit, but that's assuming they are betting just $1 on each win. The reason I was so critical of Jimmy's simulation was because it suggested real players would still bet $5 to win $500 when they already lost $1000.

        After winning $500, Jimmy's fictional players must make 99 other $5 bets trying to win $500 and still be even winning none of them. After winning $2500, a real player could make 249 other $10 bets trying to win $5000 and still be even by winning none of them. How does having a 0.004 better chance work out after losing 99 other $5 bets when a real player can bet $10 for another 150 drawings with 150 more chances of winning $5000?

        A small percentage win after 20 years of play could mean a player just never had enough big wins to show a profit. Just a guess, but it looks like St. Pierre is playing to win $27,000 which he did at least twice and his frequent $1000 to $4000 wins might just cover the cost of his play.

        "The only chance you'll have of that is if you wager huge, and it's a terrible, terrible, terrible bet."

        Most players don't start out betting $10 or more on three digit numbers, but many do after winning $500 or $1000. To make a steady income playing the pick-3 games a player would have to either have many $500 wins or more likely a few much bigger wins.

        Betting the Field in Craps is a bad bet and betting the "2" and/or "12" are the worse bets on the table, but I saw a guy starting with $100 while I was rolling the dice, parlayed enough in winnings by making those bets to make a $500 bet on the "12" and win $15,000. We all know the probabilities and the odds and so did the Pit Boss, but he still had to explain that huge loss to his bosses. 

        My point is probability is what should be expected over time, but there is also a probability the unexpected will happen and it's possible with a betting strategy to profit much more from the unexpected. I'm not saying there is a strategy where most of the players can benefit enough to close the game, but saying it's possible a few players could make a steady income.

        You only posted part of my thought by quoting "It's useless for you to give the probability against it happening when there is a chance." ignoring that I added "Someday you'll figure out lottery players are playing for the "1" chance even if it is 1 in 175 million."

        I obviously wasn't talking about why some players play for 1 in 1000 chance to win $250.

        .

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32652
          February 14, 2006
          7325 Posts
          Online
          Posted: April 30, 2013, 2:45 pm - IP Logged

          I was surprised to see wins as small as $600 on that list, I don't ever recall seeing a win less than $5K on any lists posted by Ohio.

          The KY Lottery site shows a Pick-3 winner holding a $350 check. Maybe the Lottery Headquarters pays offs all winners under $5000 on the spot and asks if they want their picture taken.


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 30, 2013, 3:15 pm - IP Logged

            The KY Lottery site shows a Pick-3 winner holding a $350 check. Maybe the Lottery Headquarters pays offs all winners under $5000 on the spot and asks if they want their picture taken.

            If I started playing Pick-3 it would be to get my picture taken.

              helpmewin's avatar - dandy
              u$a
              United States
              Member #106665
              February 22, 2011
              19911 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 30, 2013, 3:47 pm - IP Logged

              If I started playing Pick-3 it would be to get my picture taken.

              just take your camera there and see if they take your picture tell them it's for your vision board


                United States
                Member #116268
                September 7, 2011
                20244 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: April 30, 2013, 4:11 pm - IP Logged

                just take your camera there and see if they take your picture tell them it's for your vision board

                In AZ they make statues of winners.........

                  helpmewin's avatar - dandy
                  u$a
                  United States
                  Member #106665
                  February 22, 2011
                  19911 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: April 30, 2013, 4:15 pm - IP Logged

                  In AZ they make statues of winners.........

                  sure why not not much else to do there LOL


                    United States
                    Member #116268
                    September 7, 2011
                    20244 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: April 30, 2013, 4:22 pm - IP Logged

                    sure why not not much else to do there LOL

                      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                      mid-Ohio
                      United States
                      Member #9
                      March 24, 2001
                      19831 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: April 30, 2013, 4:29 pm - IP Logged

                      The KY Lottery site shows a Pick-3 winner holding a $350 check. Maybe the Lottery Headquarters pays offs all winners under $5000 on the spot and asks if they want their picture taken.

                      I never thought of it but it could be Ohio winners of prizes less than $5000 have no reason to go to lottery headquarters or one of the regional offices. 

                      Winners of prizes less than $600 are paid by the retailers and those with larger prizes but  less than $5000 can have the retailer verify their winning ticket and fill out some forms to take to an area authorized bank to get paid.

                       * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                         
                                   Evil Looking       


                        United States
                        Member #116268
                        September 7, 2011
                        20244 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: April 30, 2013, 4:35 pm - IP Logged

                        I never thought of it but it could be Ohio winners of prizes less than $5000 have no reason to go to lottery headquarters or one of the regional offices. 

                        Winners of prizes less than $600 are paid by the retailers and those with larger prizes but  less than $5000 can have the retailer verify their winning ticket and fill out some forms to take to an area authorized bank to get paid.

                        In that case, I may take my own picture and send it to them.Yes Nod

                          RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                          mid-Ohio
                          United States
                          Member #9
                          March 24, 2001
                          19831 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: April 30, 2013, 4:46 pm - IP Logged

                          In that case, I may take my own picture and send it to them.Yes Nod

                          I'm sure if you put the word out you would be willing to pay full cash value for any winning lottery ticket worth $5000 of more and be totally responsible for the taxes, some one would be willing to sell you theirs.   You could end up losing up to $1500 but getting your picture among the other winners got to be worth something.

                           * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                             
                                       Evil Looking       


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: April 30, 2013, 4:56 pm - IP Logged

                            I'm sure if you put the word out you would be willing to pay full cash value for any winning lottery ticket worth $5000 of more and be totally responsible for the taxes, some one would be willing to sell you theirs.   You could end up losing up to $1500 but getting your picture among the other winners got to be worth something.

                            Good idea. And I think it would be a lot cheaper than trying to win that much on a live ticket.

                              Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                              New Jersey
                              United States
                              Member #99032
                              October 18, 2010
                              1439 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: April 30, 2013, 11:58 pm - IP Logged

                              "You're making it sound like betting $799 to win $1 is a really good bet. Will all your probabilities help you pay off a $5000 bet at 799 to 1 odds?"

                               

                              This sentence makes it clear that you don't intend to use logic, you're just here to argue with everything I say.  I obviously would never take a 5000 dollar bet.  The lottery can, because there pockets are deep enough to take losses if a huge bet has to be paid off.  And some lotteries still restrict sales on individual numbers to prevent these giant swings, but they still have a giant edge.  Personally I don't think that the caps need to be anywhere near as low as they are in some states, but that's their decision.

                               

                              "My first post on LP questioned why an Online lottery site would pay $900 to 1 when any player is getting 3 to 2 odds by betting $1 on 600 numbers. It's exactly the same as Free Odds bets on the 5 and 9 on any Crap table. The casinos pays even money on Pass Line bets that favor the house by 3 to 2 while the Online sites were paying 50% more on virtually the same type of bet."

                               

                              It's not the same bet as free odds.  I did the math for 5/9 on the the Pass Line's odds/payouts and the example you gave, (If you meant the don't pass, the math would be reversed, but have the same answer.) and as you can see below, the pick 3 bet has a house edge while the odds on craps don't.  And the math behind the pass line is more complex than that, and casinos do allow odds bets.  It appears you don't know how to play Craps.

                               

                              Odds on 5/9 in Craps, you have a 60% chance to lose 2 units, and a 40% chance of winning 3. (note that you have 3 AND your original 2)  The math is expressed as  (-2*.6)+(3*.4)=0.  The expectation is that you'll break even in the long run.  (Short term luck is what makes these games entertaining, but that's the math)  If you placed this bet with your described 600 dollars, then winning will pay you 900 AND you keep your 600.

                               

                              On the Pick 3 bet, you will have a 60% chance to gain .5 unit, and a 40% to lose 1.  The math is ((.5*.6)+(-1*.4))=-.10, giving the house a 10% edge.

                               

                              "By betting $1 on five different numbers, a pick-3 player is getting a 0.5% chance of winning $500. By betting $5 on one number another player is getting a 0.1% chance of winning $2500. The implications are simple, by taking a slightly less chance and 0.004 is a slightly less chance, the second player can win $2000 more."

                               

                              This is an interesting comment, in that what you're stating is obvious, but not thought of by too many gamblers.  If you're hope is to win big, and you're playing against a negative expectation game, the best chance you have is take whatever budget you have and play for a single shot to score big rather than many shots to score relatively small.  This isn't an investment strategy I would recommend, and personally, I don't find the Pick 3 any more entertaining than I'd imagine picking a random stock would be.

                               

                              "It's easy enough to figure the probabilities of any three digit number being drawn in the next 1000 drawings, but the results of the last 1000 drawings show many of the three digit numbers weren't drawn and several were drawn multiple times. Why is it your probabilities never match the facts?"

                               

                              I have tried to explain standard deviation (variance) to you in the past, but I will leave it at that.  Variance.

                               

                               

                               

                              As for your criticism of Jimmy's simulation, you have to realize that it's intention is to show that if you play for many years, you are very unlikely to be ahead.  If the game had 0 house edge, you'd be just as likely to be ahead by 1000 as down by 1000.  But because there is an edge, and because it is so huge, there is a giant disparity in the number of winners and losers, and the amount they won or lost.

                               

                              There are many other simulations you can do based on betting strategies and the like.  Having studied the effects of variance a decent amount in my free time (mostly in pursuit of understanding how to manage risk) I can tell you how individual strategies are likely to look on a similar chart, but I can also tell you now that introducing elements like rising bets, or bigger bets is going to create a few more winners, and way more - bigger losers.  It makes you more likely to win, sure.  It also makes you way more likely to lose more quicker.  Mathemetically, all your bets only have the SAME edge, but in reality you are betting it quicker and with more variance.  I'm not gonna say that's wrong, since I actually think if you have X bankroll and you have to play a game like Pick 3 until you lose it or win Y amount, the best way to achieve it is probably to bet big, assuming Y is large compared to X.  But since that's a pretty unrealistic and strange hypothetical, I'd recommend to people that the Pick 3 is really a waste of time unless you find it really fun, and worth the cost of a ticket.

                               

                              "Betting the Field in Craps is a bad bet and betting the "2" and/or "12" are the worse bets on the table, but I saw a guy starting with $100 while I was rolling the dice, parlayed enough in winnings by making those bets to make a $500 bet on the "12" and win $15,000. We all know the probabilities and the odds and so did the Pit Boss, but he still had to explain that huge loss to his bosses."

                               

                              Just because you saw something once doesn't matter.  Obviously people wouldn't gamble if variance didn't allow them to get lucky sometimes and win.  I'm sure the Pit Boss wasn't blaimed for anything, as long as there was no cheating involved they're fine.  Casinos know there are possibilities of big losses, but they are more likely to win than lose so they don't care.  And most gamblers keep on gambling against that edge after winning big, often moving up in stakes.  So they actually like many people who win big, because so many of them are "free" advertizement in that they give it all back.

                               

                              "it's possible with a betting strategy to profit much more from the unexpected."

                               

                              No, it's not, because the probabilities of any betting strategy can be quantified down to it's probabilities in any number of draws.  It's all mathemetically solid.  I don't know quite how to put this - if something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.  It means that it's only going to happen to X amount of people.  In the Pick 3, which was the example I originally used because it's easier to demonstrate the point, you can calculate (because that's insanely taxing, most people use simulations instead) the probabilities of anything happening with any betting strategy.  And no strategy has ever outperformed the mathemetical edge.  Perdiod.  Some have made it more likely to win any amount at the risk of losing larger, and vice versa.  NONE have ever changed the edge.

                                 
                                Page 23 of 42