Skip to comments.Ohio Woman Admits Lying in Lotto Case
Posted on 01/08/2004 10:02:49 AM PST by AppyPappyEdited on 04/29/2004 2:03:40 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
CLEVELAND (AP) - A woman said through tears Thursday that she lied about losing the winning ticket for a $162 million lottery prize awarded to another woman.
Elecia Battle, 40, of Cleveland, is dropping her lawsuit to block payment of the Mega Millions jackpot to the certified winner, said her lawyer Sheldon Starke.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.netscape.cnn.com ...
Lotteries have been around since the inception of our country. Our forefathers used lotteries to finance the revolution.
Just a thought... humor me.
Regarding roullette, there is a strategy I am interested in trying out. There are many tables that display the results last several spins- such as the number of times the ball has landed on red, black, or green; odd or even numbers; first 12, second 12, third 12, zero, or double zero; first column, second column, or third column; and so on.
Based on these results, for example, if the ball has landed on red 5 out of the last 6 spins, the odds are the next number it lands on will be black. The odds of the ball landing on green exist, but it seems the odds for black are greater.
Anyway. Using the above example, the player bets $10 on black. The ball lands on red. The player loses. Now the ball has landed on red 6 out of the last 7 times. Odds are the ball will land on black. The player then doubles the last bet and bets $20 on black. Again, red. Now 7 out of 8 times. The player then doubles the last bet and bets $40 on black. Finally the ball lands on black. The player has won a total of $10.
I suppose this could be expanded to include looking at color, columns, odd or even numbers, etc. I don't imagine one could get rich on one spin, but over the course of several spins and very deep pockets, I think the end result would be that the player would come out winning.
The people giving you a hard time have apparently never played Bingo, have never made a bet in a casino, never dropped a quarter in a slot machine, never had a friendly poker game, have never bet on a football pool.
Like somebody said in a previous post, if you're spending your food/rent money on the lottery, you're stupid. Otherwise, it's for fun.
They did so a long, long time ago. Back around the time when this wonderful country was born.
It would have been a good idea if they used the money INSTEAD of tax money.
Actually... I am not sure what the return is on just placing a bet on odd or even... so perhaps the amount won is greater than $10.
Everyone pays taxes in one form or another.
Indeed it is. I play when the dollar value exceeds the actual odds. In Powerball, f'rinstance, the odds are 73 million to one. So when the jackpot is in excess of $73M, the expectation or entertainment value of a one-dollar ticket is greater than that of a one dollar coin or bill. The odds are that long on Powerball because the numbers are pulled from two sets of balls - five from the first set, one from the second set.
Other lottos, such as Lotto South, have all 6 balls pulled from the same set, so the odds are an order of magnitude lower (easier). That makes the expactation or entertainment value of a dollar ticket on them more than the actual value of a dollar bill once the jackpot hits the amount of the odds. Even a jackpot of only (!) $10M would set me for life; the lump would be $5M, taxes take $1.4, leaving me $3.6M which in tax-free munis is enough to be quite comfortable along with our other assets. The value of taking a chance - a VERY long chance - is worth a buck to me.
My lottery tickkees come out of my entertainment budget. I can take $5 and go waste 2 hours of my time watching a Hollywood stink-o movie, or buy five chances on a big jackpot. The movie is over in 2 hours - the dream from the lotto tickets lasts DAYS - until the next draw. Much more entertainment for the buck.
In lotteries, the odds are 100% that there WILL be a winner. SOMEONE who holds a ticket WILL win. No one will win if they don't have a ticket. It's worth it to me to at least be IN the "lightning field." The odds are extremely long that I'll be struck. But SOMEONE will, and my odds are just as good as anyone else's.
Thank God I'm free to make that choice.
Except that a $73M jackpot only nets out to be about $30M.
Physicist, this is the first time you've ever posted something I didn't agree with.
Your theory seems to boil down to this: that the expectation value of a random variable should not be calculated in the normal way if these two conditions are present: that the dimensions of the random variable are dollars, and that the strength of the delta function describing the random variable's distribution is very very large. That the integration by which this calculation is performed should be overlayed by some sort of non-uniform weighting function, that will make the expectation value of a $1 bet greater than $1.
As I see it, this weighting function is exactly this: the measure of a human emotion (perhaps "aspiration" or "hope"). In order to be true, your theory would be the flip side of the idea put out at the end of the movie Peter Pan, where the audience is asked to believe together; that the power of a group all believing in something together can make that something more real.
For some reason this makes me think of a lecture I heard once on "the nonlinearity of free space." Which, as I understood it, may actually exist.
I seem to recall an implication in one of your posts that you were leaving DRL to do something else. I hope all is well with you.
They should give her the maximum sentence, because they know the only reason she's saying that is to get a lighter sentence! I'd bet my left a$$ she wouldn't have given them a dime if she had won!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.