You last visited November 20, 2008, 3:30 am
|
I think Californians hate Super Lotto Plus
United States Member #38211 April 19, 2006 130 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 29, 2008, 1:00 am - IP Logged |
|
Why?
Because the jackpot amount goes up real slow. REALY SLOW.
I know that many of you guys will wonder why the increase rate of SLP is slow. You know, it's definitely slower that Mega Millions was introduced in California. Nowdays, you will have to wait for at least 2 months to reach 40 million dollars. It wasn't like that before 2005. You wait for a few weeks and the jackpot amount went up pretty fast. Bear in mind that California has the largest population among all states. It's logical to assume that more people buy lottery tickets than any other state does.
The reason why CA lottery sales became stale is the problem with SLP. It's painfully slow to build up the jackpot amount. People got sick of it and they just don't buy the tickets as much as before.
And there's absolutely no guarantee that MM winners come out of CA every time.
|
|
|
mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 9242 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 29, 2008, 1:16 am - IP Logged |
|
"And there's absolutely no guarantee that MM winners come out of CA every time."
Players in every MegaMillions state probably feel the same way. Ohio added MegaMillions to its group of games to stimulate interest in playing any lottery games. Now there are those who say the state needs to add casinos to the mix to stimulate more interest in gambling in general. * Trying is the first step toward failure *
homer J. Simpson
|
|
|
Stroudsburg, PA United States Member #1860 July 11, 2003 2543 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 29, 2008, 1:16 am - IP Logged |
|
I don't think Californians hate SLP any more than any other state hates their in-state lotto. It's just the fact that players, the casual ones anyway, just go for the bigger jackpot. Odds mean nothing to them, they just play whatever is bigger. It happens every single time a state joins a multi-state game. Every single time. You only need one ticket to win. But you'll win more with one hundred.
|
|
|
Southern California United States Member #61999 May 25, 2008 28 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 29, 2008, 10:06 am - IP Logged |
|
2000 - $85M (8 rollovers)
2001 - $141M (8 rollovers)
2002 - $193M (11 rollovers)
2003 - $99M (11 rollovers)
2004 - $100M (11 rollovers)
2005 - $72M (10 rollovers) April 2, 2005
2005 - June 22 MM begins
2006 - $110M (23 rollovers)
2007 - $93M (24 rollovers)
2008 - $80M (24 rollovers)
I can't believe how few rollovers it used to take to get to $100M.
Hard to get excited about SLP when it inches it's way up $2M each draw. Still, I have to play every time because I stupidly picked numbers years ago. Can't take the chance on not playing 'em and having them win. 
|
|
|
Georgia United States Member #21312 August 29, 2005 1694 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 29, 2008, 10:33 am - IP Logged |
|
I like California LOtto Plus....I like it more than MegaMillions...I wish they had it in my state....This is something i've been saying for years...They literally kill California Super Lotto Plus when they introduced MegaMIllions/Powerball....Common sense should have told them that two games at the same time will not survive specially if THEY LOOK ALIKE..Massachussetts have i think is 3 but their look different....
Pluse the lottery has the difficult task of persuading non-lottery players to play the lottery....They don't even anounce the jackpot on the Newspaper or on the internet...The only think i can think of if for them to make California Super Lotto plus grow is to allow players from foreign countries to play it...They should have done homework and preliminary and study of the area....Just to prove my old theory, the lottery jack up the odds and don't research its games...For some state they do their job for other states they give them the worse like California, the usual...
I want to know what games they are going to give Alabama whenever it decides to have a lottery...
Tha'ts why i can't stand the lottery, i can't stand them....
|
|
|
Idaho United States Member #56982 November 21, 2007 1670 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 29, 2008, 1:21 pm - IP Logged |
|
2000 - $85M (8 rollovers)
2001 - $141M (8 rollovers)
2002 - $193M (11 rollovers)
2003 - $99M (11 rollovers)
2004 - $100M (11 rollovers)
2005 - $72M (10 rollovers) April 2, 2005
2005 - June 22 MM begins
2006 - $110M (23 rollovers)
2007 - $93M (24 rollovers)
2008 - $80M (24 rollovers)
I can't believe how few rollovers it used to take to get to $100M.
Hard to get excited about SLP when it inches it's way up $2M each draw. Still, I have to play every time because I stupidly picked numbers years ago. Can't take the chance on not playing 'em and having them win.  That is interesting to see how much the rollovers have changed since MM started in Cal. Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
United States Member #38211 April 19, 2006 130 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 29, 2008, 9:45 pm - IP Logged |
|
2000 - $85M (8 rollovers)
2001 - $141M (8 rollovers)
2002 - $193M (11 rollovers)
2003 - $99M (11 rollovers)
2004 - $100M (11 rollovers)
2005 - $72M (10 rollovers) April 2, 2005
2005 - June 22 MM begins
2006 - $110M (23 rollovers)
2007 - $93M (24 rollovers)
2008 - $80M (24 rollovers)
I can't believe how few rollovers it used to take to get to $100M.
Hard to get excited about SLP when it inches it's way up $2M each draw. Still, I have to play every time because I stupidly picked numbers years ago. Can't take the chance on not playing 'em and having them win.  Thank you. Thank you very much for posting the awful change that SLP has undergone.
Yeah, it sucks. It F-ing sucks. I used to like MM because the rollover rate was really quick, until I realized that it's killing SLP.
|
|
|
mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 9242 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 29, 2008, 10:03 pm - IP Logged |
|
Thank you. Thank you very much for posting the awful change that SLP has undergone.
Yeah, it sucks. It F-ing sucks. I used to like MM because the rollover rate was really quick, until I realized that it's killing SLP. Ohio had a SLP (6/49+1)game when it added MegaMillions but SLP was already losing interest and MM revised interest in the lottery games. Eventually Ohio got rid of SLP and replaced it with a worst game Lot'O Play for a year and then got rid of it and bought back a 649 game as Classic Lotto. The old SLP rolled a minimum of $4M after each drawing and they were losing money but now the Classic Lotto rolls $100K-$200K after a drawing and Ohio is making money again with the smaller jackpots. * Trying is the first step toward failure *
homer J. Simpson
|
|
|
Illinois United States Member #30849 January 17, 2006 3489 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 30, 2008, 2:04 am - IP Logged |
|
When a state becomes a Powerball or Mega Millions state, that multi-state game does to that state's lottery game the same thing Wal Mart does to neighboring small businesses when it comes into a community. It's Lotto, not horseshoes or artillery! close doesn't count! I sell everything at a loss but make up for it in volume - Milo Minderbinder, Catch-22
|
|
|
Inglewood United States Member #42199 June 22, 2006 122 Posts Offline
|
| Posted: June 30, 2008, 5:15 am - IP Logged |
|
When a state becomes a Powerball or Mega Millions state, that multi-state game does to that state's lottery game the same thing Wal Mart does to neighboring small businesses when it comes into a community. Well, Mega Millions has definitely done a Wal Mart to Super Lotto in Californai! I hate to play super lotto and I hate not to play!! That 2nd tier can be a bummer!! This is an excellent assessment of the impact that the entry of MM and other multi-state games have on local States. All that I can do is throw a couple of bucks at the games, actually a bit more than a couple, but we'll keep that between us. Truly, I think all I can do is take a stab in the dark. I have no theory!!! QP'S, it's all I got! I already know what's going to happen next draw! I'll get the Bonus Number ONLY!!! " See what I'm saying?"
|
|
|
|