It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Powerball and FU billionaires

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
The lottery is a sham, like politics and organized religion.

Go ahead pray, vote and pay… you aren't going to "win".




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Actually, billionaires got that way by NOT doing things like throwing good money after bad odds.

But I see your point, and mathematically speaking, it sounds valid.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yeah, I see your point, but the reality is that, eventually, someone (or some people) will win, and while the odds are dramatically against that reality being me, I see zero harm in throwing down a ten-spot on five lines--it doesn't break my bank by any stretch, and I'm already of the mindset that it's $10 I gave to someone who will win. No big deal.

I will vote, but sure wish that the electoral college would be abolished.

I won't pray.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


…the reality is that, eventually, someone (or some people) will win, and while the odds are dramatically against that reality being me, I see zero harm in throwing down a ten-spot on five lines--


because you see the enormity of the potential if you do win, right? Because the pot has grown so large, because the media is saying look, play, win… right?

IMO, they plan this ahead of time, nobody winning for extended periods mean that money is invested in the mean time. The larger the pot gets the more people 'play' (gamble), and finally, the people that really win are the Lotto, the government (tax) and the rip off artists that steal it all back, (if they don't in fact pay out to their cronies in the first place).

Finally, name a lottery winner that didn't self destruct. You really want that?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Yes if you should die,IF you took the annuity the money would continue to be paid out to your 'estate'. Therefore who ever you left your estate too would then get it for up to 30 years .



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey

because you see the enormity of the potential if you do win, right? Because the pot has grown so large, because the media is saying look, play, win… right?


Nope, but I see that you'll most likely adhere to that assumption regardless if some people just feel like swapping down a few bucks for fun without any delusions that they'll win. It's better than spending money on cigarettes or alcohol, IMO.


IMO, they plan this ahead of time, nobody winning for extended periods mean that money is invested in the mean time. The larger the pot gets the more people 'play' (gamble), and finally, the people that really win are the Lotto, the government (tax) and the rip off artists that steal it all back, (if they don't in fact pay out to their cronies in the first place).


Yeah, I agree with you mostly, because when you think about the odds of winning (1 in 292.x Million), there absolutely has to have been multiple times that amount of tickets sold over the last few drawings without a winner. I know that it's probably possible mathematically that this is a result of chance, but it seems fishy to me as well. And I bet that there will be like seven or more winners, disappointing (for some reason I can't imagine) each winner because they only got multiple tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions. Hell, I'd be happy winning $100K so I could just get out of debt and pay off my house.



Finally, name a lottery winner that didn't self destruct. You really want that?


Simple Google searches will find you plenty. Here are six of them. But I get your point...but I'm not an idiot with money, and quite honestly, the vast majority of it would be given away because, no, I don't want to have access to that big of a horde of money to corrupt my life and relationships.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Give your lotto money to a homeless person, the next one to cross your path.

The return is far greater.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
They changed it last year to make it more difficult to win and so the jackpot becomes bigger and it feeds itself as more people get excited and play.

Which is soooooo stupid to me. If the odds are better to spend a buck to win (or not) 300 million, why would I spend 2 bucks to likely not win 1.5 billion?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I give things, including money, to homeless people quite often. The other day I gave a homeless guy a box full of hand and foot warmers to help him through the upcoming cold days and nights, hoping that he would pay it forward to other people in need that he knew...if you really want/need an example.

Honestly, I think it's time that you quit worrying about what other people do with their own money, as it seems that you'll never be satisfied with what we do unless it aligns exactly with how you think it should be spent. There are far better things in life to be concerned with than how others spend their own income.

ETA: And to be quite honest, giving money to homeless people is one of the last things I'll do for them, as around here, heroin is a MAJOR issue, and giving people money who may be homeless because of that addiction (a high probability here) is the least intelligent thing to do. But I'm always willing to help buy them something that they need for either a small comfort or survival.

edit on 13-1-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Give your lotto money to a homeless person, the next one to cross your path.

The return is far greater.


$2?

I prefer to give more than that if I can give at all, but I especially prefer to give to local orgs who specialize in getting the homeless off the streets and providing what my paltry ability to give couldn't in and of itself.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


There are far better things in life to be concerned with than how others spend their own income.

My sole points are directed at the Lottery, not how else you spend your money or help the homeless.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


but I especially prefer to give to local orgs who specialize in getting the homeless off the streets and providing what my paltry ability to give couldn't in and of itself.

I've spent considerable periods of my life amongst those living outdoors. What most people don't understand is many of them choose that lifestyle over slaving for the system to pay rent and utilities, preferring rather to live free outdoors, sleep under the stars. They are content with less, something the people molded into "civilization" will never understand, thinking that way of life is "less than". They aren't asking for anyones help.

"Agencies" want to plug them back in so they go back to earning (slaving) for that system…

(bah) bah black sheep, ave you any wool?



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Then why did you bring it up at all, then?

That's a serious question, because I agree that it is an unnecessary conversation.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Throwing money down the lottery well is a waste. Might as well flush it.

Hey, just my opinion, no need to get all 'serious'.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: boncho
They only spent $5 million in the example you gave, I personally would not call that buying it out, more like playing the odds, same as all of us do. They just happen to do it with more money.


Except they intended to buy it out. It was not a power ball lottery, it was virginia state lotto which only has 44 numbers, and they planned to buy all combinations but weren't able to because of time. They ended up with 5 million out of a possible 7 million combinations:


State lottery officials say that the group bought tickets for 5 million of a possible 7 million combinations, at $1 each, in a lottery with a $27 million jackpot. Only a lack of time prevented the group from buying tickets for the remaining 2 million combinations.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

The circumstances are not at all similar to the Powerball scenario.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: boncho

The circumstances are not at all similar to the Powerball scenario.

The prize was above the number of possible combinations, in that respect its identical.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: boncho
The prize was above the number of possible combinations, in that respect its identical.


It was over by a different multiple so it was not identical.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Oh, I agree, but so is buying a soda, or spending $30 on beer at a bar, or buying a brand new car, or paying for cable, or doing a lot of things. That's my point, though--we all waste money every single day, but it's one's own prerogative to do with their money what they will, especially if they can afford a $10 lottery ticket the one or two times a year that they play it.

Maybe this will lighten the mood






top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join