A Matt Newsome kilt for only $5.00???

[Fit2BKilted]

With all the talk of discounts and "deals" on tickets, I'm reminded that this is a fundraiser. It isn't about getting a "deal"; it's about supporting the museum. Their goal is not to cover the cost of the kilt; it's to put money in the museum's coffers.

I've ordered my raffle tickets and may order more if I get the urge. I did it to support the museum, and if I win a kilt, great. If not, then I still feel good that I've supported them. I would not ask, nor want, Matt to discount the tickets because the purpose here is to support the museum. Any purchase of raffle tickets should probably be done in that spirit first and foremost. Looking for a discount deal on multiple chances to win the prize seems to defeat the primary objective.

Just my opinion!

Not really... Because the more you sell, the more the Museum makes... When people feel they are getting a good deal, they are inclined to buy more... Of course, with every ticket sold, the value of any one of those tickets diminishes (since the odds against a particular ticket being drawn are commensurately increased)---but therein lies the profitability of the raffle for the Museum ;-)

I used to work in the casino industry where I became well acquainted with the old saw: "Lotteries are a tax on those who don't understand Math."

If someone really wasn't interested in supporting the Museum, they would buy tickets for themselves and then discourage others from doing so (thereby maximizing the Expected Value of each of the tickets they have purchased, by inhibiting the size of the ticket-pool). Now, if you had $400.00 lying around with which to buy 80 $5-tickets, you wouldn't be guaranteed to win the kilt, even though you have enough money to buy one outright---but if you still bought the tickets instead of the kilt, you still wouldn't be a true philanthropist, because there would remain a chance that you would personally gain from the investment, and in so doing, you would also be diminishing the odds of someone less altruistic---and presumably less affluent---from benefiting from their relatively more significant contribution ($5 being more of an investment relative to their disposable income than yours---legal raffles principally being an inducement toward charity)... To avoid this moral paradox, just donate your money outright. But I digress...