Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 11:14 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Massachusetts Lottery closes loophole after big wins

Topic closed. 75 replies. Last post 5 years ago by RJOh.

Page 4 of 6
51
PrintE-mailLink
maringoman's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcTbRxpKQmOfcCoUqF2FyqIOAwDo7rg9G-lfJLAALPGWJWwiz19eRw
Massachusetts
United States
Member #37433
April 14, 2006
2747 Posts
Offline
Posted: August 4, 2011, 6:23 pm - IP Logged

Ohio has a 649 game Classic Lotto which has gone over a year without a jackpot winner which is now at $40.4M with a cash value of $20.2M.  If it was easy for anyone with $13,983,816 to buy all the possible combinations in three days and win the jackpot plus $1,828,790 in other prizes, others probably wouldn't continue to buy tickets?

There are other states with games that investors can buy lots of tickets and possible make a profit but they are not a sure bet because states generally have rules that don't allow players with unlimited funds to control the outcomes of their games easily. 

Massachusetts probably hoped that enough big spenders would try to beat the games that they all would come up short and the state would be the only winner but it seems most of the times according to the news papers, it didn't come out that way so they had to adjust their rules.

Yeah, whats up with the 649 going for over a year with nobody winning? our 649 has hit $21.7M only once in its history and thats more than 7 years ago. It rarely goes past $5M. We're gambling mad out here in MA hahaha

If I lived in Ohio I'd be chasing that cow like there's no tomorrow. 1 in 13M odds is waaay much better than the PB & MM JP odds although some people play the latter games for the non jackpot prizes too. I do but my main motivation is the jackpot.

That money's gone fo ever

    larry3100's avatar - larry icon2.jpg
    Redwood City,California
    United States
    Member #70503
    February 3, 2009
    200 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: August 4, 2011, 8:55 pm - IP Logged

    I don't care if someone came into a store and bought several million dollars worth of lottery tickets.This is a win-win situation.The store wins and the state wins!.And if there are multiple winners,they win too! Yes Nod

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      19818 Posts
      Online
      Posted: August 4, 2011, 10:20 pm - IP Logged

      I don't care if someone came into a store and bought several million dollars worth of lottery tickets.This is a win-win situation.The store wins and the state wins!.And if there are multiple winners,they win too! Yes Nod

      That may be true if those big spenders spent $100,000.00 during regular drawings trying to win the jackpot and only matched a couple of 5of6 for $8,000.00 but they only spend that kind of money to get a 5of6 at 1:40,000 odds when the rolldowns could make a 5of6 worth more than $40,000+.  Since the state doesn't want the regular players thinking they are just fatten up the jackpots for the big spenders, they had to act.  If those regular players stopped playing then there wouldn't be any $2M jackpots to roll down.

      Personally, I think the state would have made more money allowing the jackpots to roll until someone won them normally.   I bet the game that replaces this one won't have a roll down.

       * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
         
                   Evil Looking       

        RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
        mid-Ohio
        United States
        Member #9
        March 24, 2001
        19818 Posts
        Online
        Posted: August 4, 2011, 10:32 pm - IP Logged

        Yeah, whats up with the 649 going for over a year with nobody winning? our 649 has hit $21.7M only once in its history and thats more than 7 years ago. It rarely goes past $5M. We're gambling mad out here in MA hahaha

        If I lived in Ohio I'd be chasing that cow like there's no tomorrow. 1 in 13M odds is waaay much better than the PB & MM JP odds although some people play the latter games for the non jackpot prizes too. I do but my main motivation is the jackpot.

        That's not unusual.   Indiana's 6/48 game did the samething a couple of years back, it was finally won by a guy playing family birthdays after rolling up to nearly $48M.

        I'm sure if someone had a strategy where spending more money would at least allowed them to break nearly even, it wouldn't have taken so long.

         * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
           
                     Evil Looking       

          imagine's avatar - WINGS

          United States
          Member #85047
          January 7, 2010
          102 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: August 5, 2011, 5:26 pm - IP Logged

          That may be true if those big spenders spent $100,000.00 during regular drawings trying to win the jackpot and only matched a couple of 5of6 for $8,000.00 but they only spend that kind of money to get a 5of6 at 1:40,000 odds when the rolldowns could make a 5of6 worth more than $40,000+.  Since the state doesn't want the regular players thinking they are just fatten up the jackpots for the big spenders, they had to act.  If those regular players stopped playing then there wouldn't be any $2M jackpots to roll down.

          Personally, I think the state would have made more money allowing the jackpots to roll until someone won them normally.   I bet the game that replaces this one won't have a roll down.

          They knew this loop hole was there for sometime. 
          I love how the lottery only took action when it became public knowledge.

          What small time player would want to risk anyone on the game?
          An MIT  professor even said at the $ amount some were playing their was virtualy no risk.
          Only the little fellow was gambling.

            Win$500Quick's avatar - Lottery-050.jpg
            Florida
            United States
            Member #77815
            August 1, 2009
            3459 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: August 5, 2011, 11:31 pm - IP Logged

            I saw this story yesterday on Inside Edition. I was shocked at how much the couple was spending on tickets. Lotteries are a business like ever other business, here to make money. Winners are used to promote and market the lottery. That is why they make players take pictures and meet with the press to sell more tickets.

            Guess Who's Back?

              Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
              Los Angeles, California
              United States
              Member #103813
              January 5, 2011
              1530 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: August 6, 2011, 12:16 am - IP Logged

              I saw this story yesterday on Inside Edition. I was shocked at how much the couple was spending on tickets. Lotteries are a business like ever other business, here to make money. Winners are used to promote and market the lottery. That is why they make players take pictures and meet with the press to sell more tickets.

              Yeah, I saw the broadcast of the story on Inside Edition too.

              Also, they didn't name him in the story, but wasn't that MIT professor the infamous Mohan Srivastava, the one who cracked the scratch-off extended play lottery games?

              Anyway, I agree the game was flawed. Even though the public asked for a capped jackpot withd rolldown, the fact is that it favored someone with a huge bankroll coming in to scoop up all the money at certain times. In a public lottery funded by the general public, that is unacceptable. Its all about the integrity of the game. Even a private gambling institution wouldn't want to have a game with such a loophole in it.

                rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                United States
                Member #73904
                April 28, 2009
                14903 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: August 6, 2011, 10:57 am - IP Logged

                Yeah, I saw the broadcast of the story on Inside Edition too.

                Also, they didn't name him in the story, but wasn't that MIT professor the infamous Mohan Srivastava, the one who cracked the scratch-off extended play lottery games?

                Anyway, I agree the game was flawed. Even though the public asked for a capped jackpot withd rolldown, the fact is that it favored someone with a huge bankroll coming in to scoop up all the money at certain times. In a public lottery funded by the general public, that is unacceptable. Its all about the integrity of the game. Even a private gambling institution wouldn't want to have a game with such a loophole in it.

                Sounds like discrimination against smart people.

                These smart people weren't doing anything that you didn't have the same right to do.

                They weren't usurping any of your rights.

                You could have done the same exact thing they were doing if you wanted to.

                So what's the beef?

                  Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
                  Zeta Reticuli Star System
                  United States
                  Member #30470
                  January 17, 2006
                  10345 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: August 6, 2011, 11:24 am - IP Logged

                  When the guy was oinbterviewed on Inside Edition he said "Anyone could have done this". I guess he assumes everybody has $300,000 to throw at lotto.

                  They showed the MIT guy's name on the bottom of the screen when he was interviewed.

                  ____________________________________

                  I've been telling you guys that when anyone stumbles upon something like this, or if someone does "break the code" that game will no longer be available as it was, or in this case the flaw will be fixed, which it was.

                  Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

                  Lep

                  There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

                    rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                    Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                    United States
                    Member #73904
                    April 28, 2009
                    14903 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: August 6, 2011, 11:42 am - IP Logged

                    When the guy was oinbterviewed on Inside Edition he said "Anyone could have done this". I guess he assumes everybody has $300,000 to throw at lotto.

                    They showed the MIT guy's name on the bottom of the screen when he was interviewed.

                    ____________________________________

                    I've been telling you guys that when anyone stumbles upon something like this, or if someone does "break the code" that game will no longer be available as it was, or in this case the flaw will be fixed, which it was.

                    "When the guy was oinbterviewed on Inside Edition he said "Anyone could have done this". I guess he assumes everybody has $300,000 to throw at lotto."

                    What I'm saying is that if you take that premise to its logical conclusion, everyone has the same right to throw $300,000 at lotto and it is not the fault of the people who have it to throw that the ones complaining weren't smart enough to amass it.

                    No one was precluding them from amassing their own fortune to spend or invest or gamble in any legal manner they saw fit.

                    Sounds like sour grapes, jealousy and the anti-competition mentality of liberal malcontents and ne'er-do-wells.


                                                                 
                                         
                                                             

                     

                     

                     

                     

                                                                                                                       

                    "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                --Edmund Burke

                     

                     

                      Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
                      Los Angeles, California
                      United States
                      Member #103813
                      January 5, 2011
                      1530 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: August 6, 2011, 11:56 am - IP Logged

                      Sounds like discrimination against smart people.

                      These smart people weren't doing anything that you didn't have the same right to do.

                      They weren't usurping any of your rights.

                      You could have done the same exact thing they were doing if you wanted to.

                      So what's the beef?

                      Nope, you're wrong, not discrimination against smart people.

                      It is a flawed game, weighted towards someone with a large bankroll.

                      Imagine a simple poker game, where one person comes to the table with $100, and the other player comes to the table with $10,000. The guy with $100 bets $10 and the guy wih $10,000 bets $1000. The guy with $100 can't match that and folds, forfeiting the pot. This contiues for 9 more plays until the player who came with $100 is now broke, and the guy who came with $10,000 got a guaranteed $100 profit.

                      That is not how poker is played! that is a flawed game! An extreme example of the this topic, but it illustrates the point.

                      So you add rules and limits. You take turns betting, you give the option of all-in, you separate players with different bankrolls and betting amounts or have everyone start the poker tournament with the same amount. Its just common sense and fairness. They don't have to close down the game, just put some liits on it to make it fair.

                      I know you always like to bring politics into every lottery thread, but why not try arguing a topic on its merits for a change?

                        rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                        Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                        United States
                        Member #73904
                        April 28, 2009
                        14903 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: August 6, 2011, 1:20 pm - IP Logged

                        Nope, you're wrong, not discrimination against smart people.

                        It is a flawed game, weighted towards someone with a large bankroll.

                        Imagine a simple poker game, where one person comes to the table with $100, and the other player comes to the table with $10,000. The guy with $100 bets $10 and the guy wih $10,000 bets $1000. The guy with $100 can't match that and folds, forfeiting the pot. This contiues for 9 more plays until the player who came with $100 is now broke, and the guy who came with $10,000 got a guaranteed $100 profit.

                        That is not how poker is played! that is a flawed game! An extreme example of the this topic, but it illustrates the point.

                        So you add rules and limits. You take turns betting, you give the option of all-in, you separate players with different bankrolls and betting amounts or have everyone start the poker tournament with the same amount. Its just common sense and fairness. They don't have to close down the game, just put some liits on it to make it fair.

                        I know you always like to bring politics into every lottery thread, but why not try arguing a topic on its merits for a change?

                        Nope, you're wrong, sonny boy.

                         

                        "So you add rules and limits. You take turns betting, you give the option of all-in, you separate players with different bankrolls and betting amounts or have everyone start the poker tournament with the same amount. Its just common sense and fairness. They don't have to close down the game, just put some liits on it to make it fair."

                         

                        There already were your beloved rules and limits - people without money can't play. You just didn't like the particular rules and limits for that particular game and wanted them altered to fit your particular financial wherewithal which was dictated by your particular lack of success in your particular life history which resulted in your being particularly flat-ass broke most of the time.

                        Go to school, learn something, work hard, get a job, make something of yourself instead of just sitting around with your hand out complaining all the time like the liberal you are. Nobody likes a whiner. Snap out of it, nobody owes you anything.


                                                                     
                                             
                                                                 

                         

                         

                         

                         

                                                                                                                           

                        "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                    --Edmund Burke

                         

                         

                          imagine's avatar - WINGS

                          United States
                          Member #85047
                          January 7, 2010
                          102 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: August 6, 2011, 2:30 pm - IP Logged

                          Sounds like discrimination against smart people.

                          These smart people weren't doing anything that you didn't have the same right to do.

                          They weren't usurping any of your rights.

                          You could have done the same exact thing they were doing if you wanted to.

                          So what's the beef?

                          What don't you understand?

                          You need to go back and read the orginal article again.

                           

                          They were greedy and cheating.... The stores were sent letters in advance to not violate the rules for the big spenders.

                          They were so greedy they did it anyway, hence why they got suspended.

                          So because everyone didn't violate a lot of rules,  it's their stupidty?

                            rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                            Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                            United States
                            Member #73904
                            April 28, 2009
                            14903 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: August 6, 2011, 6:47 pm - IP Logged

                            What don't you understand?

                            You need to go back and read the orginal article again.

                             

                            They were greedy and cheating.... The stores were sent letters in advance to not violate the rules for the big spenders.

                            They were so greedy they did it anyway, hence why they got suspended.

                            So because everyone didn't violate a lot of rules,  it's their stupidty?

                            "So because everyone didn't violate a lot of rules,  it's their stupidty?"

                             

                            So you punish everybody for the misdeeds of a few?

                            Is that your idea of being fair?

                             

                            They don't have to change rules just cuz your "where's my free stuff?" crowd says so.

                            The market will decide if what they're doing is fair or not and let them adjust accordingly. They don't need your "Big Brother" mentality rushing in and changing everything to suit your broke-ass personal needs.

                            If the game is unfair, people won't play it, believe me, they'll get the message.


                                                                         
                                                 
                                                                     

                             

                             

                             

                             

                                                                                                                               

                            "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                        --Edmund Burke

                             

                             

                              Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
                              Los Angeles, California
                              United States
                              Member #103813
                              January 5, 2011
                              1530 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: August 6, 2011, 6:52 pm - IP Logged

                              Nope, you're wrong, sonny boy.

                               

                              "So you add rules and limits. You take turns betting, you give the option of all-in, you separate players with different bankrolls and betting amounts or have everyone start the poker tournament with the same amount. Its just common sense and fairness. They don't have to close down the game, just put some liits on it to make it fair."

                               

                              There already were your beloved rules and limits - people without money can't play. You just didn't like the particular rules and limits for that particular game and wanted them altered to fit your particular financial wherewithal which was dictated by your particular lack of success in your particular life history which resulted in your being particularly flat-ass broke most of the time.

                              Go to school, learn something, work hard, get a job, make something of yourself instead of just sitting around with your hand out complaining all the time like the liberal you are. Nobody likes a whiner. Snap out of it, nobody owes you anything.

                              So full of anger and hatred, you need help man...seriously...