Very interesting! My first thought was how awesome this was - I have always felt that more states needed to band together to get better lottery games. 

However - $2??!! No thank you.

Also, there is no lump sum allowed. I am not a conspiracy theory person, however, I do not trust the government to keep paying me $7,000 a week for life for 20 years. As soon as they need the money, they'll take what they can.

I believe in a one-time lump sum.

Replaces my tri- state game of "Weekly Grand", which had a top prize of $50K for 20 years. Very rare to see anyone win. Hope these

six New England states and the revamping of this game make a difference. Have already bought my PP and QP this past Sunday. And I

do plan on becoming the first Jackpot winner of this game right out of the box.   

The odds are almost the same for Ohio's Classic Lotto which is a pick six 1-49 game.  It's odds are 1 in 13,983,816.  It usually goes for months without anyone hitting it.

       Roger that, dk.

I love how no one trust the goverment but uses their services everyday.

LOL@ grovel

I don't get the whole "they'll take what they can" attitude that's prevalent on this site regarding the reasoning behind lump sums being preferable to annuities.  It's one thing to be worried about taxes going up, but taxes are unavoidable.  There is no legal way to get out of paying taxes on that kind of money; with the lump sum they'll hit you all at once in the beginning, and depending on what you do with your winnings they'll probably hit you again somewhere down the road.  Whether it's a one-time huge chunk or smaller pieces over time, you will end up paying.  They'll get you coming or going.

Another concern is inflation.  The idea seems to be that somehow your winnings will be protected from inflation if you invest the lump sum yourself rather than taking the annuity from the lottery.  This doesn't make sense to me; inflation affects the value of ALL dollars, regardless of whether they're public or private.

The conspiracy theory that seems to be at the core of this, however, goes further than taxes and seems to be centered on the belief that someday the s**t will hit the fan and the government will outright confiscate all existing lottery annuities.  Well, my friends, if that happens, chances are we'll be worrying about a whole lot more than a few shmucks who lost their lottery money... you know, like survival and the complete collapse of civilization.

Anyway, I digress.  A lump sum wouldn't be appropriate for "win for life" games like Lucky For Life because the whole point of the top prize is that it's an open-ended payment.  You literally win for life.  The minimum payout is 20 years worth of payments, so if you hit the jackpot and then kick the bucket 5 years later, your estate still gets the remaining 15 years.  (I don't know if they'd pay out the remainder all at once or keep up the regular payment schedule.)  You could live for 40 years and you'd still be eligible to receive the $7,000 per week.

I agree. 

Besides, lottery annuities are not paid out by the government.  They are paid out by privately-held banks.  The lottery shops around to see which banks provides the best rates, and awards the business (the annuity) to the bank.

With this in mind, it is ridiculous to say that the government is going to stop paying or something.  Once the annuity is set up, the government is no longer in the picture.  (Other than taxing the payout every year.)

I like these kinds of games and for most people they are probably better. Honestly for most people when you just hand them a huge chunk of cash at one time very little good can come from that and most likely they will blow it all. 

Even for the big jackpots I always assumed you either had to take all cash or do the annuity until I was watching one of those lottery shows and the guy took part of the prize in a lump sum and the rest in an annuity which I thought was the best way to go. 

$4000 a week or so for life would be pretty good for almost anyone and would be an ideal prize.

Sounds like Ohio has a coverage problem with Classic Lotto.  (Sales are stagnant and not enough tickets are sold to cover enough combinations out of almost 14 million possible combo's to produce a JP winner.)

But what's the population of Ohio compared to the combined populations of the 6 New England states?  IMHO, there's an excellent opportunity to sell enough tickets so as not to have a coverage problem. In addition the lower tier prizes arent bad for Lucky for Life, so my guess is you'll see enough JP winners to give the new game some legs.  If there are a few early JP winners, the game could take off.  Time will tell.

I do know this, I''m reasonably close to Connecticut, and I have reason to go to Connecticut every few months. I'll be sure and get a ticket or two when I do.

Media...let me share some light on the "cash now" mentality. You made great points on the taxes and inflation now and taxes down the road issues....Here's some more food for thought....At 35% tax rate as of right now ??....my taxes are all done, finished without any chance of increase at all over then next 29 years. The only tax I pay is on the interest I make in the future on the multi millions in my current possession that I have invested.
     I can buy my houses, cars, vacation homes, land, gold, silver, loose cash, guns, a storage or living bunker, long term food supplies, jewelry, hobby stuff or anything I want RIGHT NOW or within a few weeks/ months of the big payday. NO or little inflation involved during that time.... If I wait and do the "annuity" over time, like you pointed out, inflation,market demand,booming economy,production costs will definitely go up in the future.
      If you took the annuity and the pay out was 2 million over 29 years.(just an example)..out of 2 million the feds get 35% now leaving you with 1.3 million.. If you have to take state taxes out as well, from that 2 million and a nice house and cars and what I described above it could all be easily wiped out leaving you short, waiting for another year and the next big annuity check....SEE what I mean...Like J.G. Wentworth commercials say, " It's my money and I want it now". Also the Boys Scouts have a pretty good motto with "be prepared".
    While we cant predict the future in 2-10-29 years, we can say with certainty that cars aren't getting cheaper, houses built are not going to cheaper and numerous other BIG DOLLAR products won't be less expensive down the road. If I get the big stuff(purchases & taxes) out of the way now...then purchasing the smaller stuff in the future won't be a big deal if "sh*t does hit the fan"..... Just my humble opinion

I agree. It was a smart move to involve all of these states, practically guaranteeing the adequate numbers of people necessary to produce winning

jackpots, and lower tier prizes. Unless  your a mega state such as CA, TX or NY, this would be a tough one to pull off. I think this game will

have great success. 

You'll be taking the lump sum from 2-nite's MM, no doubt CD.

Todd, you need to check your sources.  Most lotteries are paid by the state lottery agency where the winner bought the ticket, NOT a bank.  Also, the money for annuity payments in invested in US Bonds.  If the gov't goes broke, a likely scenario given the current path we're on, your annuity bonds are worthless and your payments will cease...

 I just wish they offered a lump sum for the jackpot say 5 mill ? If you stretch 7,000/wk over 20 years(the standard annuity garantee), you get 7.28mil 65%(the standard lump sum percentage) of which would be 4,732,000. Round it off to an even 5mil -taxes. This would give the older folks more incentive to play. I think they're alienating a large % of the lotto players by not having a lump sum option.

I wonder if any lottery annuity could be sold to places like Peachtree or J.G. Wentworth for a lump sum? Some knowledgeable LP'er should  be

responding soon.   

Yes, yes you can. http://www.jgwentworth.com/lottery/lotterywinnings.aspx

Well I believe I just answered my own question. I contacted the MA lottery headquarters in Braintree, and was told that although "Lucky For Life"

doe's not have the lump sum option for the jackpot prize, you could sell to third party buyers such as Peachtree. Problem is their pay rate is terrible.

The rep I talked to indicated you may get only get about a third of what you would get for the 20 year annuity.   

Thank you CO!

anyone over 50 should avoid this game. although it will keep your spending in check to a degree,(opposed to getting a lump sum and not being able to handle it) the 2.00 price tag and the degree of difficulty in actually hitting it would steer older players away. better off playing a 2.00 pik 5 game(5 out of 35 for 200k) seems more appealing and the odds are only 325,00-1 as opposed to this outrageous odds likelihood. the new game novelty will lure in many and the 1000.00 a day for life sounds good but  many will soon be frustrated with their lack of success with this one. just remember 365k a year x 20 is only 7,300,000. nothing to sneer at but for many on here it doesn't seem like enough since they won't even play the big games unless it is over 100m. i say pass on this one, unless you are under 40.

I still disagree about the taxes, though.  Sure, you'd only be paying taxes on the interest going forward, but if taxes go up, you're still paying the higher rate, just on a smaller amount.  And if you need to tap into the principal for some reason, they'll hit you for that with the higher rate.  Granted, I'm no expert and I'm only playing around with the numbers in my head.  Maybe the picture would be clearer if I sat down and actually wrote out the numbers and ran a few scenarios.

The "I want my money now because I plan on splashing out so big that I need more than a year's worth upfront" argument is one I can get behind.  That and the "I think I can do a better job of investing this than the lottery can" argument sound perfectly valid to me, and are probably the only two that ring true.

It's still my preference, though, to opt for the annuity.  Personally, I think I'd be better off receiving a jackpot over time rather than all at once.  If everyone else wants the lump sum, go for it.

Just curious,what age group are you in?

Good luck to the people playing this new game.

even if you can sell the payments to a 3rd party and even if u can get a better rate than u were quoted Mac, It just doesn't seem likely to be worth the trouble for older folks when there are other options out there. The only redeeming quality for this game to an elderly person is the better odds. You add a lump sum and you keep all of those players. Without it, there won't be many who play. I myself will stay away not because of my age (im only 31) but because there is no garantee we won't destroy ourselves within 20 years nevermind if the state can remain fiscally responsible enough to make good on all the payments.

Man, I wish Indiana would join a multi-state game. I hope we join Decades of Dollars.

I guess my take on it would be young or old, a win is a win, no matter what the game. Perhaps it's the allure of a new game, also because it's not

one of the "BIG GAMES", or the "small" jackpot single state games. Kinda of like the Goldilock's of games for me.......just right!   

This should be nice, however i feel like the lottery need to get off this $2 wager this is more money in their pockets the powerball hooped and hollered oh their are going to be more winners.

We need to get rid of the powerball all together their is still 1 winner everytime the jackpot is won and i noticed rhode island won again thsi recent powerball win the lottery is set up i'm convinced.

total nonsensical to believe that a certain state or region is "set up" to win these things. it is the numbers that you either pick yourself no matter where you live, or if you trust a random generator or a patels fingers to time your quick pik (a non-compelling way to play) it is not slanted to the northeast or anywhere else. just plain coincidence or more people playing in a certain region that determines winners. if you want more winners lobby to have the field size of numbers reduced. there are too many which leads to there only being one winner every 6 or 7 weeks or so.

Yes, that would seem to be the problem.  The JP only goes up about 100,000 for every drawing, which means it takes forever to get to a sizeable sum.  It last hit in December and started over at 1 million.  Now its up to just over 5 million.

Early 30s.  That's probably why I like the Win For Life games, though I'm not sure whether or not my age affects my opinion on the larger lump sum/annuity issue.

Ouch!  And I thought New York Lotto was bad.  The jackpot starts at $3 million and increases by $500K for each rollover.  It used to be more (a couple million at a time, at least), but Lotto has decreased in popularity since NY joined Mega Millions and Powerball.

Well, the new trend is going to be $2 a ticket for new games coming out. Texas is bringing out a new game later this year that will cost $2. I don't have a problem spending more than a dollar on a lottery game, but if it costs $2 to start with, then I have a hard time buying more than one ticket. I'm buying $5 worth of Texas 2 Step tics on Thursdsay, but if they were $2 a tic, then I wouldn't.

already got my qp.

Good luck!

Lotteries fund annuity prizes in a couple of ways.  Some lotteries are limited to a very few U.S. government bonds.  Others can buy a much wider range of government-backed securities and, in some cases securities held in trust by custodial banks to back portions of the annuity payments (though generally not more than 10% of the principle and interest).  In other cases, like Lucky For Life, the annuity payments are paid through insurance company contracts.  In a very eerie kind of way, insurance companies know how long a person is going to live and the lottery will pay the price for that contract.

But the winner does not stand the risk of the investment.  An annuity win is a contract with the lottery corporation or states running the lotteries.  If the investment fails, the lottery will still need to honor the contract.

In cases where the lottery holds the securities to maturity, they cash in on some regular basis and cut the check.  In the case of an insurance annuity, the insurance company will likely cut the check.

Annuity options exist in U.S. lottery games because of taxes.  However, Canada (with tax-free lottery prizes) has a successful annuity game.  Players like the idea that they can screw up for a year or two and still look forward to a payment next year. 

CASH is not always the best option.  The are known factors to consider.  Imagine a financial advisor coming to you and saying - let's take your income BEFORE taxes, invest it, then pay it out over XX number of years as a graduated annuity (to keep up with inflation).  Oh, and the annual payments are 100% guaranteed (as much as that phrase has any meaning on a planet that will not endure for all eternity).  Most folks (and financial experts) would jump at that chance - and that is exactly what the Powerball annuity does.

The U.S. has a graduated tax system.  The more you earn in a single tax year, the higher your tax percentage.  Taking CASH pushes the most dollars into the highest rate (35% for the feds, state amounts vary).  Spreading out the payments means that the first dollar you get each year is tax-free (actually some higher amount depending on some personal factors). 

Now, are there times when cash is good?  The current U.S. maximum tax rate is at historic lows (despite what you hear on FOX).  Tax rates are likely to go up.  Interest rates for your investment are at historic lows.  Even though you are investing FAR LESS after taxes (and so will earn far less), you MIGHT be able to do better by paying the 45% or so to state and federal taxes and waiting for better interest rates.

Of course, matched against the 100% guranteed annuity stream, there is a risk that you will do something or something will happen so that you lose it all.  There is not ONE RIGHT ANSWER.  You need to know who you are (did you save enough money to retire and maintain your same frugal lifestyle by the time you were 35?  You need to predict the future a bit.

One thing you should take into consideration....Look at all the jackpot winners on both the Powerball and the MegaMillions over the last several years......How many took the CASH versus Annuity ? A reasonable educated guess is that enough of those winners consulted with a financial planner before they claimed....How many were told to take the annuity ???   Do you honestly believe these people went AGAINST their financial planners advice ???   Cash is king

Hired "financial experts" do indeed usually recommend taking the cash.  Then they get to charge a fee to play with the money left over after taxes.  But if you ask about facts, they can start to sputter.  I've read columns by "financial experts" who "forget" about taxes and think they can invest the entire cash amount (like the lottery can) or who do the math without knowing that there are annual payments involved (they run spreadsheets inveseting the whole amount for 25 years).  This is one area where it doesn't take a lot of smarts to figure out your best option and you do need to question the "experts".  There ARE some good arguments for taking the cash these days (with low taxes and low interest rates) but you also need to think about where you are going to put the money (how deep the hole in your back yard); how you are going to invest half the money (after taxes) and earn as much as the annuity (which invests twice as much); and whether you are the kind of person who won't spend it all.

I would tell you to take cash too so that I would get a bigger management fee for managing the money plus the added bonus of possibly taking you for everything that you have. If you think the lawyers and the financial planners out there are your friends especially when it comes to that kind of cash, then you have another thing coming. 

I can't even count on my hands the amount of people I know personally that have been taken by financial advisors for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. 

Once you invest a certain amount of money it used to be at least $100,000 you were considered an institutional investor and an expert and could not claim ignorance of the market if your money was lost by a financial advisor, even if you were completely ignorant.

I would'nt be surprised if it goes 10 drawings or more with no winners. Curious to see how this works out.

"...(despite what you hear on FOX)."

Uh-oh.

Cash vs. annuity debate aside, I've been anxiously awaiting this game for several reasons.

First, as a Vermont resident, I've been clamoring for a Monday/Thursday draw game for a long time now.  Many states already have either a daily or a Mon/Thurs game for a while now, and only now has Vermont (and, by extension, Maine and New Hampshire) begun to offer such a game. 

Second, Lucky for Life is infinitely preferable to the outgoing Weekly Grand (Extra).  The only time I ever won anything appreciable was by using a trick in which I marked the same two numbers for all five game panels on the playslip and had the machine QP the rest.  When those two numbers, along with a couple of others on that ticket, came up, I ended up winning about $60...but just once.  The Friday raffle was a joke as well, with a grand total of 120 tickets out of tens of thousands winning just $100.  Lucky for Life replaces that with more easily attainable, albeit smaller, prizes. 

The top prize is also very appealing to me at my current age of 35; the prospect of earning more in one day than I do in two weeks' worth of work makes it what I call "quit-your-job money."  $365,000 a year (give or take, depending on the frequency of the actual payments) for the rest of my life?  Sign me up!

Unless they pay more for the lower-tier prizes, I would not play this game.