Does the Lotto make people blind and stupid?

[PhoenixEnigma]

In that example, I'd say that the people buying the lottery-sized game (let's call it Balls'o'Fun) are making an unwise choice and getting poor value for their money. I can think of multiple forms of entertainment that ultimately cost a couple bucks per hour - including most video games (say, $50 for 20-30 hours, ~$2/hr), novels ($10 for 4-5 hours, ~$2/hr), and movie rentals ($6 for about 2 hours, ~$3/hr). Having sold a lot of lottery tickets, I'd say $4 is a pretty average amount to pay (lots of $3 tickets, a handful of smaller ones, a decent number of $5 tickets, and a smattering of larger ones).

To be comparable to other games, Balls'o'Fun either needs to last for somewhere between an hour and two hours (which I strongly suspect is longer than the average enjoyment per ticket), or needs to cost less (at a guess, maybe a dollar? Is 30 minutes a reasonable average for entertained time per ticket?) It's not a good value, but there are a lot of things that aren't. I don't see it as any worse, or any better, than people who purchase other products of inferior value. Is it wise? Likely not, but it certainly doesn't make them idiots, either.

[tastelikecoke]

This argument degenerated into "Should Lottery be totally removed from the society?"

Of course this question can barely be resolved, and afterwards it's hard to eliminate it from the society anyway.

but a government funded lottery in our country sends 50% of their collected money to charity works. In the long run such charity (even if charity connotes a bad reputation for not helping at all) will help people and provide happiness.

[Indon]

Anyways, a thought experiment for those who think that those who play the lottery for fun are idiots (as opposed to those who play it on the expectation of winning or out of addiction... I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that those people are in trouble): Suppose a video game came out which happened to appeal to people who play the lottery for fun. Let's say the game is sold for a price comparable to that of a lottery ticket, which is much cheaper than most games, but it's also significantly shorter than most games, to match. Would you consider someone an idiot for buying this game?

I'll take that thought experiment a step further.

Say that we had a 'lottery club' in which you buy membership on a monthly basis. Then, from there, you put in hours of work on a computer in order to maybe get a ticket for the lottery if you did good enough work. And then if you win, you don't even win money! Who would play a game like that?

[phlip]

Um... did you end your argument halfway through, there, or is there supposed to be an actual analogy in there somewhere? 'Cause I don't see it...

[thc]

He's supporting your point.

In other words, he's saying people who play video games, especially the grindy kind, are worse than people who play the lottery (since video game players don't even have a chance of winning money). Substitute "lottery club" for "WoW" should make it clear.

[meatyochre]

He's supporting your point.

In other words, he's saying people who play video games, especially the grindy kind, are worse than people who play the lottery (since video game players don't even have a chance of winning money). Substitute "lottery club" for "WoW" should make it clear.

That point doesn't make sense. Winning money isn't the intended purpose of playing a computer game. It is the intended purpose for the lotto's existence.

Purpose intended by the creators, I mean.

[thc]

He's supporting your point.

In other words, he's saying people who play video games, especially the grindy kind, are worse than people who play the lottery (since video game players don't even have a chance of winning money). Substitute "lottery club" for "WoW" should make it clear.

That point doesn't make sense. Winning money isn't the intended purpose of playing a computer game. It is the intended purpose for the lotto's existence.

Purpose intended by the creators, I mean.

You're wrong.

Why would they bother putting on a show if it was just about winning money. If it were just about money, they'd just send people a check in the mail. Watching the lotto obviously has some entertainment value. Not that I understand why, but similarly, I don't understand why people watch football or basketball.

[Vaniver]

Why would they bother putting on a show if it was just about winning money. If it were just about money, they'd just send people a check in the mail.

Advertising? They need people to imagine that they can win.

The argument is that playing the lotto isn't giving you a chance at winning vast sums of money, it's a way to pretend that you have a chance at winning vast sums of money. Gambling real money is a way to increase the entertainment value of some events- but why not have it be an event that's already enjoyable, like poker, instead of the selection of random numbers?

[thc]

Why would they bother putting on a show if it was just about winning money. If it were just about money, they'd just send people a check in the mail.

Advertising? They need people to imagine that they can win.

The argument is that playing the lotto isn't giving you a chance at winning vast sums of money, it's a way to pretend that you have a chance at winning vast sums of money. Gambling real money is a way to increase the entertainment value of some events- but why not have it be an event that's already enjoyable, like poker, instead of the selection of random numbers?

So in other words, putting on a show makes people enjoy the lotto more. Seems to me like you're making a judgement call about people's tastes. That would be like me making a judgement call on people who watch football, in that they are overly machoistic idiots. I wouldn't do that.*

*lie

[Tomo]

Gambling real money is a way to increase the entertainment value of some events- but why not have it be an event that I find already enjoyable, like poker, instead of the selection of random numbers?

Fixed that for you - different people have different tastes.

[Indon]

That point doesn't make sense. Winning money isn't the intended purpose of playing a computer game. It is the intended purpose for the lotto's existence.

Purpose intended by the creators, I mean.

And yet, some people play WoW solely to raid and get gear.

Honestly, the analogy was clearer in the early WoW days, in which there was a more random aspect to the loot, more players to divvy the loot between, and frankly largely unenjoyable content that needed to be farmed to get ready for the next tier.

Modern WoW actually provides progress to people who don't get lucky, and the game is set up such that only one raid tier provides significant upgrades at any given time.

[sikyon]

Does it make sense to buy insurance? Statistically, you will lose money with insurance.

You buy insurance because it is a small sum out of pocket over time. However, in the event of a disaster your life isn't ruined and you can recover... but statistically you will lose.

If you buy a lottery ticket, the same logic applies. You will pay a small sum out of pocket over time. The odds of winning are slim, but if you do win then you will be in a position where you will be set for life (depending on the winning size/odds, etc).

The difference, of course, is that life doesn't even out that way. If you start at 100 and hit 0, you are dead and can never recover (no negative numbers for you) If you hit 10000, you can still go back down. To make the lottery worth it, you have to have some method that will make it exceptionally unlikely that you will ever become less rich after you win that jackpot.

[GardenGoblin]

I play the lottery because the average dollar a month I spend is worth the entertainment value of the 'what ridiculous thing will we buy/do when we win the lottery' conversation that takes place on the car ride home from the location we purchased the lotto ticket.

Right now the plan is to hire a singing older Marlon Brando look-alike stripper-gram to deliver my husband's letter of resignation. The entire scenario, which includes the odds of winning, is just ridiculous enough to be funny to us.

[Charlie!]

I play the lottery because the average dollar a month I spend is worth the entertainment value of the 'what ridiculous thing will we buy/do when we win the lottery' conversation that takes place on the car ride home from the location we purchased the lotto ticket.

Right now the plan is to hire a singing older Marlon Brando look-alike stripper-gram to deliver my husband's letter of resignation. The entire scenario, which includes the odds of winning, is just ridiculous enough to be funny to us.

My vote on what is better to do with the money: go to your local dollar store and buy a bouncy ball for you and your husband each, or a bag of balloons, or water pistols, or silly putty, or go buy a box of cornstarch and some green food coloring and make ooblek, or buy a candy bar, or an ice cream cone, or a loaf of cheap bread to feed to the ducks, or make 10 different paper airplanes and see which flies farthest off your roof.

Maybe it's my inherent reaction against playing the lottery being such an acquisitive, culturally learned way of having fun, while flying a paper airplane is more of an innocent, naturally human way of having fun. Or maybe I'm subconsciously thinking that you're not telling all in your post, that some part of you thinks you'll reasonably win it back and so you feel like you're only "kind of" spending the money. Whatever it is, I'm still a fan of going to the dollar store instead

[GardenGoblin]

My vote on what is better to do with the money: go to your local dollar store and buy a bouncy ball for you and your husband each, or a bag of balloons, or water pistols, or silly putty, or go buy a box of cornstarch and some green food coloring and make ooblek, or buy a candy bar, or an ice cream cone, or a loaf of cheap bread to feed to the ducks, or make 10 different paper airplanes and see which flies farthest off your roof.

I am an architect turned computer programming major who supplements her income by raising poultry and goats as well as crocheting, sewing, and quilting. I bake bread and build computers. My kitchen garden spans an acre. I live within walking distance of a river and two lakes. There are wild raspberry bushes and grapes all over my property. I homebrew beer, wine, and mead. I juggle and play piano. I make my own ice cream, butter, and cheese. I used to work the Renaissance Fair. I am married.

I have plenty of 'innocent, naturally human' ways of having fun. I have quite a few unnatural, sinfully strange ways of having fun as well.

The whole point of the playing the lottery is the ridiculous nature of it, the fantastical what-if scenarios. That's why our plan for when we win the lottery consists of things like hiring someone to follow my aunt around and shout 'that's what you think!' every time she speaks instead of buying a nice new car. We know we won't win. But it tickles our sense of humor much the same way dead baby jokes do. It's so stupid it's hilarious. And I'm willing to pay a buck for that now and then, for much the same reason I once spent $15 on a cake for the sole purpose of putting it on my sister's chair before she sat down. Sure, it's a waste of money, but it's a laugh, and these days a laugh will take you further than a buck.

[Tomo]

My way of having fun is better than your way of having fun.

That's really what this entire argument boils down to.

[tastelikecoke]

Rather than we are stupidly hilariously funny enough to draw in the Lottery, we're just not so smart about it.

[GardenGoblin]

Rather than we are stupidly hilariously funny enough to draw in the Lottery, we're just not so smart about it.

If I lived my life paying attention to what the odds say, I would have hardly any fun at all. A disturbingly large percentage of my hobbies involve sharp objects and fire.

[Samfox]

I think you have to divide the lotto players into two groups, the ones who participate for entertainment reasons and get some thrill and excitement out of it and the people who really hope to win money. I can understand the first group, it's something like a hobby and usually a hobby costs money. There are definitely some guys amongst the second group that can be regarded as blind and stupid and they invest way too much money considering the little chance to win. But the states need those lotto players to survive and the states are loosening their gambling laws so that they can even make more money with lotto and poker players. In some way we can be happy that these people help to finance the state governments.

[michaelyw]

My wife and I have recently talked about playing the lottery. The reasoning is quite simple.

If we DO NOT purchase a lottery ticket, we have zero chance of winning.
If we DO purchase a lottery ticket, we have a non-zero chance of winning.

Based on this, we decided we'd buy one ticket each time the state's lottery went over $100 million.
After all, a non-zero chance of winning is better than a zero chance of winning.

[Thesh]

My wife and I have recently talked about playing the lottery. The reasoning is quite simple.

If we DO NOT purchase a lottery ticket, we have zero chance of winning.
If we DO purchase a lottery ticket, we have a non-zero chance of winning.

Based on this, we decided we'd buy one ticket each time the state's lottery went over $100 million.
After all, a non-zero chance of winning is better than a zero chance of winning.

Of course, not buying a ticket also means that you won't lose money.

[Yakk]

My wife and I have recently talked about playing the lottery. The reasoning is quite simple.

If we DO NOT purchase a lottery ticket, we have zero chance of winning.
If we DO purchase a lottery ticket, we have a non-zero chance of winning.

Based on this, we decided we'd buy one ticket each time the state's lottery went over $100 million.
After all, a non-zero chance of winning is better than a zero chance of winning.

There is a flaw in your reasoning.

If you do not purchase a lottery ticket, there is a non-zero chance that a winning ticket will blow into your face as you walk down the street. So you have a non-zero chance of winning the lottery, even if you do not buy a ticket.

So
If you DO NOT purchase the lottery ticket, you have a non-zero chance of winning.
If you DO purchase the lottery ticket, you have a non-zero chance of winning.

Practically, you won't win via this method. But you also won't win via the "buy the ticket" method. (If you started buying lottery tickets in 4000 BC, prior to the dawn of recorded history, and bought one per week since then, you still wouldn't win a lottery of the size you are describing.)

Ie, buy or do not buy, practically you won't win.

If you really care only about "non-zero", then you still don't have to buy.

[setzer777]

Yakk:

Purely mathematically, buying a ticket drastically increases your odds of winning, even if they are still absurdly small. Suppose a ticket blows in your face once every hundred weeks (unlikely to happen that often, but whatever) - if instead you buy a ticket once week you're 100 times more likely to win. Maybe someone gets more enjoyment and adrenaline rush from the odds being "play once a week for 10,000 years and you might win" instead of "play once a week for 1,000,000 years and you might win".

Alternatively, maybe someone enjoys exploiting the flaws in how their unconscious outcome-prediction heuristic works to give them (unconsciously, not consciously) the delusion of a snowball's chance in hell of winning? Your money in jar substitute would fail, because even if they consciously know they won't win, it robs the enjoyment if they set it up in a way that forces their "gut" to acknowledge that impossibility*.


*Similar to how some people enjoy movies even though they know they are fake, but lose enjoyment if the movie breaks the fourth wall, or has glaring evidence of its "fakeness" (bad special effects, visible wires, etc.)

[Vaniver]

My wife and I have recently talked about playing the lottery. The reasoning is quite simple.

If you send me money, I will provide you with a non-zero chance of winning $100M.

Do you need more information to evaluate this deal, or is that enough?

Purely mathematically, buying a ticket drastically increases your odds of winning, even if they are still absurdly small.

I take offense at your use of the word "drastic." Because, no, it's really, really not.

[morriswalters]

If enough people send you money will you guarantee to pay 100M to someone?

[Vaniver]

If enough people send you money will you guarantee to pay 100M to someone?

Yes.

[That is, I guarantee that there is some integer n such that P(I will pay out $100M to at least one person)=1]

[setzer777]

My wife and I have recently talked about playing the lottery. The reasoning is quite simple.

If you send me money, I will provide you with a non-zero chance of winning $100M.

Do you need more information to evaluate this deal, or is that enough?

Purely mathematically, buying a ticket drastically increases your odds of winning, even if they are still absurdly small.

I take offense at your use of the word "drastic." Because, no, it's really, really not.

I guess that's subjective. I'd call making an absurdly unlikely event (let's say) 1000 times more likely a "drastic increase". But I can see the argument that in practical terms turning a 1/100,000,000,000 shot into a 1/100,000,000 shot should not be called "drastic" while turning a 1/10 shot into a 1/2 shot should be, even though in multiplicative terms it's less of an increase.

[morriswalters]

No, I don't think so. While the individual chance of winning the lottery is vanishingly small, the odds of someone hitting the lottery are much higher. It happens a couple of times a year, every year. So again, will you take those odds for 100 Million?

[Wnderer]

If you don't buy a lottery ticket, you believe in the odds.
If you buy a lottery ticket, you believe in miracles.
If you buy one hundred lottery tickets, because you believe you can increase the odds of a miracle happening; you're not really clear on either concept.

[distractedSofty]

I've never really understood the argument that regularly playing the lottery is a foolish thing to do.

Consider Australia's "Saturday Lotto" administered by Tattersall's (The lottery which I am most familiar with). Six numbers are chosen from a single barrel of 45 balls. This results in a per game probability of 1 in 8145060. Lotterywest claim that the most popular game is the slikpik 25, but I didn't look that up until just now, so lets assume that we're buying a slikpik 12 every week so I can use the numbers I already have. If you buy a slikpik 12 every week from age 20 to 80, the chances that you win first division at least once in your life are about 1/250. The expenditure required to buy all those games is roughly $25000 (let's assume that game prices and prizes roughly keep pace with inflation). Prizes seem to be roughly evenly clustered around 600-800k, and 1.5-2m

Since equivalent situations seem to be the norm in this thread, I'll keep it going. Let's further assume that you have access to the present equivalent of $2m in your lifetime. (Based on the current Australian taxation rates, that would require an average yearly income of 48k from 20 to 65, ignoring superannuation, so I think it's a pretty good number for a lot of people especially considering that in a married couple, winning would affect both partners)

So the question is: If you have 2 million dollars that's tied up and hard to get at, and someone offers you a deal; For $25000 of your hard to get at assets, I will give you a ticket in a raffle for which there are 250 tickets, and the prize is at least $600k, and we'll toss a coin for an extra $1m, in cash that is free and clear for you to spend (remembering that Australia doesn't tax prizes); would you take it?

The 7 dollars a week certainly seems like a good value, taking into account the insignificance of $7 in most people's budgets, the minor prizes that regular players will almost certainly win, and the dreams that are enabled by having a chance at winning millions of dollars. (Let alone the fact that most Western Australians directly derive benefits from Lotterywest's profits)

(Disclaimer: I don't play lotto for several reasons: one being I no longer live in Australia and don't know anything about the local lotteries here, and more so, I'm not sure that I would want to win, in much the same way I find cheat codes in games take away a lot from the experience. (I'm sure that many people on the thread would consider that a bad reason not to play, since if I played, I still wouldn't be likely to win))

[Xeio]

You don't really take into account that 249 people just threw away a car there (more or less, your mileage may vary and all that).

Also, given your expected return on a ticket is (let's assume you win the coin flip) 1.6 million / 250 = 6400, which is the most any one ticket should be worth. You just threw away $18,600 per ticket. And realistically, more, because you're very likely to be (<.5% chance of win) one of the 249.

[distractedSofty]

But that's the beauty of my analogy: I did! Those people have 10+ other cars, so they're more likely to have one they want to buy the ticket with.
That's perhaps a crucial part of the analogy: a person doesn't literally have 2 million dollars to play with.

I've also never liked using the expected value as the reasonable price of a ticket, because it makes a massive assumption about human psychology that is clearly not true: that the value of money is linear. If the value of an early retirement is more than 250 times(whatever that would mean when we're discussing human emotion) that of one more car, then that argument falls apart. The lottery is not a problem of mathematics.

(Without even touching on the actual enjoyment value of playing the lottery itself)

[Vaniver]

I've also never liked using the expected value as the reasonable price of a ticket, because it makes a massive assumption about human psychology that is clearly not true: that the value of money is linear. If the value of an early retirement is more than 250 times(whatever that would mean when we're discussing human emotion) that of one more car, then that argument falls apart. The lottery is not a problem of mathematics.

Let's look at some actual psychological research and history.

1. About a third of lottery winners are bankrupt within a few years.
2. Happiness is mostly independent of wealth.
3. Satisfaction scales with the log of wealth.
4. People enjoy earned money more than windfalls (be they inheritances or lottery winnings).

Let's presume you're clever enough to hold onto your money. Because your satisfaction is log(wealth), then what matters is the multiplier. If you have $100k (satisfaction 5) in the bank, and you are presented a deal where you pay $25k (putting you down to $75k, satisfaction 4.88) to get a p chance of going up to {50% $675k ~ 5.83, 50% $1675k ~ 6.22}=6.03, your expected satisfaction would equal 5 (what you started out as) if p=(5-4.88)/(6.03-4.88)=.104.

That is, for most people (who are risk-averse, rather than risk-neutral), the lottery you describe is only a good idea if you have a 10.4% chance of winning. The actual chance of winning you gave is 0.4%. A lower starting wealth means the lottery will be a worst prospect- if you have $26k (~ 4.42), the case where you lose now has satisfaction 3, meaning you need s (4.42-3)/(5.99-3)=47.3% chance to win. Remember, the multiplier from losing is a lot worse (1/26 vs. 3/4) at lower wealth than at higher wealth.

The lottery is a tax on people who do not understand math or psychology. You are much better focusing your hope on something that can improve your life, because people have a finite amount of hope, and so choosing to play the lottery often means you won't take opportunities that are more effective.

The lottery being a problem of psychology does not make it less a problem of mathematics. You need both; math tells you the lottery is a bad idea, and psychology tells you it is a terrible idea.

[distractedSofty]

Let's look at some actual psychological research and history.

Ok, let's.

While I wait for you to get back to me with those, I'll draw your attention again to my claim that the lottery is essentially free. Things in my weekly budget that cost $7:
Driving 40 miles (return trip to a nearby city)
One single meal at work (or, alternatively, buying 10% more expensive lunch each day)
Buying my groceries on the wrong day, or from the wrong shop(easily this much variance in the exact same basket)
The heating costs created by a 4 degree change in average temperature.
Talking on the phone for 2 minutes a day.

So, for the sake of my sanity, I need to consider swings of $7 dollars in my budget as nothing. It seems like starting playing the lottery would be in the same class.

[morriswalters]

The fun is in the playing, not the winning. If you smoke, chew gum, play video games, buy a newspaper, play board games, post here, trade stocks(assuming moderate income and trading versus buying and holding), go to movies, buy books, chase women, chase men, eat at restaurants, and partake of other discretionary behaviors which will cost you money, I don't see the problem. I suppose you could work, eat, sleep, and do nothing else. If that works for you then it works for me.

edit: italicized words added

[Xeio]

So, for the sake of my sanity, I need to consider swings of $7 dollars in my budget as nothing. It seems like starting playing the lottery would be in the same class.

I do the same for the most part, though I think it's important to distinguish between free and inconsequential, obviously you can spend $7 a week on the lotto if you enjoy it and want to, I'd rather buy a shiny new game every other month though, so it's really up to what you want for your money. But you shouldn't expect any return on that investment, ever, because you're not going to see it. It's like going to vegas with $25000 sometime during your lifetime, you really shouldn't be going to make some money, you should be going to have fun (because you won't be making money).

[Vaniver]

While I wait for you to get back to me with those,

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have assumed that you were familiar with basic results from the field you were citing. You might want to look into this about the benefits of winning the lottery, and I don't have quick citations for the others.

I'll draw your attention again to my claim that the lottery is essentially free.

No, it's not. It drains your wallet and it drains your mind. If you want to be rich, your odds are much better following the Millionaire Next Door strategy.

Talking on the phone for 2 minutes a day.

You pay 50 cents a minute? That's obscenely high.

So, for the sake of my sanity, I need to consider swings of $7 dollars in my budget as nothing. It seems like starting playing the lottery would be in the same class.

You're overpaying for sanity. Think about things in the reverse way- if you think that the lottery is justifiable, everything else that costs $7 a week must be at least as good as the fantasy that you could luck into millions. Would you rather bring a brown bag lunch to work today and have a shot at being a millionaire, or eat out and not have that shot?

Then, all you have to do is take that desire to be a millionaire and point it from lottery tickets, which won't work, to bank accounts and index funds, which will.

[morriswalters]

No, it's not. It drains your wallet and it drains your mind. If you want to be rich, your odds are much better following the Millionaire Next Door strategy.

You can't save your way to wealth. You can invest what you earn, or you can start a business. Investing off what you can earn is the slow path and excellent as a retirement strategy. Ninety percent of all businesses fail(that number is more or less close). They also require a population willing to spend money. In particular money they don't have. Most people will never be wealthy. For all of those not wanting to help the author of your source to reach his financial goal, here is the publishers blurb.

Spoiler:

From Library Journal
In The Millionaire Next Door, read by Cotter Smith, Stanley (Marketing to the Affluent) and Danko (marketing, SUNY at Albany) summarize findings from their research into the key characteristics that explain how the elite club of millionaires have become "wealthy." Focusing on those with a net worth of at least $1 million, their surprising results reveal fundamental qualities of this group that are diametrically opposed to today's earn-and-consume culture, including living below their means, allocating funds efficiently in ways that build wealth, ignoring conspicuous consumption, being proficient in targeting marketing opportunities, and choosing the "right" occupation. It's evident that anyone can accumulate wealth, if they are disciplined enough, determined to persevere, and have the merest of luck. In The Millionaire Mind, an excellent follow-up to the highly successful first analysis of how ordinary folks can accumulate wealth, Stanley interviews many more participants in a much more comprehensive study of the characteristics of those in this economic situation. The author structures these deeper details into categories that include the key success factors that define this group, the relationship of education to their success, their approach to balancing risk, how they located themselves in their work, their choice of spouse, how they live their daily lives, and the significant differences in the truth about this group vs. the misplaced image of high spenders. Narrator Smith's solid, dead-on reading never fails to heighten the importance of these principles that most twentysomethings should be forced to listen to in toto. Highly recommended for all public libraries. Dale Farris, Groves, TX
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.

[Thesh]

No, it's not. It drains your wallet and it drains your mind. If you want to be rich, your odds are much better following the Millionaire Next Door strategy.

You can't save your way to wealth. You can invest what you earn, or you can start a business. Investing off what you can earn is the slow path and excellent as a retirement strategy. Ninety percent of all businesses fail(that number is more or less close). They also require a population willing to spend money. In particular money they don't have. Most people will never be wealthy. For all of those not wanting to help the author of your source to reach his financial goal, here is the publishers blurb.

Spoiler:

From Library Journal
In The Millionaire Next Door, read by Cotter Smith, Stanley (Marketing to the Affluent) and Danko (marketing, SUNY at Albany) summarize findings from their research into the key characteristics that explain how the elite club of millionaires have become "wealthy." Focusing on those with a net worth of at least $1 million, their surprising results reveal fundamental qualities of this group that are diametrically opposed to today's earn-and-consume culture, including living below their means, allocating funds efficiently in ways that build wealth, ignoring conspicuous consumption, being proficient in targeting marketing opportunities, and choosing the "right" occupation. It's evident that anyone can accumulate wealth, if they are disciplined enough, determined to persevere, and have the merest of luck. In The Millionaire Mind, an excellent follow-up to the highly successful first analysis of how ordinary folks can accumulate wealth, Stanley interviews many more participants in a much more comprehensive study of the characteristics of those in this economic situation. The author structures these deeper details into categories that include the key success factors that define this group, the relationship of education to their success, their approach to balancing risk, how they located themselves in their work, their choice of spouse, how they live their daily lives, and the significant differences in the truth about this group vs. the misplaced image of high spenders. Narrator Smith's solid, dead-on reading never fails to heighten the importance of these principles that most twentysomethings should be forced to listen to in toto. Highly recommended for all public libraries. Dale Farris, Groves, TX
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.

I don't think he was promoting the strategy, just saying that it gives you better odds than the lottery (which is probably true, but still unlikely to make you rich, which further proves the point: the lottery is not a good investment strategy).

[Vaniver]

You can't save your way to wealth. You can invest what you earn

What? Saving and investing aren't opposed (here I meant "save your income to invest it" not "put your money in a tin can instead of an index fund"), and that is the way that the vast majority of wealthy people become wealthy. Almost everyone *can* accumulate wealth over their lifetime; the numbers are not hard to run.