Eve welcomes scammers. This is not news.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
JFC people, stop being stupid and failing to understand math. Buying your own tickets is not a scam. It is a ****ing stupid decision unless the lottery will fail to finish if you donât. Nobody is making money by buying their own tickets, it is a strategy that will always lose money if you do it sufficiently many times for the RNG to average out. Whining about this âscamâ is like whining about people running an ISK doubling âscamâ that actually doubles everyoneâs ISK every time, or whining about a âsuicide gankâ where you find a freighter and then remote repair it until it warps off. Your posting here is doing nothing but demonstrating your utter ignorance of the math involved.
4 Likes
Also, you know what else is ****ing stupid? The entire tangent about âwhat is randomnessâ. Unless you are a high-level engineer working with cryptography software intended to protect against state-level attackers there is absolutely zero difference between software RNG and random physical processes. The deviation from true randomness is negligible and impossible to exploit from the player side. So it does not matter if the RNG is not mathematically perfect randomness, not one bit.
Which I said, was off topic.
Obviously. You only come up with shyte ideas.
Donât hate the playa⊠hate the game.
thatâs still an 80% chance to lose the item⊠and the ISK spent on chance.
This is no different than the basic market. You obtain an item and you put a price on it. If someone wants it and is willing to pay that price, they will. Iâve sold a dozen Large Skill Injectors at 1.05B on the HNR. Thatâs about ~150 Million more than market value. Someone got the injectors at a fraction of the cost. The others knew they were playing a game of chance. But they didnât lose the full value either way. And still have many chances to get the same item before they even spend what would be the full amount of market value.
Indeed, your math is incorrect because you would have made double the value if you were not that stupid.
Donât buy tickets?
1 Like
Because a lottery is so inherently profitable that even if youâre an idiot and buy your own lottery tickets you can still make a profit. You just make less money than if youâd sold all of your tickets to other people.
You really donât, and youâre doing a great job of demonstrating it. A lottery in which all tickets sell to other players is more profitable than one where you buy some of your own tickets, and in the long run this strategy will make you less money. Youâre doing the EVE equivalent of going to a casino, getting lucky on a few hands, and declaring that youâve found a way to beat the system. You havenât, youâve just had a lucky streak that will eventually end and eventually your net profit/loss will regress to the mean (where you lose money to the casino). Except, unlike with the casino, you have the option to make more money youâre just too stubbornly ignorant to use it.
As for buying your own tickets to end the lottery faster, have you tried not being poor? You will make much more money in the long run if, instead of having to end your lottery as fast as possible to start a new one, you simply run multiple lotteries simultaneously and only buy your own tickets at the last possible moment to prevent the lottery from failing to complete.
Finally, you should really learn about how opportunity cost works. Youâre doing the equivalent of putting a ship you built on the market for way less than the mineral cost because âminerals you mine yourself are freeâ. Every item in EVE has an ISK equivalent and assets are liquid, spending your own SP to fill an injector costs exactly the same amount of ISK as buying a full injector instead of an empty one on the market.
So, you donât understand the concept of opportunity cost. Failing to receive $1 million is exactly identical to spending $1 million. Or, like I said, youâre the person putting a ship on the market below mineral cost because âminerals you mine yourself are freeâ.
recovering the item itself compensates for part of that lost profit as well
This is already accounted for in the expected value calculations. The positive EV of recovering the item does not offset the negative EV of failing to sell the tickets.
I didnât have an infinite amount of injectors to continue the scam
THIS IS NOT A SCAM. You are losing money by running this âscamâ. Itâs like if you tried to run an ISK doubling scam and them came to the forums to brag about how much ISK you made by actually doubling everyoneâs ISK.
FFS, youâve managed to take something as simple as the guaranteed profit of running a lottery and over-complicate it into an idiotic âscamâ that makes you less money. How is that even possible?
ok, so maybe we have a disagreement
No, a disagreement implies that there are two valid sides and the two parties canât agree on which is correct. What we have here is me trying to explain how basic math works and you spending countless words demonstrating that you are proud of the fact that you donât understand the math and refuse to learn.
JFC you are an idiot. Iâm done trying to explain this to you, keep on believing your nonsense and ignoring the realities of the math behind EVEâs gambling system. Your strategy can be mathematically proven to be a losing one and your continued insistence on its success does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance. You are precisely the sort of person that casinos love because they can turn all of your ignorance and superstitions into easy profit.
Too bad, this isnât something youâre permitted to disagree about. The math is indisputable and you are wrong. But like I said, Iâm done trying to explain this to you. Just keep congratulating yourself on how clever you are.
This is very obvious.
while the conditions were favorable
The conditions were never favorable. You were just ignorant and missed out on a lot of ISK you could have made if you hadnât stubbornly insisted on using a losing strategy to prove how âcleverâ you are.
I understand what Gowa did.
Its more profitable to have less profit on more sold items in shorter timespan than having more profit on each item, selling only few items in longer timespan. With very minimal investment and opportunity window very short, only few days in fact, what Gowa did, was very profitable strategy.
Youâre wrong. When you buy your ticket, itâs the same as if someone else bought your ticket : you lose on average.
If you got money from the hypernet, that means other people lost money. By making actions of people who lose money, you are therefore losing money.
And we donât need permission to answer that this is â â â â .
For this you need to assume the rate of acquisition of tickets is decreasing. No reason to think so.
The most famously raffled item in beginning, State Issue Raven tickets did not sold after 3 days. Initially there were people buying tickets, but qickly the amount of those people was diminishing. All the HyperCodes that were put into the raffle vanished, that was around $2000 when you convert the value from ISK.
Nobody cares. That just shows nothing. Especially it did not complete, while we are talking about hyperscams that would complete.
ITâs just completely off-topic, again
Read my post again, you totally misunderstand again what I wrote.
There is reason to think the aquisition is slowing down with time and with each raffle and I put there an example where it happened. You just want to ignore it. Despite its permanence.
No, there is not - unless you show there is.
You have not given any reason to think so unless you are an idiot. You gave a very specific example that is by the way off-topic, which does not show anything besides your lack of understanding.
Your argument was : âlook : there is one very specific offer that did not complete. And it had some tickets taken. Which means, the acquisition of ticket for that specific offer went from the initial rate to 0â. This does not show anything for the general case. This is also off-topic since this offer did not complete.
When you use such a bad argument to make your point, it means that you donât have a correct idea of reality, and therefore your opinion about the general case is ⊠missing some parts, to say it politely.