$355 mil buys a hell of a lot of tasty Mr. Cluck's fried chicken!
355 million lottery ticket.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
ok fess up who bought tickets 
Quote from killthesunshine:
ok fess up who bought tickets
I did, of course.
Was watching the news last night and they showed one state with HUNDREDS of people waiting in line to buy tickets.
What confuses me is why people run out to buy tickets in droves when the jackpot is $250 million + and not $10 million or $25 million, I mean where does the jackpot have to be to get people to wait hours in line for a chance to win $300+ million. The people playing these lotteries probably only have a few thousand in savings anyway so why is a 9 figure jackpot more enticing than say an 8 figure amount. An 8 figure amount can change 99% of people who live in the US.
What confuses me is why people run out to buy tickets in droves when the jackpot is $250 million + and not $10 million or $25 million, I mean where does the jackpot have to be to get people to wait hours in line for a chance to win $300+ million. The people playing these lotteries probably only have a few thousand in savings anyway so why is a 9 figure jackpot more enticing than say an 8 figure amount. An 8 figure amount can change 99% of people who live in the US.
seeing as so many lottery winners end up broke (and broken), do you guys think it is advisable that your typical winner would be better off taking the payments, rather than a lump sum? This would help when every Tom, Dick, and asshole came asking for a loan or a gift. It's not like you have all the money at your disposal. It would also help keep you from blowing it on a few bad impulse purchases.
I do tend to think most people would be much happier with the prize in the long run if they just stuck to accepting the payments.
I do tend to think most people would be much happier with the prize in the long run if they just stuck to accepting the payments.
I myself only play when the jackpot is >70M or so, because the chance of winning is so low that I don't think it's worth the trouble or the money (even at $1) to bother with a lower jackpot.
Sure enough, someone did the math to prove me right:
http://www.slate.com/id/114577/
Actually, you and the article writer are both wrong. You should read the Comments section, where they prove him wrong.
There are more things to consider than what the writer assumes. For example the chance doesn't change, just the payoff. But when the prize is higher, more people play too, so chances of multiple winners are higher too.
Just read the comments...