Here's a way to sell a house.

MoneyLosingExpert_2

RHemmings wrote: »

Yep, but can you tell me exactly why it's a lie, and how the lie masquerades as the truth in my original posting?

What you actually stated was there was a 1 in 1000 chance of picking the correct number. This is correct as there are only ever going to be 1000 numbers. What is not true is to state you have a 1 in 1000 chance of winning.

RHemmings

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

The numbre of tickets will vary wildly depending on which numbers are chosen.
If people chose numbers randomly, it'd probably take something like 10,000 tickets to fulfill the payout criteria.
And people don't choose numbers randomly, but favour certain combinations of digits, so it'd probably take even more tickets than that.

In all likelihood the house would never be won. An expiration date on the small print of the tickets and all the takings would be pure profit.

That's basically it, with the same argument as grapenut, but with more realistic numbers. Doing a quick simulation (quicker than working out the math), the return is about £250K before the house is won. Which is an expected loss, but not as bad as the lottery. And given the numbers involved, I might even give it a punt given that £30 is nothing and a house would be quite useful.

However, perhaps elongating the thread more than anyone is interested in, can anyone say, apart from it being wrong, what error someone might make in evaluating the claim of 1 in 1000 chance of success that might make it plausible.

And, why is Guy Montag's strategy of choosing all 1000 numbers such a good one?

RHemmings

MoneyLosingExpert wrote: »

What you actually stated was there was a 1 in 1000 chance of picking the correct number. This is correct as there are only ever going to be 1000 numbers. What is not true is to state you have a 1 in 1000 chance of winning.

True. But why?

MoneyLosingExpert_2

RHemmings wrote: »

True. But why?

The pedant in me wants to say its because you are using whole numbers and therefore the field you are picking from only has 1000 different members.

If you're asking my why the probability is not 1 in 1000, it seems a bit like these 'guess the lowest price' games where you have to pick an amount of say a car and the lowest unique bidder wins.

Therefore the game here is that in order to find a winner, at least 1999 people have to play, in order for there to be one unique number, so in an 'open book' race the probability would be 1 in 1999. As an open book (where you see what has been bid) would not work, the chances of gamblers picking the same number are extremely high. Therefore as the previous post suggests, it would go on forever.

Have I misinterpreted the game?

RHemmings

MoneyLosingExpert wrote: »

The pedant in me wants to say its because you are using whole numbers and therefore the field you are picking from only has 1000 different members.

If you're asking my why the probability is not 1 in 1000, it seems a bit like these 'guess the lowest price' games where you have to pick an amount of say a car and the lowest unique bidder wins.

Therefore the game here is that in order to find a winner, at least 1999 people have to play, in order for there to be one unique number, so in an 'open book' race the probability would be 1 in 1999. As an open book (where you see what has been bid) would not work, the chances of gamblers picking the same number are extremely high. Therefore as the previous post suggests, it would go on forever.

Have I misinterpreted the game?

This is the style of answer I was expecting, but it's not the right answer in this situation.

MoneyLosingExpert_2

Ah crap, takes me that long to post that its all over by the time I do!

JayScottGreenspan

If you didn't enter, then you could guess the right number with a 1 in 1000 probability of getting it right.

But if enter, you don't have a 1 in 1000 chance of picking the right number. By the time the right number is determined, ~10,000 people will have picked all the other numbers twice or more (some numbers might have been picked 20 or more times).

The act of entering a number in the lottery drastically reduces the chances of that number being the winning one. After all, once the lottery has been running for a while the organiser will know that those numbers that no-one has yet picked will suddenly have a much better than 1 in 1000 chance of winning.

RHemmings

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

If you didn't enter, then you could guess the right number with a 1 in 1000 probability of getting it right.

But if enter, you don't have a 1 in 1000 chance of picking the right number. By the time the right number is determined, ~10,000 people will have picked all the other numbers twice or more (some numbers might have been picked 20 or more times).

The act of entering a number in the lottery drastically reduces the chances of that number being the winning one. After all, once the lottery has been running for a while the organiser will know that those numbers that no-one has yet picked will suddenly have a much better than 1 in 1000 chance of winning.

Excellent!

Now why is Guy Montag's strategy of buying all numbers such a good one?

MoneyLosingExpert_2

RHemmings wrote: »

Excellent!

Now why is Guy Montag's strategy of buying all numbers such a good one?

Because he is assured to be the only person with the last unique bid, spends £30,000 and just waits til every other number except one is picked again (a long long wait!)

That is assuming he is the first person to buy all 1000.

RHemmings

MoneyLosingExpert wrote: »

Because he is assured to be the only person with the last unique bid, spends £30,000 and just waits til every other number except one is picked again (a long long wait!)

That is assuming he is the first person to buy all 1000.

If he got in first, then it would guarantee him the win. As if he has all numbers, then the last unique one must be him. However, if he bid after others have already bid, then he could lose if his 1000 choices were entered one by one. If they were entered simultaneously then the game could be ruined if (e.g.) someone else had already chosen all the numbers, meaning that there was never a last remaining uniquely chosen number.

It's also, given that caveat, the provably cheapest way of guaranteeing the win.