Posts Tagged ‘New Zealand’

How I Won Lotto (II) – The Insurance and the Lotto Gamble

Saturday, June 20th, 2009

Today I’ll explain the miracle of lotto: how to win.

Before we go any further, please consider your insurance policies.  Do you have a car insured? Your house, organs, teeth or maybe home contents, the grand piano, even a bank loan or your own life are insured. Good on you! I guess you have enough $$$ to pay for these insurance policies and you have heaps of peace of mind. Let’s say you’re insured against crushing your car and the amount they are going to pay you if you do something very naughty, like slamming your Porsche  into the Pentagon (it has been done, but not with cars) is going to be up to maybe two million dollars (that’s $2,000,000). OK, you did this very-very-very bad thing and the insurance has to pay for it. How many other people did bang their cars into one of the five sides of that well guarded building since you got insured? This kind of event is very unlikely, but the insurance company takes a bet. It gambles the money it makes from you and from many others against the odds. Surely a million people insured for a thousand buck each can pay for one bad driver causing a lot of damage, even a million bucks worth of damage, as during that time the money was invested and created profit anyway. This is a scenario involving big numbers and unlikely events. Let’s analyse the more probable combinations. Let’s say you pay $10 every month to insure your car. Let’s say every ten month you crush it and it costs $1000 to get it fixed. This means that your insurer believes that there are more then ten drivers like you (same age group, same type of car, same driving history, etc.) who will pay the same to have their cars insured but will not crush them. It’s a very simplistic explanation. In fact it’s not only that the company who insured you had done its homework on risk factors, and it’s just collecting money from the ones who keep out of trouble to pay for the likes of you. No! They also make sure you pay in the end. They may have an excess factor, like: “howdy, if you mildly crush your car we’ll pay you up to its full value, but you have to pay the first $500” and “sorry mate, you were paying only 10 bucks a month because you had no claim history, now you have to pay $25 for the next five years. Non-claim years, by the way…” Do you fell ripped of? Of course not! What if it were you? If you have a problem, the nice guys from the insurance will pay for you. It’s just another tax: the tax on your peace of mind.

Lottery is worse. A guy I’ve never met called it tax on stupidity.

I guess he was right to some extent. Yet I believe that both the insurance and the lottery are actually a taxes on the mortality of the human being.  Robots don’t take life insurance of their own and they don’t gamble. They have nothing to loose, thus no fear. That’s because live has no value for them (fair enough, since they don’t have one).  For us how we live our only life is bloody important. If I get sick and I have no money I may die two decades sooner (insurance). If I crush my bike into the Hubble Telescope I may have to pay for the rest of my life, thus my life would be forfeited (insurance).  If I’m broke but I can buy an $5 lotto ticket and I don’t win, I’ll be the same, my life perspectives won’t change (lottery). But if I buy a ticket and I win the first prize of many millions, yes! I’m the man! My life is finally worth living, it’s almost as if I die a little bit less than you guys do (lottery).

Gambling is in our veins, more precisely in the cells that flow through our veins and more precisely in their nuclei but particularly in the chromosomes, to be exact in the genes that programme us to die.

We’ve been gambling since we came out of the egg in the wild, we took our chances by stepping out of the murky waters onto the sand, and then we dared climb down the tree and never returned. That’s if you think Darwin was right. I happen to have in my study his big blue book bound in leather. Bigger than the Bible and I dare say equally boring. As to the truth value of these books, I cannot judge. The truth hurts, yet telling the truth kills.

I’ll tell you some truth today. It’s the truth I believe in as deep as I believe in my alien grand-grand-grandma.

Let’s play lotto: you against the National system that runs the game. Remember the insurance equation many of us are part of? Think of this less consequential one: what if I buy a $10 ticket? The next draw could be up to ten million! Do this every week of your active life…

In a system that draws 6 numbers out of 40, which is generally speaking an user-friendly lottery, more likely to run for a limited time and/or in a small country, every line you pick has 6 numbers and you need a few of them to win. This is how it works:

  1. The first ball is drawn: you have 1 chance in 40 for each number you play, that is 6/40;
  2. If the first ball was lucky for you, for the next one you have 5/39 chances;
  3. (and so on)
  4. (and on)
  5. (and on)
  6. By now, when the sixth ball is drawn, you have 1/35 chances to get it right. That’s on top of being so good as to get all the other ones.

Simple maths tells us that to get 6 out of 40 numbers you have a chance of 1 in 3,838,380. What does it mean? Say each line of lotto is costing you $1 and you buy an average of 10 for every weekly draw, your chances improve by 10, so you really have chances of 1 in 383,383 to win the big prize of the first division. But maybe you are already rich and you can afford to spend $100 weekly: this improves your chances another 10 times, so you will get the top prize with a rough probability of 1 in “only” 38,383. If you pay $100 weekly for every one of the 52 weeks of the year, you only need only 738 years and 1 month to get it! If this news is not good enough, try to just pay more for your tickets: if you gamble $1000 every week it improves your chances but not it may not be enough, as you still have to wait (space of probability, no guarantee, you may win tomorrow or not at all) for about 74 years, which is really not my cup of tea. Of course, you may gamble even more every week, but who would? If you are a millionaire already, I doubt you would be spending your millions on an investment that only has a rough chance of 1:40,000 to generate big profit.

20040229_dur_r34_047.jpg

So why do we play lotto? (Please note: I did not ask rhetorically “why do we gamble?” because general gambling is as different to the National Lottery as Uma Thurman is to Danny DeVito. (No offence to either, just two different typos. By the way: I stole these photos off the Internet with no copyright so I may be fined like the Jammie Thomas-Rasset woman who pirated 24 songs and is now to pay $2M.)

danny-devito

If you want to be in for the big lucky one, go lotto! If you want to stand a chance, go to an honest casino. On Black Jack your chances are nearly 50-50%. On the French Roulette not so good, but a straight bet may win you about $35 for every buck you gamble. That’s more than 100,000 times more likely than winning the big lottery.

This is no promotional stuff for any gambling institution. All gambling is bloody bad (unless you win). Yet winning in a Casino is far more likely and more people do so than on the big lottery stage. However, a BIG win is more attractive because it’s more likely to be a life-changing experience. Be a nice homeless guy, find a coin by the kerb, enter the lotto shop poor, buy a ticket and tomorrow you’ll be a millionaire giving $$$ to charities to keep other people off the street. That’s perfection. Reality is not.

What most people don’t get is that regardless how big the pot is, your chances are just based on how much you spend (how many options you buy). In fact, on a big jackpot you risk more: even if you win, it is more likely that there will be other winners to share the prize with you.

Still remember the insurance business? Your chances to bang into the Pentagon are even smaller than you winning lotto’s first division. What do you want to do? (You don’t have to do anything, yet life is short, thus you’d better spice it up!) I would chose French Roulette (not to be confussed with Russian one).

Roulette110807

Meanwhile I’m signing off to go and check my lotto ticket. By the way: guess if I have insured my car?! (Hint: I drive a British red turbo.)

Loudspeaker: Important Announcement! (Not at All)

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

(The following paragraph is not the most serious reason you should hire a loudspeaker. If you really want to hire one, do it by hour and not by day as you cannot predict precisely when you’ll get arrested but an hour cuts it fine enough. Still in doubt? Get a white van and some paint. Make sure you have enough petrol just to get there – you know where. If you don’t have enough reasons, read on.)

*

I had a bloody respectable website for so many years; true and safe, New Zealand based, virtually untouched. I had been so accustomed to go in there as you do when you retire by the seaside after a lifetime in a slaughterhouse with broken air conditioning. And I was retiring in there almost daily, just making changes once a year when the only thing I  had to change was the copyright notice with the year at the bottom of the main page. This is how frequency in non-frequent actions creates an unusually use of usual stuff.  (What’s the name of the guy who thought some yucky bodily functions are as pleasant as some other yummier ones but they just became common due to very frequent use? Freud? I don’t think so. He was much better than that.)

You may think this has nothing to do with parenthood.

Watching a baby grow is more predictable than watching the paint dry. There have been a few babies known to have done the same thing before: they grow and grow! (Not that I’ve noticed.)

“Nursing can be tricky” [quoting The Encyclopaedia of Mothers Reunited – FAQ]. In most cases nursing is still boringly predictable, though. Even the sleepless nights are quite normal, as much as you may hate them. (While you don’t sleep but you should sleep and you so much desire to sleep, your body releases endorphins or other things with longer names and this could extend your life or the contrary, whatever – don’t try this at home!)

Yet watching a concept grow is a bit of another concept. Ask Sigourney Weaver, if you can get hold of her. Concepts are aliens.

To cut it short: this cute monster I’ve been nursing here wants me to put its name at the front of the home page. Do I have a choice?

The baby wants to be changed. This is why as of today we are called just

mockoblog

Like it or not, you’ll have to accept it as it is. Still in doubt? What about that as the most hated slogan: “there’s nothing like a free lunch”.

If you really want to punish us for the changes (there will be a few more major ones but of a minor sort!), please do not post any comments. My baby mockoblog hates your comments anyway. They wake him up!

*

Brief history note: I am returning the loudspeaker because the street opposition in Iran may need it more than I do after their last Presidential Elections.

History in the Mocking (III) – The True about the Book: Past, Present and Future

Sunday, June 14th, 2009

The Mockoblog was mentioned yesterday on the Radio New Zealand National’s  (we think) most prestigious cultural programme:   Saturday Morning, hosted by Kim Hill (see http://www.radionz.co.nz/saturday  –  for archived audio interviews, podcasts, and information about featured guests and music).

For those of you not fortunate enough to live in New Zealand or to listen to its international and web casts, Kim Hill is like Oprah, with a few differences: her shows are made with less budget, have better content and the IQ average of the followers could be double (don’t quote me on this, I misplaced the stats this info is coming from, yet it may be underestimated).

Well, the mockoblog was not mentioned on air due to its merits. The producers didn’t look for it desperately. It was rather the other way around: I bumped into the show though an email. Kim had an interview about books, e-books and all sort of related stuff and this author could not help himself, wrote an urgent email on his smartphone and send it straight away. Here it is:

<<Dear Kim,

The book was born centuries ago as a veichle [sic!] for the story. Form vs content.

Yet the story had been created by the first humans to pass on information to the future generations. The stories were collective and intractive [sic!] in the old history of mankind but the book and now the ebook [sic!] became selfish forms, confining the screwing content and generating the concept of author.

The future of the story is its past: interactive as they are again, the true new books live on the internet, thus they are mortal and dynamic again.

Please check the concept of mockoblog as this is an example of new gendre [sic!] just being born as we speak. There’s an alternative history there, too.

Kind regards, […]>>

Kim red this email live on the radio and underscored the mistakes. I felt totally embarrassed. My English is poor enough. As it is. But the predictive text in my Nokia, which is perhaps the best fast spelling tool, is not good enough if you’re a bit slow with electronic devices, have big fingers, no glasses and don’t pay attention to the learning system inbuilt in this phone’s dictionary.  She said I was inventing the word gendre. I was not but maybe I should add it to MOKOPEDIA anyway:

Gendre = this is to gender and genre what mule is to horse and donkey.

Thank you Kim Hill! I’ll keep on listening your Saturday morning shows unless in a deep coma or worse.

*

Here the history of the book should have continued, but I was told by one of my many readers (that by now has exceeded two, excluding search engines and spammers) that my posts are too long and there size extends over the normal attention spam of the average blog reader. I tried to explain that my blog is not an average blog and that my readers are NO WAY average readers. I lost this debate, so, instead of telling you the true history of the book, I’ll just stop and just have my average dinner.

Yet, do you really think my posts are way too long?

*

PS:

About the what to do and the what not to do in a blog I may comment later. But the length of my posts is irrelevant anyway. As you will see in the near future, we will be rejected from the blogosphere, thus becoming (as in the theory of the Universe and other mathematical big stuff) a singularity. This is not a nasty blog at all, thus it doesn’t obey the rules of a blog. It’s a nice mockoblog and it has its own internal laws, if any. To compare the two notions, think of dictatorship (the blog) and democracy (the mockoblog).

Another feature of a sucessful blog is not to post twice in one day. The readers will only read the last stuff you’ve published. This may be true for their readers. Future will prove that the mockoblog doesn’t follow this advice either. Think of  Ronald Regan: he won the Cold War because he changed the rules of the game, of course. He was an actor for longer time than he was a president. The Soviet leaders, Gorby included, had always been communist politicians. Take their toys away and they’ll be lost.

Tim – A Tribute [updated but not deserved]

Monday, May 25th, 2009

This is going to be bad.

It involves a mate of mine. And… it involves some stuff he did not want to post on my blog. To cut is short, tough luck! I’m still going to put it up ’cause it’s too good not to.

This opens our Travel Section.

For those of you who will never come to New Zealand – what you are about to see can be true. In fact, it normally is. Just much better when it is not a bit worse than you’ve expected.

For those of you who are in New Zealand – here’s how the Aussies see you, if they see you. (Landscapes are great and here this technique can be achieved without a hot air baloon, aye?)

For those of you who are just planning to travel to New Zealand – WOW!

(You may wonder who Tim, the guy from the title of this post is. Don’t worry. He is just a fictional character. Like The Pope.)

WARNING: explicit content, perhaps not explicit enough to offend.

picture-5

picture-6

picture-7

picture-8

picture-9

picture-10

picture-11

picture-12

picture-13

picture-14

picture-15

picture-16

picture-17

picture-18

picture-19

picture-20

picture-211
Copyright – Tim.  Thanks to Liz – wherever you are.