Well said!!  Hype about bigger jackpots is crafted to forcibly extract more $$$$ from players, period.

I agree with Konane, tg636 and many others.  Lower the matrix.  I mean, even a state game with 1:22 million odds is tough to win.  Sometimes I wish I wasn't "addicted" to my 4 Lotto cards that I play twice a week.  Right now any more would be way too much for me to spend, and I'd rather play a game with better odds. If I won $100,000 or even $10,000 I'd be thrilled. 

I also would like to see higher second & third prizes.  A few weeks ago I got 3 numbers and "won" $5.50 and in over 12 years I've gotten 4 out of 5 numbers 3 times.  The highest payout was $75. 

Regarding the jackpot size, I agree with the members who wrote that anyone who doesn't think winning a million or 2 is a big deal is unrealistic (and greedy.)  Sure, the lifestyle change wouldn't be close to that of a multi-millionaire, but for most people it would mean starting fresh with a paid-off mortgage, paid-off credit cards, paid-off automobiles and money in the bank for emergencies.  I've looked at the real estate prices throughout the country many times, so I know there are lots of homes selling for much more than a million dollars.  But there are also plenty of nice places where you can get a beautiful home for $250,000 or less. 

There are plenty of low matrix games for those people who want them. Slot machines are proof that people don't really pay attention to actual odds.

I'm assuming that they are talking about US games since Euromillions had record sales last year. It also had two jackpots over $200 million in cash. If US lottery operators would finally raise the price instead of raising the odds then powerball/mega could really take off.

Considering that the actual winnings in the US is only 33-25% of the posted jackpot people would need a large prize.

The biggest looser is Mega millions with it's low jackpots and corresponding low sales. Since most of the Megamillion states are selling their lotteries they may want to actually fix Mega to attract buyers. Declining sales are never a turn on for investors.

The good news for lottery players is that most states aren't business savy enough to change anything so it will just be more of the status quo. Investors won't bite at a business that is declining and so they will stay state run but with a "for sale" sign in the window. 

People play online lotteries because it's cheaper per bet to cover the same odds.

Lowering the matrix while maintaining $1 per bet for Mega Millions (and Powerball ) would effectively be lowering price per bet.

Sales of any sort always draw people, and lower "prices" keep them coming back again and again ..... it's human nature .... which lotteries are exceedingly slow to figure out.

Let them take a gamble on us players instead of dictating what to do and how to do it. 

After all lotteries are a business and we're the consumer. 

Those posts are a large part of my reasoning on how well the typical player understands the relationship between odds and the prizes. A large percentage of players  have almost no clue about what the odds are and what they really mean. It's simple math, but the numbers are too big to be really meaningful. You say that 1 in 75 milion is "much better" than 1 in 150 million, but your chances of winning with either is hardly different than if you don't even buy a ticket.

On one level I do believe that the odds are largely meaningless. There isnt any lottery anywhere that has a substantial payout and odds that give you a practical chance of winning. Giving away $5 million dollars simply can't be done without collecting far more than $5 million. All you can do is  spend the dollar and hope you beat the odds, whatever they are. Raising the odds from 1 in 175 milion to 1 in 500 million would also raise the average jackpot to about 3 times it's current level. The jackpot fever that we've seen when lotteries advertise a jackpot of $300 to 350 million will look meaningless if they advertise a jackpot of $1 billion despite the steeper odds.

What I see from posters here isn't that they understand how unlikely they are to win based on the odds. I see posters saying they've been playing for years and seldom win more than a few bucks. That doesn't suggest a real grasp of the actual odds. It shows that people figure out that what's been happening for the last few years is probably a good indicator of what will continue to happen for as long as they play the lottery. For any lottery that pays out 20 to 30 cents on the dollar in small prizes and 20 to 30 as a jackpot, the typical player's results are going to be the same regardless of the odds. They'll occasionally win a modest prize while losing most of their money, and continue to hope that lightning strikes.

I would like to see a joint game offered by Mega Millions and Powerball that would sell in each participating states jurisdiction.  Keeping the ticket price at $1 and seeing what kind of jackpot all those states could create.  For me I would like to have another big jackpot game like Powerball available to me here in Oregon.  I do not like to travel the over 4 hour round trip to the state of Washington each time I want to play Mega Millions.-weshar75

If people really want lower odds then they had better get used to the idea of $2 tickets. Lowering the odds and having a $1 price would only result in much lower jackpots and lower sales. Sales are already in a slump for Megamillions. With these states trying to sell their lotteries telling them that what you want is even lower sales isn't going to fly.

If you wanted a $2 price and lower odds that could work. Euromillions has odds 100 million less then Mega but with larger pots.

Odds are already bad enough and another raise in odds might result in larger pots but much longer to get there. I'd rather pay more per ticket for a game with lower odds and better prizes. 

Then you should ask the OR Lottery to join MUSL Hot Lotto. (Since New Hampshire has Tri-State Megabucks and Hot Lotto, and it has a smaller population than OR, it certainly should be considered where you live. HL also needs a larger double matrix since there are now nine states plus DC; it started in six states.

While I am not a big fan of OR Megabucks (lump-sum winners do not get the true cash value of the annuity more so than that it's computerized,) the game that needs to be replaced is OR Lose for Life.

Ultimately HL needs a name change as well, as I don't expect Idaho to be interested with its current name. Idaho once had a pick-5 called Hot Lotto.

I did ask the Oregon lottery about future games being available like the game Hot Lotto and they said why would we offer Hot Lotto when we have an in-state game like Oregon Megabucks.  Oregon Megabucks gets bigger than Hot Lotto and it's only in Oregon.  My comment was directed at the possibility of having a large jackpot game offered through Mega Millions and Powerball in a joint effort.  I emailed MUSL last night about having the two lotteries merge and the response I got was their would be a joint game offered between the two lotteries before a merger would ever happen.  I hardly ever play Win for Life but I do play some of the games offered by the Oregon lottery on a regular basis.  The lottery has never asked my opinion on which games should be available to it's players.  I will be the first to invite you to email or contact the Oregon lottery at www.oregonlottery.org and look under the contact us section.  You will find the phone number for the Oregon Lottery and its email response address.  So you can express your opinions on games such as Win for life, Megabucks, and any other game you do not agree with.  Have a nice day!-weshar75