And in that response you make my point for me. I am not aware I have ever posted BS, perhaps stuff you don't agree with but that's different.
Sharing wealth...
- Thread starter Ace Modder
- Start date
What point? The thread is about some flawed wealth distribution thing... perhaps you shouldn't take things so seriously
What point? The thread is about some flawed wealth distribution thing... perhaps you shouldn't take things so seriously
How could I make a Fonzie joke using 'flawed wealth distribution thing', we don't have enough Fonzie these days. So to my point, you struggle with irreverence because you are more worried I may have missed the fact this isn't a Ponzi scheme. Sure, make that a stupid Housey spouting BS again as he OBVIOUSLY doesn't know what a Ponzi scheme is if you like, because that was why you posted wasn't it..
jeez get a grip, you've got a real chip on your shoulder about it now.. I didn't even quote you and another poster mentioned pyramid schemes - my post simply pointed out that this doesn't fit into either of those categories that is all, why don't you calm down and stop derailing the thread now...
Soldato
So potentially a 41.67 year, or less, interest free loan? 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
exactly.
all the stupid people at my previous work did this and called it a "manoj". basically every payday 12 people get together and stick £100 in an envelope, then whoever's turn it is gets to keep the envelope. so rather than sticking £100 in a savings account and getting interest, etc. they just pay £100 into an envelope every month.
they ran 2 side by side. one was for £50 a month and some people were in both. so paying £150 a month. £100 into 1 envelope and £50 into the other.
it's basically for stupid people who are bad at saving.
it was great when 1 guy involved in it basically quit work after he got paid out. they were all up in arms.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,306
On a narrow boat on the Thames. Magnolia refereeing. Call mrk to take pics!
Soldato
I'm buying a house with no central heating, 5k would go towards the boiler and rad's! ocuk members unite!!!!
Nobody? Worth a try
Nobody? Worth a try
Great idea, I would totaly buy a £10 ticket for a chance to win £5k at 500/1 but I don't see how you can implement it easily and get 500 participants. Also would that even be legal? What about labor cost, someone would have to do some work to get it going.
Caporegime
Filthy Commie!!!
Man of Honour
While it's not a classic pyramid or ponzi scheme, it may well be within the same scope to be illegal.
Unless you could somehow force every participant to pay from start to finish and also factor inflation it's probably going to turn into one of those schemes.
You have to recruit replacement members or later "winners" will get less money and/or less real value once inflation is factored in. It's certainly a legal minefield.
Also the random selection element could also fall foul of being classed as an illegal lottery, even if that isn't the intention.
So yeah lots of problems.
Unless you could somehow force every participant to pay from start to finish and also factor inflation it's probably going to turn into one of those schemes.
You have to recruit replacement members or later "winners" will get less money and/or less real value once inflation is factored in. It's certainly a legal minefield.
Also the random selection element could also fall foul of being classed as an illegal lottery, even if that isn't the intention.
So yeah lots of problems.
While it's not a classic pyramid or ponzi scheme, it may well be within the same scope to be illegal.
Unless you could somehow force every participant to pay from start to finish and also factor inflation it's probably going to turn into one of those schemes.
You have to recruit replacement members or later "winners" will get less money and/or less real value once inflation is factored in. It's certainly a legal minefield.
Also the random selection element could also fall foul of being classed as an illegal lottery, even if that isn't the intention.
So yeah lots of problems.
An easy solution to stop the early winners form leaving and not paying out, plus overcoming the random selection being an unlicensed lottery. The solution will also save 42 years of mind numbing boredom.
Here it goes; everyone puts in £5000 in a single ticket instead of 500 £10, all in one go, thereby circumventing the flaw int eh original scheme. The next day everyone wins £5000 avoiding the illegal lottery aspects. Everyone becomes a winner and gets to share their wealth.
Zero sum is actually pretty good for a lottery
One of the reasons I don't play the national lottery was because the average payout is under 50%, or at least it was when I looked years ago.
Soldato
No that is stupid!
Everyone puts in £2.5K day one.
Next day, half of the people are randomly given £5k.
42 years later, everyone has to put in £2.5K, and then the other half get £5K.
Everyone wins!
Associate
What did i win????
Soldato
Zero sum is actually pretty good for a lottery
It seems its around 55% although i'm not sure if any other national lottery games are included in the figures listed on that page. The reason i stopped buying tickets was the payout percentage is actually much higher for scratch cards. I reasoned that if i never had any intention of buying scratch cards then it made even less sense to buy lottery tickets.
Fundamentally any game of chance is only worthwhile if:
-The average payout is 100% or higher
-The average payout is at a high enough level relative to the experience - e.g. roulette is statistically loss-making in the long term to the player but if you are having fun then that may be an acceptable loss.
Purely looking at the game itself (not the experience) the lottery is vaguely more interesting than roulette in terms of game theory because you can slightly improve your average payout by choosing numbers that are less likely to be chosen by others (which is an imperfect problem because you don't know how other players are going to play, but for example I would probably choose only numbers above 31 due to anecdotal evidence of players choosing numbers based on dates).
-The average payout is 100% or higher
-The average payout is at a high enough level relative to the experience - e.g. roulette is statistically loss-making in the long term to the player but if you are having fun then that may be an acceptable loss.
Purely looking at the game itself (not the experience) the lottery is vaguely more interesting than roulette in terms of game theory because you can slightly improve your average payout by choosing numbers that are less likely to be chosen by others (which is an imperfect problem because you don't know how other players are going to play, but for example I would probably choose only numbers above 31 due to anecdotal evidence of players choosing numbers based on dates).