IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2020-29.html

Lottery "strategies": monetizing players' behavioral biases

Author

Listed:
  • Raman Kachurka

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Michał Wiktor Krawczyk

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

Abstract

The popularity of lotteries around the world is puzzling. In this paper, we study one factor, which might contribute to this phenomenon, namely lottery “strategies” that could allegedly improve players’ odds. In an online survey of lottery players we find that such strategies are popular and their use is related to more frequent lottery play and a number of personality traits and beliefs about gambling. Systematically searching for websites and books, we amass the largest dataset of lottery strategies in existence. We subsequently analyze their descriptions, categorize them, and investigate how they exploit their target audience’s behavioral biases, including the illusion of control, authority bias, magical thinking, the illusion of correlation, gambler’s fallacy, hot hand fallacy, representativeness heuristic, availability heuristic, and regret aversion. We find that the strategies maintain gamblers’ (false) beliefs about the possibility of controlling lottery results. This exploratory work contributes to a deeper understanding of (problem) gambling and lays the foundation for the design of experiments testing how the specific features of different strategies may interact with beliefs and trigger (excessive) lottery play.

Suggested Citation

  • Raman Kachurka & Michał Wiktor Krawczyk, 2020. "Lottery "strategies": monetizing players' behavioral biases," Working Papers 2020-29, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2020-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/index.php/download_file/5802/
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Kocher, Martin G. & Krawczyk, Michal & van Winden, Frans, 2014. "‘Let me dream on!’ Anticipatory emotions and preference for timing in lotteries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 29-40.
    3. Sigrid Suetens & Claus B. Galbo-Jørgensen & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2016. "Predicting Lotto Numbers: A Natural Experiment on the Gambler's Fallacy and the Hot-Hand Fallacy," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 584-607.
    4. Michał Wiktor Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2018. "Verifying the representativeness heuristic: A field experiment with real-life lottery tickets," Working Papers 2018-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    6. Charles T. Clotfelter & Philip J. Cook, 1989. "The Demand for Lottery Products," NBER Working Papers 2928, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Nigel E. Turner & Jamie Wiebe & Agata Falkowski-Ham & Jon Kelly & Wayne Skinner, 2005. "Public Awareness of Responsible Gambling and Gambling Behaviours in Ontario," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 95-112, June.
    8. Farrell, Lisa, et al, 2000. "The Demand for Lotto: The Role of Conscious Selection," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 18(2), pages 228-241, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.
    2. van Winden, Frans & Krawczyk, Michal & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2011. "Investment, resolution of risk, and the role of affect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 918-939.
    3. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    4. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2020. "Linking subjective and incentivized risk attitudes: The importance of losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 187-206, April.
    5. Roman Kräussl & Ronald Bosman & Thomas van Galen, 2014. "Emotions-at-Risk: An Experimental Investigation into Emotions, Option Prices and Risk Perception," LSF Research Working Paper Series 14-11, Luxembourg School of Finance, University of Luxembourg.
    6. Victor Gonzalez-Jimenez & Patricio S. Dalton & Charles N. Noussair, 2019. "The Dark Side of Monetary Bonuses: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Vienna Economics Papers vie1909, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    7. Géraldine Bocqueho & Marc Deschamps & Jenny Helstroffer & Julien Jacob & Majlinda Joxhe & Ofce Observatoire Français Des Conjonctures Économiques, 2018. "The risk and refugee migration," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03607866, HAL.
    8. Dennis Vrecko & Thomas Langer, 2013. "What Are Investors Willing to Pay to Customize Their Investment Product?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(8), pages 1855-1870, August.
    9. Mary Riddel & Sonja Kolstoe, 2013. "Heterogeneity in life-duration preferences: Are risky recreationists really more risk loving?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 191-213, April.
    10. Naranjo, Maria A. & Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2019. "Alternatives for Risk Elicitation in the Field: Evidence from Coffee Farmers in Costa Rica," EfD Discussion Paper 19-21, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    11. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    12. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    13. Shuping Wu & Zan Yang, 2023. "Government Behavior on Urban Land Supply: Does it Follow a Prospect Preference?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 264-286, August.
    14. Jiaxin Liu & Yixuan Tang & Yi Yang & Kar Yan Tam, 2025. "Evaluating and Aligning Human Economic Risk Preferences in LLMs," Papers 2503.06646, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.
    15. Schwaiger, Rene & Hueber, Laura, 2021. "Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    16. Jiakun Zheng & Ling Zhou, 2025. "Too risky to hedge: An experiment on narrow bracketing," Post-Print hal-05063379, HAL.
    17. Zan Yang & Shuping Wu, 2019. "Land acquisition outcome, developer risk attitude and land development timing," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 233-271, August.
    18. Florian Zimmermann, 2015. "Clumped or Piecewise? Evidence on Preferences for Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(4), pages 740-753, April.
    19. Sepahvand, Mohammad H & Shahbazian, Roujman & Bali Swain, Ranjula, 2018. "Does revolution change risk attitudes? Evidence from Burkina Faso," Working Paper Series 2019:2, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    20. Johannes Buckenmaier & Eugen Dimant & Ann-Christin Posten & Ulrich Schmidt, 2021. "Efficient Institutions and Effective Deterrence: On Timing and Uncertainty of Formal Sanctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 177-201, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2020-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jacek Rapacz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.