225 pointsby Loeffelmann21 hours ago37 comments
  • lunaru20 hours ago
    I think people understand the odds are small. However, perhaps they perceive their chances of meaningfully turn around their life in other ways have even smaller odds. i.e. improbable vs actually impossible. At least the lottery doesn't care about your current circumstance and everyone has an equal (equally small) chance.

    Secondly, because everyone realizes the chances are small, the real product being sold is Hope. Even the advertisements for the lotteries address this. The thing you're buying is 30 seconds of daydreaming so you can comfortably tackle the rest of the day.

    • UqWBcuFx6NV4r13 hours ago
      I’m at the point where I take it as a red flag when someone doesn’t understand this, and instead bangs on about “low odds” and “the idiots that think that they’ll win”. A combination of superficial booksmarts, a misplaced sense of elitism, and a very real lack of emotional intelligence, that I know that I don’t enjoy being around. There’s definitely a low end on this bell curve, but I think that your average Joe Blow off the street has about as good an undemanding of the chances of winning the lottery as you or I. Which is to say that we’re all definitely flawed in our ability to intuitively comprehend very large numbers, but not uniquely so. It’s just nice to feel like something good might possibly be coming your way. It’s about hope, exactly as you say. I’m barely even an occasional gambler, including the lottery. The one or two times where I’ve bought a ticket, it was worth the $10 or whatever I paid, which I truly do not miss an iota and never have. It’s a game. Anyone who doesn’t get that is deranged.
      • bryanrasmussen11 hours ago
        There's a difference between buying hope, and decreasing the quality of what you do have significantly for false hope.

        The hope of winning the lottery is essentially false hope, but false hope is better than nothing, that's true.

        But look at LatencyKills post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46474645 if someone is buying 100s of dollars worth of lottery tickets that's a real problem, I'm sure you understand that with your mention of the $10 you spent, but you should consider the people who sneer and get upset about people buying lottery tickets might not be people who care much about 10 dollars but rather people who grew up with caregivers that spent all the money coming into the house on false hope.

        • thephyber10 hours ago
          > There's a difference between buying hope, and decreasing the quality of what you do have significantly

          You are making the same category error that the parent is talking about. It’s not a rational risk/reward calculation.

          It’s more like a compulsion / addiction to the soothing / hopeful feeling that people feel for a few minutes when they think about the problems in their life that would be alleviated by winning.

          Remember that the lottery is effectively the same game that used to be called “running numbers” when mob families ran it in the 20th century. The government though encouraging gambling addiction at the time was not worth the social costs. Now those costs are apparently the fault of the addict / family and not the government/ lottery contractor.

          • bryanrasmussen10 hours ago
            And I feel you're making the same category error that I was responding to, that is to say it may not be a rational/risk reward calculation, but people who indulge in a small bit of irrationality are having fun and people who indulge in large bits of irrationality significantly damaging their already damaged finances have a problem.

            >Remember that the lottery is effectively the same game

            I believe running the numbers was guaranteed never to pay out significantly because it was rigged, the lottery is just statistically against you.

        • lazyasciiart11 hours ago
          Or they might just be sneering because they are emotionally incompetent book-smart jerks, like my brother. He has absolutely no personal experience of financial hardship and doesn't believe there is any explanation except stupidity for someone spending $10 on lottery tickets before they've fully funded their 401k for the year.
          • bryanrasmussen10 hours ago
            I believe that category was already handled by the comment I was responding to, which effectively said anyone who sneered at the lottery was like your brother without taking into account the subset of people I pointed to.

            I'm not sure what percentage of people that talk about the lottery being a tax on stupidity do so because they have been personally traumatized by its effect on their family, or seen its effects on others, but I do believe it is the ones like your brother who seem to get most of the press.

        • chairmansteve8 hours ago
          On cue, you demonstrate exactly what the previous poster was talking about. Every single HN user understands how the lottery works. I wish I knew an alternative word to "mansplaining".
      • LatencyKills12 hours ago
        My brother left school after ninth grade and struggles financially — he can’t afford basic health insurance, yet he’ll spend $100 on lottery tickets whenever possible.

        I understand the utility he’s purchasing: a temporary sense of hope. What concerns me is the implicit misunderstanding of probability. The difference in expected value between purchasing one ticket and fifty is statistically negligible. This isn’t about elitism — it’s simply about recognizing orders of magnitude and the arithmetic reality of vanishingly small odds.

        • jstanley10 hours ago
          The difference in expected value between purchasing one ticket and fifty is 50x! Buying 50 tickets is 50x as bad as buying 1 ticket.
      • tekne7 hours ago
        I think there's something to be said for separating disdain for the person and disdain for the institution; unfortunately the latter is used as an excuse for the former.

        But actually... there really are, IMO, better ways to "buy hope", or for that matter positive feelings, many of which actually have positive EV (even if not financially), and it is in my opinion a systemic flaw that we use well-known exploits in human psychology to take money from, statistically, the people who have the least.

      • rpdillon3 hours ago
        All gambling is buying hope. The lottery has the worst gambling odds I've ever heard of, so I don't understand why we're defending it.
      • hypeatei10 hours ago
        There is a place for everyone. We need the elitist, number crunching nerds to remind us that it's bad odds and the gambler to show us that you can find enjoyment in the simple things.
      • Loeffelmann13 hours ago
        It's mainly about showing how low the odds actually are. I think everyone understands they are low but it's ridiculous how low exactly.
      • andrepd10 hours ago
        In all that rant you forget that there's a difference between paying 3$ to buy "hope" and excitement until next week's draw, and compulsively buying scratch cards with abysmal odds several times a day. The latter is a real problem and many jurisdictions around the world allow these predatory games to be sold and advertised everywhere.
    • andrerpena19 hours ago
      I think: 1) Like you said, people are buying hope. 2) People cannot fathom this degree of improbability. So, the fact that it's at least possible overrides the near-impossibility of it. 3) There is some aspect of entertainment and social-interaction to it. It's a bit like watching sports. Who you're cheering for is irrelevant, and whoever wins doesn't change your life in any way, but still, we watch it.
      • strken16 hours ago
        The social aspect is real. The only time I've seen anyone in my family buy a lottery ticket was when one of the jackpots got big enough to become headline news. Mum bought a ticket just to be able to talk about it (and had a chat to us about probability and gambling).
    • latexr10 hours ago
      > At least the lottery doesn't care about your current circumstance and everyone has an equal (equally small) chance.

      Not really true. If you have more money you can buy more tickets which leads to higher—or even certain—odds.

      https://www.iflscience.com/how-a-man-won-the-lottery-14-time...

      • thaumasiotes8 hours ago
        > If you have more money you can buy more tickets which leads to higher—or even certain—odds.

        I don't think there are any lotteries with that feature. You can guarantee that you win, but you still won't have certain odds because the payout isn't guaranteed.

        • latexr8 hours ago
          > I don't think there are any lotteries with that feature.

          It’s in the link I posted.

          • thaumasiotes8 hours ago
            Did you try reading the only other sentence in my comment?
            • latexr13 minutes ago
              No need to get upset. I replied earnestly, I thought you might’ve skipped it.

              The point I was making is that with more money you increase your chances to win. The fact that you may have to split the winnings isn’t relevant, you still won. I was explicitly responding to the “the lottery doesn't care about your current circumstance and everyone has an equal (equally small) chance” remark.

    • anonzzzies19 hours ago
      I know people in the neighbourhood/street I was born, who still live there (well over 50 years in the same house) who bought the postcode lottery tickets since forever, 12x a year, never won anything; this year it fell in the adjacent area code... It must hurt.
      • dostick14 hours ago
        What does it mean - adjacent area code? They can’t play anymore?
        • Z0rp13 hours ago
          It means they nearly won but sadly didn't. So close yet soo far away.
        • Scarblac13 hours ago
          In the Dutch postcode lottery, they draw a random postcode (roughly a street) and everyone that lives there and has a ticket wins. The wider area code (village level) win smaller prizes.

          People get FOMO - what if my neighbors become millionaires but I didn't have a ticket?

          And in this case, some code very close to theirs won. It makes it seem you missed out by a tiny margin.

          • lostlogin11 hours ago
            Seems a clever marketing tactic to rope in more people.

            How do you confirm address? ‘I moved home to my parents last week’ etc.

            • lazyasciiart11 hours ago
              You have to buy a ticket - presumably you have to commit to an address somehow at that point, so people can only buy for one postcode even if they're lying. Unless there's a skewed outcome that shouldn't really matter. (And if there is a skewed outcome...the people who'd bought the winning postcode and didn't have a house on that street would be under heavy scrutiny!)
    • stavros9 hours ago
      Sure, I'll grant you that. But then explain this: Why is it that, whenever I tell people who are about to play the lottery, to pick the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, they say "that's crazy, the numbers will never come out in a row like that"?

      Until someone says "you know what, what the hell, that's as good a pick as any", I'm going to go with "they don't know how small the odds are".

      • staindk9 hours ago
        If 1 through 6 are drawn you'd probably have to share your winnings with many more people than most other combinations.
        • stavros8 hours ago
          Given how much people are avoiding 1 through 6, I think you'd probably be better off picking that.
          • retsibsi8 hours ago
            This is interesting but IMO it's very likely to be chosen more often than average.

            If you choose a random number, then for each other player your chance of picking the same numbers as them is the same as your chance of winning: in the case of Powerball, 1 in 292,201,338 = 0.0000000034. If you instead non-randomly choose 123456, then for each player that actively avoids 123456 your chance of picking the same numbers as them only decreases by 0.0000000034 (from 0.0000000034 to 0). But for each player that actively chooses 123456, your chance of picking the same numbers as them increases by 0.9999999966 (from 0.0000000034 to 1).

            We could model this more precisely by looking at the other players' choices as semi-random with some combinations weighted higher and some lower, but you see my point: even if lots of people are repelled by 'obvious' sequences like 123456, this can be outweighed by a very small number being attracted to them.

            • stavros8 hours ago
              I do see your point, but I doubt this probability analysis was done by the people who say "what? The numbers will never be drawn in a sequence like that". It's not that they want to avoid common numbers.
              • retsibsi8 hours ago
                Agreed! I don't think it undermines your original point, and IMO the linked site could do some good by giving people a better intuitive sense of just how low the odds are.
    • 3RTB29713 hours ago
      I've always assumed this was correct in a way.

      Humans do a poor job estimating extreme odds. 0% chance or 100% of a high risk/reward event. How many people in rural areas are prepping for a Carrington Event-sized solar flare or nuclear war, but a car accident or cancer diagnosis and resulting medical bills would sooner and statistically more likely to ruin their lives? Many. They see the small chance of survival as being high reward, with low risk.

      Likewise, the lure of a 100% chance of life-changing material wealth that takes the low risk of $2 fits the same mold.

    • 9 hours ago
      undefined
    • chairmansteve8 hours ago
      Very well said.

      The lottery used to be a guage of my level of hopelessness. If I was feeling hopeless I would buy a ticket.

      Luckily I haven't bought a ticket for years.

      I used to buy one every week.

    • 01HNNWZ0MV43FF13 hours ago
      30 seconds? I can daydream in bed for an hour for nothing.
    • dangus20 hours ago
      Another aspect is that in many states, a large portion of the lottery goes directly into public good programs like education: https://www.powerball.net/distribution-of-revenue

      All the players know that the odds are horrible, but in the end someone does win.

      • Retric20 hours ago
        Money is fungible, every penny going from the lottery to X is a penny not taken from the general fund.

        Thus specific funds for X is only meaningful as a minimum funding amount.

        • dangus19 hours ago
          This is technically true, but the end result is that if you abolish the lottery (unpopular) you have to raise taxes (even more unpopular) to replace lost revenue.

          Sin taxes work so well at plugging funding gaps specifically because they are optional.

          • Retric18 hours ago
            That and they are taxing the poor and under educated who are least likely to complain.

            Making things explicit such as stamping a “45% Tax” on lottery tickets really changes people’s perception. The Trump administration almost flipped out when Amazon considered explicitly adding tariffs to people’s checkout.

            • koolba14 hours ago
              > The Trump administration almost flipped out when Amazon considered explicitly adding tariffs to people’s checkout.

              I wish they called their bluff and did it as it’d force Amazon to show the country of manufacture.

              • selcuka12 hours ago
                > it’d force Amazon to show the country of manufacture

                I don't think many people would care.

                • dangus5 hours ago
                  I’m reminded of that company that added a Made in USA option of their product that you could select next to the normal price and nobody would buy it at any price premium.

                  Like, literally nobody.

                  I wish I could remember where that blog post was, I think it came up on HN.

          • 19 hours ago
            undefined
        • Waterluvian19 hours ago
          And they would also have to believe that their education system in its current form would have been even worse without the lottery.
    • p1dda16 hours ago
      The odds are really small but so are the cost of playing
      • ozim13 hours ago
        Problem is there are people who buy tickets for each and every draw for years.

        That amounts for not so trivial amount of money - would be much better for them if they put it in savings account or basically anything else.

  • atroposDad19 hours ago
    I would be really curious to see the money side of this. I am not sure about Powerball, but with EuroJackpot, some of the smaller wins can cover the cost of the ticket (or even cover a holiday!).

    It would be really interesting to watch the expected value play out over repeated plays!! I am imagining a running balance where you keep track of total spend versus total returns. Most of the time the balance steadily goes more negative, with occasional jumps back up when you hit a partial match, and very rare big spikes from a larger win.

    Very cool project!

    • SauntSolaire18 hours ago
      Should also include a running tally for the total net profit taken in by the government (after payouts) across all expected ticket sales. That way you can watch your number going negative while the government's balloons up into billions.
      • rhplus14 hours ago
        This would show the big difference between the Euro and US lottery formats, where (typically) in Euro lotteries, the government takes taxes on the stake and so the jackpot is tax free, whereas in US the prize is taxed as income or windfall. This is one of the reasons why US lottery jackpots tend to be stated as much bigger than Euro ones despite having a larger purchaser pool.
    • Waterluvian19 hours ago
      Love the idea. Could also allow the viewer to pick how often they buy tickets and keep track of how much time passes. I think this dimension would help give context to the losses number.

      Might hide all this behind the current automatic view with a “play it yourself” toggle.

    • anonu14 hours ago
      EV is always negative.
  • noman-land18 hours ago
    I think it would be interesting to have a version where the chosen numbers were the same every time. We all know the odds won't change but there are countless people who play the lottery this way. They have "their" numbers and they never deviate for fear that if they do, that's when "their" numbers would pop up and they'd miss out on the win.
    • architectonic14 hours ago
      Yes and another that uses a fixed ridiculous combination like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. This is my favorite way for bringing the odds nearer to mind.
      • selcuka12 hours ago
        That would be cool for this website, but don't try it in real life. If you win, it is almost guaranteed that you will share your prize with many other people.
      • hdgvhicv10 hours ago
        When the U.K. lottery launched you picked 6 from 49.

        The prizes were shared amongst everyone

        If the prize pot was say £10m, 4 winners would get £2.5m each.

        I suspect that the hunebr of people choosing 123456 would be far higher than choosing 6 random numbers. Thus in the event your numbers did come up, you would get far less winning than someone who had the same odds but chose say 13 22 32 35 40 42

        • stavros9 hours ago
          If anything, I imagine everyone would actively avoid 123456, thus making it the better pick.
    • henry202317 hours ago
      It’s the same game. Betting on a pair when throwing two dice has the same likelihood than betting on a six when throwing one die.
      • kuboble14 hours ago
        The odds may be the same but the game is not the same.

        The point of lottery games is to offer the lowest possible probability of winning that has a perception of being winnable.

        So guessing few random small numbers feels easier than picking one random large number.

        The whole point of the website is to show those games in a context where people without a math degree will get how low the winning chances are.

        So the games with the same winning likelihood Are Not the same game.

  • PUSH_AX9 hours ago
    A few reasons I still play despite understanding the odds. The euro millions also distributes money to charitable organisations, so I see my play as a donation, and that I’m purchasing a day dream.

    People still win the jackpot, frequently. Some of those people probably understood the odds too, and it just happened to them, that feeling must be pretty wild.

  • tiffanyh18 hours ago
    What people often overlook about lottos is that for a few dollars, you’re buying the chance to dream about a better life.

    And that dream lasts right up until you check the numbers.

    That’s the part rational investors tend to miss … the power of dreaming.

    And I’ll admit it - I play the lottery too, even though I already live a pretty comfortable life.

    • parasti18 hours ago
      You're romanticizing, sadly. Every time I see someone scratching off numbers, I see a twisted industry exploiting human hopefulness and naivety. Dreaming costs nothing.
      • Towaway6913 hours ago
        When I see office workers walking off to the dreamer highrise offices in the sky, I enviously dream of being that worker in the sky, with all those dreams of grandeur.

        Dreaming does cost nothing.

      • wpm17 hours ago
        Scratch offs are a different beast than big games like the PowerBall
        • fragmede16 hours ago
          Gambling addiction is such a crippling disease. There should be accredited gambling laws so people can't gamble what they don't have.
    • ssl23213 hours ago
      I play the national lottery in the UK mainly because of the good causes it supports. Athletes competing in the Olympics for Team GB for example receive significant funding from the lottery. I see my ticket as a charity donation with the added fun of an astronomically small chance of winning money.
    • stevekemp14 hours ago
      There's a property website which covers my local area, and every few weeks I'll do a search for the city-center, and sort by highest-price.

      It's fun to look at the kinda house you could buy if you had €5 million in the bank. Even though I'd never have that much, and even if I did I wouldn't spend it on such a thing.

      That's a habit I picked up when I lived in the UK and I played their national lottery once every month or so.

      (/r/SpottedonRightmove/ is also a fun sub if you like this kinda thing; "right move" is a UK estate agents chain.)

    • _mitterpach15 hours ago
      Couldn’t the dreaming be done even without betting? This feels like an excuse to me to be completely honest.

      I’ve personally had thoughts about what I would do if I were millionaire, and given the amount of stories of people coming into a large sums of money and their life getting significantly worse, I’d prefer to actually not win it.

      • happymellon14 hours ago
        > Couldn’t the dreaming be done even without betting?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

        Presumably its easier to dream when there is an unpredictable outcome, rather than knowing you have to wake up tomorrow to spend the day driving around and pissing in bottles. An outside force that could change circumstances is a better feeling than knowing that really isn't any way of changing your career when you can't go to school because you can't afford it.

        • latexr9 hours ago
          That law, as per its name, applies to headlines in publications, not literally every question. Otherwise the answer to everything would be “no”.

          > Presumably its easier to dream when there is an unpredictable outcome

          Anecdotally, I know almost no one who plays the lottery, but almost everyone at some point has shared an “if I won the lottery” dream. Playing isn’t a prerequisite. It’s not too different from dreaming of becoming a rockstar when you can’t even play an instrument. Most of us have some version of that, no money necessary.

  • Waterluvian19 hours ago
    What I love about this is how it demonstrates that the waiting is the most powerful part. That week is where a lotto user’s brain does all the work for the lotto corp. The anticipation! The excitement. What if? Oh let’s daydream! Oh the dopamine!

    You don’t even have to sell them hope. Just sell them the sensation of hope.

    • TehCorwiz19 hours ago
      I view buying a lottery ticket as a way to fund the things that the taxes are allocated to while also getting to fantasize until the drawing. I play maybe twice a year. There's near zero chance I'll win. That's not the point. The point is to have that fantasy, just for a moment.
      • hansvm15 hours ago
        > taxes are allocated to

        That gets messy in a hurry. Most of the time time a lottery is introduced to help fund school districts, funding from other sources for those districts dries up. Money is fungible, and the effect is as if the lottery money directly went somewhere other than its earmarked purpose.

    • amelius19 hours ago
      Hope is a pretty good thing to have, though. And it's one of the few things many people actually _can_ have. Therefore maybe lotteries aren't so bad after all even if nobody ever wins, and posts like this are actually bad.
      • Waterluvian19 hours ago
        Many people come down off that kind of hope when their numbers don’t come up. I’ve seen it. I have friends who felt it. You might perceive it as a sort of loan to get you through the week. But you owe it back plus the $2 interest.
      • whoknowsidont16 hours ago
        This is a pretty dipshit take.
        • amelius8 hours ago
          You must be in the 1% of people who can have that startup dream or have enough money to make investment worthwhile.
  • cmckn18 hours ago
    A few years ago I wrote a script to compare my numbers against all previous drawings. Still didn’t “win”!
    • sodafountan15 hours ago
      Was this data scraped from somewhere? Seems like it would be pretty tedious to manually enter all of the previous winning combinations.
  • my_throwaway2315 hours ago
    This reminds me of a (dirt cheap - about 0.5€) scratch ticket available when I was growing up. The number of winning tickets, as specified on the ticket, was 51%. The 2% up from the usual 49% meant you won more than you lost. The smallest prize was about twice the cost of the ticket. We would run to the store on our lunch break, buy a couple of tickets, rinse and repeat a few times, and have money for whatever food we wanted for the day.

    (and no, you wouldn't be able to farm them - the store only carried X amount of tickets, and they usually sold out quickly)

    • mikepurvis15 hours ago
      I don’t understand how this lotto would make any money.
      • rottencupcakes15 hours ago
        A limited availability loss leader product meant to normalize lottery tickets to young customers.
  • dmurray12 hours ago
    > You are more likely to...get dealt a royal flush in poker on your first hand (1 in 649,740)

    This is true but a bit misleading: 99% of people actually playing poker in the US today are playing Texas Hold'em or other variants where "your first hand" contains more than 5 cards and is vastly more likely to have a royal flush. I've had several royal flushes but would not want to think I'm only an order of magnitude or two away from having the luck of a Powerball winner.

  • pcchristie18 hours ago
    What would be cool is being able to enter a ticket price, and keep a running count of financials to show how underwater you are on a net basis.

    Could also change the cadence for tallying purposes (so 1 second = 1 week/fortnight/month) to keep track of how many weeks, months or years one has been doing this for. But that might get depressing!

  • cloudfudge19 hours ago
    Neat. I like that multiple clients get the same websocket data, as opposed to each just running their own simulation. I will be watching https://lotteryeverysecond.lffl.me/wins with interest. ;)
  • thrownato19 hours ago
    I think for most people, they just think _someone_ will win eventually and you can't win if you don't play, so why not part with some (hopefully) disposable income that could turn their entire life around.
    • slfreference15 hours ago
      https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/jun/17/can-you...

      "Lottery-like" mechanisms for selling homes exist in the UK as "prize competitions" or "house raffles", which operate under specific legal rules to avoid being classified as illegal lotteries. This method gained significant news coverage, particularly a high-profile case in 2017, and has become a growing trend.

      • 9 hours ago
        undefined
        • 9 hours ago
          undefined
          • 9 hours ago
            undefined
  • Scarblac13 hours ago
    For me a good way to visualize it is, you get given a key. It works on exactly one of the houses in your entire country, and you get one try (no you cant inspect the lock first and all keys look the same). Good luck trying!
  • recallingmemory19 hours ago
    So you're telling me there's a chance
  • skylanh15 hours ago
    Two large lotteries in my area: Lotto Max: 1:33,294,800 Lotto 649 1:14,000,000

    (excluding the smaller pool draws of 5/6, 4/6, etc)

    One ticket as the width of a human hair (60-80 µm).

    The winning numbers are a hole the width of a human hair.

    The odds of winning 1:14m is hitting another hair head on in a line 14,000,000×0.00007 m=980 meters wide. (~840 meters to ~1,120 meters)

    The odds of winning 1:33.3m is hitting another hair head on in a line 33,294,800×0.00007 m=2,330.636 meters wide. (1,998 meters to ~2,664 meters)

    (calculations by ChatGPT)

    If I buy a ticket, it's so I can daydream for myself.

  • paprikanotfound14 hours ago
    I read somewhere the lottery it's just a tax on poor people. Some people are saying it's about the dream of a better life but dreaming is free.
  • alfabeta16 hours ago
    Insightful. Similar to worldometers.info. Reminds me of VSauce’s mind blowing YouTube video visualizing how big 52 factorial is.

    A useful statistic to include is the probability of becoming a successful business owner, or better yet, the probability of getting a job that pays an annual salary of 200k, 1mil. etc. Maybe that will inspire people to dream more practically.

    Another insightful feature would be to emulate playing at the rate of real life (approx. tickets per second in real life).

  • DavidPiper19 hours ago
    The amount of time I spent watching this page is a nice reminder of why I have a rule to never buy lottery tickets.

    See also: Simulation Clicker.

    I know how my brain works these days.

    • sunrunner19 hours ago
      Why not buy lottery tickets? The only thing smaller than the ridiculously small chance of winning is absolute zero, from never playing. Bad odds are still odds :)
      • dmd18 hours ago
        If $DEITY wants me to win, the winning lottery ticket will be dropped by someone and it’ll blow into my car and get lodged onto the dashboard.
    • tracerbulletx15 hours ago
      If you care that much about statistics you should buy them in the case where the expected value becomes positive every once and a while
  • episteme16 hours ago
    So what happens if this wins after a very low number of plays? What if it won twice in a row? Would the plays be reset because it isn't representative anymore? Or should it be left up to give a different message?
  • netsharc19 hours ago
    The Company has never existed, and never will.

    https://archive.org/download/HeliganSecretsOfTheLostGardens/...

  • subsr9715 hours ago
    Cool website! One minor bug - the Pause button doesn't work for me.
    • re14 hours ago
      Pagination is also buggy, as the live results interfere with the historical ones.
  • chairmansteve8 hours ago
    Very nice. Would be good if I could enter my own numbers and set it running.
  • jonahx19 hours ago
    > Approximately 4.6 years of continuous play, every second, to see a single jackpot win.

    This seems pretty reasonable, actually! Somehow it makes the 320M seem manageable.

  • bentobean16 hours ago
    Someone has to win. It might as well be me.
    • slfreference15 hours ago
      "The Secret" : The electron has to collapse the wavefunction somewhere. It might as well collapse so as to make my wishes come true.
  • 13 hours ago
    undefined
  • sbarre18 hours ago
    I just saw a 57.1% percent match go by.. That sure would have convinced me to buy more tickets.. :-)
    • cmckn18 hours ago
      That would only be like $7 in powerball ;)
  • AndrewOMartin18 hours ago
    The thing that annoys me most about the lottery is the tradeoff between risk and reward is so dumb as to become actually dangerous. The linked site says the Eurojackpot has a 1 in 139,838,160 chance of a jackpot and a payout of €10,000,000, where for most people a payout of €50k-€250k would be completely life changing and I expect there exist risky bets/gambles/investments which would give you that payout for much better odds.

    Not to mention that once your winnings goes over a certain threshold the chance that you end up dead from bad choices or straight up murdered seems to skyrocket.

    • arthurstarlake17 hours ago
      wow, elegantly said, thanks!
    • noAnswer16 hours ago
      Well there are lotteries with lower payout and "a better chance".

      ...but anyway, are you really arguing that rich people live way more dangerous?

      • AndrewOMartin9 hours ago
        I genuinely meant that lottery winners got murdered at a noticeable higher rate. However I can't find a good source for that belief now. So I'm happy to drop the belief.

        Nevertheless, here's an article from an untrustworthy looking site!

        https://www.grunge.com/1301397/lottery-winners-murdered/

        • noAnswer7 hours ago
          Ok, so America.

          In Europe, or at least in Germany, they don't name drop. If the jackpot was very high, like >100M you can sometime hear in the news something like "the win goes to nord Bavaria." But that's it. The winners even get schooled on how to stay low. Only talk about the win in the family. Open an new bank account in a big city and not at your village bank. Don't immediately quit your job. Don't invest in shady shit etc.

          If you self select to be public about it, that is on you. And there are people who do. Most talk about it after they have lost a lot of money and are in debt now. They thought they are set for life. So they raise their living standard drastically. Give out big gifts etc. And "suddenly" 10M isn't that much money anymore. :-)

          But yea, I agree that lottery is stupid. Put the money on savings.

  • pflenker15 hours ago
    A teacher of mine used to say:

    Lottery is a tax for people who don’t understand statistics.

    • omani11 hours ago
      you probably mean "stochastics".
      • KellyCriterion10 hours ago
        I would translate to: "from a stochastic perspective one can win - from a statistic perspective, its very unlikely"
  • jmorenoamor11 hours ago
    Lottery is needed, as it finances time travel.
  • Popeyes12 hours ago
    This is the experience of the lottery for a single person so the chances of winning is low. But lotteries are played by millions. Simulate that experience.
  • chistev14 hours ago
    So you're saying there's a chance?
  • satisfice19 hours ago
    The odds of winning are so low that I tell people the odds that they will just give me the money even though I bought no ticket can’t be much lower.
    • 13 hours ago
      undefined
  • stogot20 hours ago
    Good idea to show the odds. I wouldn’t be able to remember the name to send to someone

    Maybe try shouldIplaythelottery.com

  • gardenhedge10 hours ago
    Cool website - but it made me just go play the lotto. Here's hoping I win a million at 2pm GMT
  • d--b10 hours ago
    The fact that someone actually wins the lottery is what’s surprising.

    For me, it makes me realize how incredibly large human populations are.

  • 0xis15 hours ago
  • jmclnx20 hours ago
    Interesting site. Logic is rather easy, setting you the WEB site to present the results to me is rather hard.