Open thread, August 5-11, 2013

David_Gerard

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

I do agree with you that lotteries take from the stupid and give to the government, and to a much lesser extent, the non-governmental clever. I also have a distaste for it and do not buy tickets as a matter of course, which generally are worth about 40 cents on the dollar.

When clear, interesting, and well-documented exceptions to a general rule are served up, I prefer that the last word on them not be a dismissive one. This seems to me to lead to a more distorted view of reality than is necessary. I am particularly concerned about the tendency among people to say, effectively, "90% = 100%," that is, if there is a strongish trend of something to ignore the fact that there are real exceptions to that trend. Especially when those exceptions might make you money, or explain some otherwise inexplicable behavior on the part of a clever group of people.

I do agree with you that lotteries take from the stupid and give to the government

That sounds... awesome... when you put it like that! Lotteries may become my new favourite taxation method.

0Lumifer13y

Ah, I see your point now. I think I will agree with it, too, and say that the proper way to deal with the problem is to specify boundary conditions (aka assumptions aka limiting cases) under which the statement is strictly true, and then point out that some of these boundary conditions can be breached (and so result in different outcomes or conclusions). In my case, if this were a considered statement about games of chance (and not a throwaway remark), I should have mentioned that proper statistical analysis can, and sometimes does, lead to the turning of the tables and finding specific ways of betting which have positive expected value. The classic case, I think, is MIT kids in Las Vegas, there's even a book about it.

6

Open thread, August 5-11, 2013

6

6

6

Open thread, August 5-11, 2013

6

6