Exactly.
I fear, however, that I lack the formal education in such matters that would allow me to attach the correct terminology to the concepts I wish to convey.
What would it be called, if there's a minimum amount that one would consider "sufficient winnings"? For example, a person might eschew a scratch-off ticket with a more likely but more modest payout, choosing only to participate in lotteries that might make a sufficiently large jump in lifestyle to risk the benefit that dollar might give by being spent in a normal manner.
You done good - it would be called “the marinal utility of a dollar.”
And that is the point - there is an entire science dedicated to trying to quantify why people will make these decisions.
In the real world, we call it “insurance.”
Is your car insured? Why?
did you catch the other point the study was making. that it is a very effective tax on the lower incomes (meaning quick way to get their money back).
i think its evil. it, and all gambling, are unfairly and very scientifically manipulated in the favor of the gambling industry/govt. plus its highly addictive.
sure you can do it or not do it, but i am positive that if you asked yourself “WWJD” — he would not be playing or participating in any aspect in a lottery. doesn’t mean i would outlaw it though. i would just warn people to stay away and i WOULD make it illegal for the government to promote gambling—its diametrically opposite to what the government should be doing for its citizens. not legally robbing them and setting them up for addiction.