THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Friday, August 05, 2011

Quirks in lotteries

By Tangotiger, 01:07 PM

In Canada, and in most lotteries I suspect, when there is no winner for the top prize, all that extra money is rolled over into the next week’s draw all going to the top prize.  This is to ensure a guaranteed payout, overall.  In Canada, it is (or was anyway when I used to live there), 55% of money is paid out (tax-free!) as winnings.

In Boston, however, they cap the top winnings.  Since they also guarantee payouts, the extra money flows down to the lower winners.  So, if no one wins the top prize (guess correctly all 6 numbers), then all that extra money that exceeds the cap has to be paid out.  And if you have many weeks without a winner, that’s alot of left over money that has to flow down.

But Lu, like the Selbees and a few others, focused on a feature of the game that is extremely rare in the United States, according to gambling authorities contacted by the Globe. The jackpot grows gradually over time from a low of $500,000 to a limit of $2 million to $2.5 million; when the limit is reached and no one claims the big prize, the top prize money is poured into the smaller prizes - or “rolled down’’ - raising the odds of a significant payout.

During normal weeks, picking five out of six numbers correctly will generate a $4,000 prize, but the prize rises to $20,000 to $40,000 during rolldowns, depending on how many winning tickets are cashed. Fewer winning tickets translates to larger payouts: During Cash WinFall’s first year, the prize for picking five numbers correctly once exceeded $100,000.

Likewise, the prize for picking four of six numbers swells from $150 to $800 or even $1,000, while the prize for picking three numbers jumps from $5 to $26 or more.

As a result, sophisticated players do not actually want the jackpot to be paid out - unless it is going to them. The odds of winning the lower prizes are so good, that they can gradually win a fortune just by betting hundreds of thousands of dollars every rolldown week.


#1    Lee      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 14:19

"Lottery officials say they have no reason to apologize for Cash WinFall, created under former treasurer Timothy Cahill after a lottery player survey showed people wanted a game that had better odds of winning.”

Got to love people who can’t admit failure. You created a once every three month, near arbitrage situation for smart, rich people in Massachusetts, paying for it with money that should go to the state. Awesome. Our world is so crazy. Timothy Cahill probably loves pitcher win/loss records.


#2    NaOH      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 14:25

I shared this the other day in a past thread about someone cracking a lottery system.

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/cracking_the_scratch_lottery_code/#21


#3    elgato7664      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 14:27

Just a few days after the article, Massachusetts announced a $5,000 limit on purchases (per store, per day) and they will shut down the game next year:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/mass-changes-lottery-rules_n_916972.html


#4    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 14:34

Why not just let the money keep rolling over to the top winner?  Why this arbitrary limit?  That’s the problem here.


#5    Lee      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 14:38

Yea, exactly. The idea of limiting the machines to only 5k a day still doesn’t negate the fact that you occasionally are running a positive EV lottery… which seems to defeat the purpose of raising money for the government.


#6          (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 14:40

why not legalize gambling it leave it to professionals to run the games who know what they are doing and stop having politicians try and do math? just tax the operators enough to make up for what you got with the lotteries and do away with the whole enterprise.


#7          (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 14:48

Lee / Tango,

The intent was to have a lottery with more 2nd tier winners.  Instead of one person taking home 1MM, ten people would take home 100k.  As socialist of a lottery as you can have with still calling it a lottery.  The irony here (as Lee pointed out) is that a small group of smart people figured out the system and are exploiting it; being capitalists jumping all over a market / system inefficiency. 

Knowing the general public there will probably be an uptick in sales for this lottery too.


#8    Lee      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 15:19

Don’t get me wrong, I love the intent. But you can’t have the second tier get so big that it makes the EV positive after long enough. It’s just bad math.

My biggest issue was the quote I posted above, the lack of recognition of the clear failure of the game. It was broken from day one - it’s just a set of numbers with a clear outcome. There’s no grey area.


#9    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 15:24

Steve/7: if that was the intent, then they would have shifted the winnings from the outset to have “fair” payoffs.

When you have extra money to rollover, you cannot then distribute that disproportionately because at some level of money, it becomes a positive return for some levels.

Basically, these guys get an F for math.  It’s ridiculous and sad.


#10    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 15:26

In other words, if you cap off winning 6 out of 6, then you have to ALSO cap off winning 5 out of 6 and winning 4 out of 6, and so on.

You can’t cap off a 9 million to 1 lottery with a top-end of 2.5 million, and then not capoff the lower odds to the point that the winnings exceeds the odds.  That is a huge joke.

I agree that the government should not be in the business of doing something that the private sector can do better and cheaper.


#11    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 15:28

And even their solution is half-a$$ed: they will stop people from buying too many tickets! 

What kind of a lottery system is devised where they want to limit the number of purchases?

Really?  Really, that’s the solution?


#12    rwperu34      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 16:02

Wouldn’t a better way be to let the market correct itself? The second that article was printed, the odds should have gotten worse. They should continue to get worse until it is a breakeven proposition. In fact, they almost should advertise the fact that it’s possible to show a long term profit in rolldown weeks. That should increase sales, and even though the game is +EV for people buying during those weeks, the lottery is still making a 50% roi on ticket sales.


#13    rwperu34      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 16:13

Make that a 100% ROI on each ticket sold.


#14    Kung Pao      (see all posts) 2011/08/05 (Fri) @ 20:12

Using skill is bad for gambling and most of all for lotteries.  People are only allowed to use luck.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.


#15    Geri Monsen      (see all posts) 2011/08/06 (Sat) @ 20:21

I guess I’m not seeing the problem.  The government still gets their cut of the money no matter how many tickets people buy or when they buy them.  Sure, during a given week, the EV might be positive, but that’s making up for the strong negative EV in previous weeks.  If the way the system is set up causes a bunch of people who would not normally play the lottery to buy tickets, why is this bad from a revenue point of view?


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

May 25 11:02
Do pitcher’s reach back for velocity when needed?

May 25 10:58
Rooting for laundry

May 25 10:14
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?

May 25 09:39
What sabermetrics is NOT

May 25 06:39
Lack of hustle during a game

May 25 02:38
NFLPA lawsuit against collusion

May 25 01:43
Neal Huntington’s best moves

May 24 17:04
Firefox, IE, or Chrome?

May 24 12:07
How to beat the shift

May 24 11:11
Incredible story