Tenn. players picked up on new odds before lottery revealed glitch

I assume there is some kind of maintenance agreement that they bought, but I would also assume they would not sign something saying they agree not to switch back to balls, or even switch back before the maintenance agreement expires.  (Business software is often sold with maintenance agreements.)

So I really don't think there is anything excluding them from switching back.

I think it is a matter that the CEO Hargrove has decided to switch to computers, and switching back to balls would make her look bad. 

Which begs the question:  does she care more about how she looks or doing what's right for the players.

And if she ever answers that question with a sentence that includes the words "children" or "education", you know the answer is B.S.

Now that's a little harsh.  Of course it's for the children.  What would you expect her to say? 

As far as a contract, it all depends on how they structured it; purchase or lease.  Most likely they bought the equipment, like they have always done in the past with ball equipment.  That means they can choose to do what they want.  Ball machines are more expensive to maintain, and to go back would mean re-certifying all the equipment.  It would take a little time... if they even still have it all. 

I  was  thinking  they  they  also  need  a  production  crew  for  live  draws  a  small  crew  to  pull  the  balls  and  Anouncers .......the  verification  is  to  have  some  one  watch  each  draw  also , with  the computer  drawig    she  would  not  have  to  do  much  verifiction, and  since  most  lottery  workers  cant  play  that  state  lottery  she  could  care  less  if  we  win   or  loose;   

By all means, live productions are more costly.  In today's world of cut costs and increase the bottom line, that's what computer draws are all about.  It's much more cost effective to operate.  No big production facility, cut the crew by 80%, you can even save on the announcing fees.  And then there's the cost of maintaining the equipment. 

That's why states are switching to computer draws. It costs less initially and long term in equipment and personnel.  Auditing and oversight is the one place there isn't any savings- everything is still verified by independent auditors. 

• There's no problem.
• There are only people causing problems by saying there's a problem ... they are just being unpatriotic
• There's never been a problem ... except for those complainers. We should also mention they love the taliban and they hate kittens.
• We already fixed the problem ... that there never ... was ... yeah.

You said, "That's why states are switching to computers."

Really?

There was Wisconsin in 2004, and Tennessee in 2007.  And then who else?    States? 

What I see is one state (Wisconsin) that made a decision before Lottery Post started enlightening people about the awful computerized drawings, and then another state three years later with a CEO who feels every decision she makes is beyond questioning, who made a terrible decision and forever tarnished her reputation.

What I don't see is a stampede of states to go computerized and suffer the same fate.

Maybe I misspoke.  But by your own "Report Card", more than half of the U.S. State Lotteries have some kind of computerized drawing. 

Just about all of them do, but there's a big difference between using a computer for a raffle or Keno and using it every day to draw the lotto numbers.

(The report card shows that a majority of states have NOT computerized their daily lotto games.)

Computers have made it very simple to draw raffles and to draw games every 5 minutes without fail.  Computers have important uses at a state lottery.

My entire career is based on computers.  If there is a person here who supports the use of computers in all facets of life, it is me.

However, there is also such a thing as a WRONG use of a computer.  One size does not fit all.  The use of a computer to draw lottery results in daily lotto games is wrong and unjustified, especially given the severe distrust of computers when they are used in that capacity.

There are ways of making computers look like a huge cost savings, but I have shown many times before that it is just not true.  If you only look at is cost of a computer vs. cost of production, equipment, and personnel, then using a computer is better. 

But that is a lie of ommission.  Any person with the slightest knowledge of business and/or accounting knows that there is both a revenue and cost side to every equation, and the argument used by computerized drawing proponents only addresses the cost side.

Did you know that revenues for the past quarter were down from the previous quarter in Tennessee?  I'll bet you didn't, because they were too busy comparing it to last year, and only telling that particular story.  And even then, to say that a mere 5% increase over last year proves that all is good with computers is another tall tale.

The lottery is not a hollywood actor, who benefits from both good and bad media attention.  The lottery is hurt by bad press, not helped.  Computerized drawings are a disaster for Tennessee -- not just for the lottery, but for the residents of the state.  They were hoodwinked -- and continue to be hoodwinked -- by a clever CEO. 

A CEO who manages to collect disproportionate sums of wealth -- instead of putting it into education.

OK.  I get your point.  But again, there's at least 13 states with all computer drawings, and several more that are real close.  Hot Lotto is computerized, and if Powerball went that way...  but enough about that. 

If we're comparing apples to apples, is it fair to compare this quarter to last quarter?  Is that just revenues in the state games, or all sales?  Couldn't the size of the Powerball jackpot have something to do with that? 

Surely they took a hit after the snafu, so I would assume sales would dip at least some this quarter...