Quote from Maverick74:
I still don't understand. So you want people to buy tickets and pick numbers and then say, OK, the numbers don't matter. We are just going to randomly pick 100 people from the whole pool of people who bought tickets and give them 1 million each? LOL. Am I getting that right? So again I'm going to ask one more time. Why even bother with the numbers? You know this sounds a lot like Amway. LOL.
Another fine fellow with socialism on the brain. Any relation to Mav?Quote from clacy:
Why do you assume to know better than the states that operate the lotto's what will work best for their operations?
I would be willing to wager that they have statistical proof that large, single-winner jackpots generates the most interest ($$) for lotteries.
As a socialist, you should be anti-lotto because it is a form of wealth distribution that takes money from low and middle income (mostly) and distributes it to the state.
It's a poor tax basically.
Quote from lwlee:
You seem to place a lot of importance in picking numbers. It's a gimmick. They could come up with something where you entered the lottery by using your Social Security number so that you have one entry to play.
Every person that enters a lottery is just hoping that they get picked. How they entered and play the game is trivial.
Quote from Brass:
Another fine fellow with socialism on the brain. Any relation to Mav?
I'm not telling anyone how to run their business. I'm just sharing my opinion of what I might do if I were running the lottery. Different people, different opinions. See how that works? I think the prize is probably overkill, in that you'd probably get similar interest with somewhat smaller prizes, say 50 million? So you can have more draws by dividing the pot and drawing multiple winning numbers, either all at once, or in relatively quick succession. I think it would draw an equal crowd, and maybe even more so because of the greater number of chances of winning serious money (even though the probability is still painfully close to zero).
They did that some years ago here in Canada as well, raising the ticket price from $1 per ticket to $2. While I was always good for a $1 expenditure each week, even though there are two draws per week, I now almost never buy a ticket. Even though they upped the jackpot, the raise in price is like asking me: "Just how stupid are you? We aim to find out."Quote from clacy:
Do you think this idea hasn't been thought of before?
Why did Powerball, just take it from $1/ticket to $2/ticket? To get bigger jackpots...
Quote from lwlee:
You seem to place a lot of importance in picking numbers. It's a gimmick. They could come up with something where you entered the lottery by using your Social Security number so that you have one entry to play.
Every person that enters a lottery is just hoping that they get picked. How they entered and play the game is trivial.
Not more "fairness." More chances to win! The expected value doesn't change! Seriously, are you even thinking or are you just on Right Wing autopilot?Quote from clacy:
The same could be said for you. Just because your idea of a good lotto system has more "fairness" doesn't mean that the market demands it.
Quote from peilthetraveler:
http://www.lotterypost.com/news/244183
Odds of winning are 176 million to one. Lump sum cash option is 341 million. So if you want to guarantee a double of your money, just buy every combination and you have an easy $165 million.