[bobcousins]

Here is a list of millionaires the National Lottery didn't make:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', 'Expired Unclaimed Prizes
Draw Date Draw No Amount Won Prize Level Location
7 Aug 2004 390 £7,039,469 Lotto Extra Jackpot Belfast City
1 Jan 2005 942 £3,987,470 Jackpot Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames
6 Sept 2000 491 £3,011,065 Jackpot South Hertfordshire
14 Sept 2002 702 £2,928,214 Jackpot Northumberland
28 Jul 2004 897 £2,852,742 Jackpot Wyre Area of Lancashire
10 May 2003 260 £2,602,960 Lotto Extra Jackpot South East Northumberland
16 Nov 2002 720 £2,183,513 Jackpot Islington Area
25 May 1996 80 £2,054,754 Jackpot Kingston Upon Hull
30 Nov 2002 724 £1,971,095 Jackpot Torfaen County Borough
6 Nov 2004 926.01 £1,666,667 Birthday Draw Jackpot Sandwell Area of West Midlands
6 Nov 2004 926.01 £1,666,667 Birthday Draw Jackpot Stroud, Gloucestershire
21 Jul 2004 895 £1,544,148 Jackpot Swale Area of Kent
21 Jan 2004 843 £1,458,411 Jackpot Ealing, London
28 Aug 2002 697 £1,446,954 Jackpot Lewisham Area
30 Jan 1999 324 £1,234,612 Jackpot Kingston Upon Hull


The National Lottery TV shows - Find out more

Win more often with Thunderball - Play now
')

WOW! That's a lot of money going begging. There's a further £20 million in prizes that are still claimable. I guess people are just too wealthy already.

[eastbay]

Mainly, the only people buying lottery tickets are morons. When you see these morons NOT picking up their winnings we shouldn't be surprised... the surprise should be when they actually claim their winning. Gambling is for idiots.

[Free]

Well said eastbay, I always have to think of Orwells 1984, where lottery is the only hope and entertainment of the Prolls which keeps them quiet. Hell it's like that today!

But on the other hand I had to think of an article of an economist (of all people...) in which he defended lottery.
A friend mocked him about buying a lottery ticket, calculated the slim chances, but he responded that this wouldn't bother him if he actually won, would it?
He also said he believed in the openness of opportunities. He said it is the secret of success to keep trying and stay open to as much opportunities in life as possible, and in this context the lottery ticked was just one more opportunity. I can't help but finding some kind of truth in this.

[eastbay]

He also said he believed in the openness of opportunities. He said it is the secret of success to keep trying and stay open to as much opportunities in life as possible, and in this context sifting through the sewers for lost gold was just one more opportunity. I can't help but finding some kind of truth in this.

-------------------

Thanks Free... nice to read friendly remarks from time to time around here... I hope you don't mind me slightly changing your earlier paraphrasing... heh.

[Free]

Lol, just for the record and not to spoil my spotless reputation here, I never bought a lottery ticket in my whole life, but have to admit that I love the occasional sewer-sifting (when the sewer is my couch - you would be surprised how much gold you can find there).

Well if you calculate the prize of a lottery ticket with the prize of the sewer sifting (average wage per time), the former arguably offers much more opportunity for less investment.

Although I once saw a very touching documentary about a dirty sewer/river in a third world country city where one could find the occasional nugget (theory is that some gold digging company upwards the river dumped some waste into it which contained a little gold), and thousands of people (most of them kids) did nothing else than sifting the sewer for the one little piece of gold that could change their life.

For them it was the one opportunity, however small the chance.

But then again it's clear that if you invest the money for the lottery ticket in something else, you have a much better return.
It's not about how small the chance is to win, it's that the statistical chance is overprized (also due to taxes).
If you want to gamble there are better games: Roulette or Blackjack for example. Of course they are rigged as well (the green Zero at Roulette comes to mind). Otherwise you really could win - theoretically (with infinite liquidity and no maximum betting limit) - in the long run.
Just bet on red or black and double the bet each time you lose.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'M')ainly, the only people buying lottery tickets are morons. When you see these morons NOT picking up their winnings we shouldn't be surprised... the surprise should be when they actually claim their winning. Gambling is for idiots.

[eastbay]

Now, now, Spec... lol... I really believe 'communist wannabe' is not the proper term to use to describe typical Californians. I do believe, however, the term, 'communist sympathizer', is better suited to the opinions of my fellow forward-thinking typical Californians.

But just to make sure, I asked a random sample of my buddies, who just happen to be typical Californians, and found that exactly 50% are just that, 'communist sympathizers'. The other 50% are just plain 'ol ordinary dime-a-dozen liberals, and, well, you know what they're like.

Live Like Che

[bobcousins]

I think the economist has a good point. The chances of winning a talent competition are pretty small, they get thousands of applicants. So the logical decision would be not to enter. There are many things in life where hard work and persistence may result in a big payoff. Even though the odds are poor, people strive to get to the top anyway. Is that not human nature?

Of course, if no one entered these competitions because they think there is a low chance of winning then anyone who did would have a very high chance of winning...so a slight paradox.

In Game Theory, you can take a low risk for a low reward or a high risk for a high reward. There is no "correct" answer. It comes down to what level of risk you tolerate. If you are very poor, maybe a good strategy is to take a risk and make a dramatic change to your wealth. Investing $10 in stocks is a safe bet, but won't get you much. If you are well off, it is better to take a low risk, and maintain your wealth.

People naturally vary in their tolerance of risk, this is essential for evolution. There are risk takers at all levels of society. If you are right at the bottom, you might turn to crime. If you are higher up, you might become an entrepeneur.

In terms of entertainment, would it be better if the proles spent their $10 on cigarettes, alcohol, or sports? If you spend $10 watching a movie, what financial advantage have you gained? Does that make you a moron?

Taking a high risk on a small investment is not so crazy, if the payoff is big. And you may choose a different form of entertainment, but that doesn't make other people stupid. People who call lottery winners morons, say more about themselves than those they criticise.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'N')ow, now, Spec... lol... I really believe 'communist wannabe' is not the proper term to use to describe typical Californians. I do believe, however, the term, 'communist sympathizer', is better suited to the opinions of my fellow forward-thinking typical Californians. ...