Lottery Dilemma

[SeagullSongs]

I was thinking about this again earlier...
If the chance of winning the £105m was anything more than 50% I'd go for it. 99.999999% is ridiculously high. There's basically no difference AT ALL between that and 100%.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

If it's just about the odds, ask yourself whether you'd put £10 on a horse running at 9.5/1

 

[GingerBeerMan]

If it's just about the odds, ask yourself whether you'd put £10 on a horse running at 9.5/1

How's that the same?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

£10m. I'd take that. It's life changing. £105m with the risk of not getting it, is just greedy.

I guess it all depends on personal circumstances. Although I am surrprised that so many would be willing to risk missing out. There must be some contented and well paid folk on NSC.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

The thing is, there's virtually no chance of missing out. There's about as much chance of not winning the £105m as there is actually winning the lottery in REAL life.

 

[pishhead]

£10m. I'd take that. It's life changing. £105m with the risk of not getting it, is just greedy.

I guess it all depends on personal circumstances. Although I am surrprised that so many would be willing to risk missing out. There must be some contented and well paid folk on NSC.

I think people are taking the £105 million on the basis of the odds suggested, as mentioned there is as much chance of winning the actual lottery!

 

[Seagull27]

£10m. I'd take that. It's life changing. £105m with the risk of not getting it, is just greedy.

I guess it all depends on personal circumstances. Although I am surrprised that so many would be willing to risk missing out. There must be some contented and well paid folk on NSC.

But that's the thing; there isn't really a risk of missing out. You're far more likely to miss out on both amounts from walking out of your house and being struck by lightning/tsunami/run over by a raging hippopotamus/other-strange-event-that-would-kill-you than you are to lose.

 

[Wardy]

If it's just about the odds, ask yourself whether you'd put £10 on a horse running at 9.5/1

But if that horse had a 99.99999% chance of winning you would be silly not to take odds of 9.5/1

In a real race the bookies would not even take a bet on such a dead cert.

 

[Gullywog]

what a moronic question in the OP.

with true odds of 1/100,000,000 you're getting 19/2 on your money.

It's be the best investment you ever make.

This makes me think of Deal or no deal, and how people can ever Deal when the banker offers less than half of the difference!

If you've got an evens chance, and you're been offered £10,000 for a £5,000:£20,000 game, then you're getting 3/1 on your money! Brainless!

Anyone who takes the £10m has serious mental problems

 

[User removed 4]

what a moronic question in the OP.

with true odds of 1/100,000,000 you're getting 19/2 on your money.

It's be the best investment you ever make.

This makes me think of Deal or no deal, and how people can ever Deal when the banker offers less than half of the difference!

If you've got an evens chance, and you're been offered £10,000 for a £5,000:£20,000 game, then you're getting 3/1 on your money! Brainless!

Anyone who takes the £10m has serious mental problems

To be honest the figure was just plucked out of thin air during a boring bus journey having a conversation with a work collleague, i can see now how much difference the extra .9999% makes.

 

[MaggieT83]

Theres probably a similar chance of a piano falling on you on the way to collect the money to actually losing. Would be ridiculous to do anything other than take the £105 million even if only to give 95 mil to charity.

 

[madinthehead]

£10m. I'd take that. It's life changing. £105m with the risk of not getting it, is just greedy.

Exactly!

 

[leigull]

At those odds (99.999999%) then I'd definitely go for the £105m for sure. At 99% though, I would start to question it. 90% is a definite case of taking £10m