Yes indeed !  The Hoosier Lottery gets yet another black mark to its file (like it already doesn't have enough) but this guy is just as much responsible.  If I had $40,000 I didn't need, I would be using it to do many other things than purchase lottery tickets !

If I could afford to spend $40,000 on scratch-off tickets, I wouldn't be spending $40,000 on scratch-off tickets.

There are those who will say if they had an extra $10, they wouldn't spend it on a lottery ticket.  There were others included in the complaint that claimed they spent over a $1,000 on those tickets, it's all relative to the amount of money you have to spend.

This has to be one of the most bizarre stories I've ever heard. $40k on scratchers? Wow...first of all, he needs his head examined. But, I do understand that he did the math, based on the number of top prizes available, and the odds of the overall game, and decided that if he had purchased that many, he would at least break-even. I get that. I still think his math was off though.

Now, for the lottery itself, this is another situation like the California case. There should be some sort of restitution based on what he bought. There is no way he could get 4000 losers in a row without some sort of tainting of the game. Just when you think the Hoosier Lottery couldn't do anything more stupid than they already have, they prove you wrong, yet again.

DITTO!! 

I agree 40,000 times , Aye !!!!!

No, it's not "all relative." I'm saying that if I could afford to spend $40,000 on scratch-offs, that in itself would pretty well obviate the need or desire to do so. If I couldn't afford the $40,000 to spend on scratch-offs, it wouldn't be an issue at all for me.

There are lots of people of greater and lesser means who choose to play or not play lottery games, but there's not necessarily a direct correlation between the amount they spend and the amount they have available to spend. 

The problem is a loser is still a loser, not matter how 'close' you get, or how many tickets you buy.

They GAMBLED and they LOST, send them to Vegas for the weekend and see how long they last there. 

Lotteries don't want people to win big by spending a lot of money because then people with less won't play and there are more of them.  Years ago when the Virgina lottery was won by an investment group that tried to buy every combinations when the jackpot cash amount exceeded the odds of winning they changed the rules for buying tickets so that could never happen again.

Recently Ohio Cash5 had a cash jackpot of nearly $900K with odds of 1:575K of being won, but no one tried to buy all the combinations as far as I know.  When groups invest a large sum of money in a lottery and lose, they are going to want transparency on how the lottery operates while players who lose less than $200 are going to be content to contribute their losses to bad luck and forget about it.