What LEGALLY is preventing me from doing the following?:
>set up a system where people voluntarily donate $10 once a month, to be added into a large collective pool of money >random 10% of the people who donated will be given ALL the money, divided evenly amongst themselves >if you got even just 10,000 people to do this, 1,000 people would get $10,000 >were it 1,000,000 people, 100,000 people would win 1,000,000 dollars >nothing prevents people from re-entering every month if they want >the chances of basically everyone involved winning at least once within a year if they donate once every month is pretty goddamn high
Can we make this a thing? Why would this be negative in any way?
That’s literally a system similar to the lottery I see nothing wrong with it
Gabriel Ramirez
Yeah realized math was off after posting. :/
I mean still though, that just means that you need a minimum of 10,000 or 100,000 people for it to start being actually worth it, but America has over 300 million people. That shouldn't be an issue, even if my math was wonky.
It could be a government-managed thing, like the lottery.
Yeah but the lottery SUCKS. A TINY percentage of people win it, and they get absurd money from it. I want something more balanced that actually a lot of people could win.
I don't see any problem with this. Sure you're not gonna get $1,000,000, but imagine people being able to win $10,000 for college. This system could reap serious gains for everybody if it were just balanced right and you got enough people to do it. It could change the world.
Nathaniel Allen
> minimum of 10,000 or 100,000 people
>posts math wrong >does it a second time immediately afterwards
Fuck my life.
Carter Gray
It doesn't matter how many people you get. 10 people putting in 10$, the 10% is one person and he receives 100 USD. 300 million americans create a jackpot of 3 billion, which when divided among 30 million americans (the 10% of players) is still 100 USD.
Ryder Cooper
This is a prime example of socialist thinking. Scheming up ways to get something by nothing by using everyone else's money. This is why it's so easy to convince poor and lazy niggers to believe it. Just look at the fucking math of this retard
Jacob Moore
Well, first off, are you going to collect all that money for free? You need to pay yourself a bit of money for doing all of the work to make this happen. Maybe a single digit percentage of the final payout goes to you.
And, how do you incentivize people to donate $10? What does your average person get for donating their $10, knowing that they probably aren't gonna win? Maybe you could make up some fun games and add a bar and some food here and there. Still not quite enough of an incentive... What if you made it so that the fun games that people played were directly tied to winning the money. That way, when they put their $10 in, they can see a concrete pathway to winning the money. That would REALLY incentivize them to put money in--it would make it easier to imagine winning the big pot.
Now, what if you made it so that the more money they spend, the more "bang" they get for their buck: the more they could conceivably win, first off. And maybe you give them some extra drinks and food, and entertainment, as kind of a subtle push to put more money into the scheme.
If you incentivize enough people, you may find that your cut can actually be quite large. Large enough to invest a lot in the entertaining games, drinks... maybe some shows, a live band, a large facility to hold the whole enterprise, some advertising, big neons, etc. So that most people go to be entertained first off, but with a small chance that they might walk away rich.
Congratulations, you have invented a casino.
Ian Nelson
This dumb faggot doesn't realize the government does this for poor lazy niggers like OP are already receiving free money they didn't earn in the form of tax returns
Logan Jenkins
This is like income tax if the government randomly decided what year to give it to you
Grab three friends. Tell them you will sell a 100 dollar bill to the highest bidder.
There's one catch: those who lose have to surrender their bidding money. For instance:
Friend A: "I give 10 bucks!"
Friend B: "I give 20 bucks!"
Friend C: "I give 30 bucks!"
Friend A will then offer 40 bucks for it, Friend B doesn't want to lose 20 bucks so he will then offer 50 bucks, Friend C will offer 60 bucks, and so on.
Say you sell the 100 dollar bill for 60 dollars. 60+50+40 = 160 dollars.
It's not uncommon for someone to end up offering you the double of a bill's value because of sunken cost fallacy.
You might get fucked if they decide to split the money 50-50, so you have to be smart about it.
You just discovered what a snow ball system is. Congratulations.
Julian Gomez
Y'know, I guess this thread really just was born off high hopes and bad math.
Even if you had 10 million people donate $10 for a total pool of 100 million dollars, EVEN IF only 1% of those people were winners, that just means 100,000 people would win $1,000.
At that point the gains are actually good, but your chances so low that not enough people would actually want to participate. Statistically you wouldn't have good chances of winning unless you did it every month for about 8-9 years. All that for a measly $1,000. Not worth it.
