You're 25 times more likely to be the next US president than to win at Powerball
The $1B+ Powerball lottery jackpot is being covered all over the US press, with many articles quoting Jeffrey Miecznikowski, associate professor of biostatistics at the University at Buffalo, as saying that "you're 25 times more likely to become the next president of the United States than to win at Powerball".
But in the next four years and ten months, at most one person will be elected president, while quite a few people will win at Powerball, so it's obvious that Jeff's "25 times" claim is completely backwards (good thing for him he has tenure). The question is: how can it be that not a single news outlet is pointing out that all the others are reporting obvious nonsense?
15 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 42.7 ms ] threadWhat's worse is that this will likely go to a single winner. This should be divided into 10 or more draws to have the chances increased, and the payout distributed to more potential winners.
Yeah, multiple people can choose the same number, but how often does that really happen, especially in PowerBall?
1. If you have no prior political experience (e.g., you've never been a governor, U.S. senator, mayor of a major city, etc.), you probably won't get elected unless you're wealthy enough to be able to spend $100 million of your own money on your campaign.
2. If you're less than 35 years old, or were not born a U.S. citizen, you have a zero probability of being elected president since you don't meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office.
3. If you come from certain ethnic or religious groups, your probability of being elected are greatly diminished. The U.S. has only had one Catholic president (JFK), and no Jewish or Muslim or atheist presidents.
4. If you're not good at public speaking and TV appearances, you'll never be elected president.
I expect that my own probability of being the next president is zero, but my probability of winning a lottery (if I ever buy a ticket) is some very small positive number.
No matter which shorthand you use, the conclusion is still the same: you're going to lose money playing the lottery.
In any case, the fact is that he should have said that "you're 48 times LESS likely to become the next president of the US....," based on the observation that there's about one Powerball Jackpot winner per month: http://portalseven.com/lottery/powerball_jackpot_winners.jsp
I'll take my chances with the lotto.
If 99.99999% of Americans have 0% chance of becoming president, that means you're saying only 3180 Americans have greater-than-zero chance of becoming president.
I suggest it is a little more than that. Millions of Americans, aged 10 and under, have the potential to work towards becoming first a mayor of their small city, then a mayor of a big city, and then finally have a small positive chance of becoming president. If you have greater than zero chance of becoming a person who has a greater than zero chance of becoming president, then you have a greater than zero chance of becoming president, period.
I suggest the number of such people is surely greater than 3180.
>You’re 25 times more likely to become the next president of the United States, assuming the entire U.S. population had an equal shot at the presidency, than you are to win Powerball, says Miecznikowski.
What he's saying is clearly nonsensical because the population of the US is close enough to 292 million to round off and say the chances of you winning powerball and becoming president (if everyone has the same shot) are equally likely.
You can say that only half the population is old enough and you can take off a few percentage points for foreign born citizens, but that gets you to 2-3 times, not 25. Plus he specifically said the entire US population. Not only those qualified. Very odd statement.