Welcome Guest
You last visited December 5, 2016, 9:46 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Two workers in lottery pool sue over \$118 million ticket

Topic closed. 82 replies. Last post 4 years ago by dommom.

 Page 4 of 6

United States
Member #124814
March 20, 2012
219 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 18, 2012, 5:06 am - IP Logged

In the past, lottery prizes for pool members have been split in proportion to the amount of money contributed by each pool member. So, a player that contributes \$1.00 would get half the amount that a player that contribuited \$2.00 gets. This traditional precedent is most likely to be played out again in this matter

The contributions of money to purchase the winning ticket were not equal, and therfore the sharing of prizes should not be equal.

What is accepted shared equal among all, is an intagible component of the event that caused the jackpot win, the matter of randomness, etc. This factor is not easily measurable and no monies, or weights of monies were assigned to any player in specifics. Therefore, this accepted equality plays no role in the dividing of the prize money. Only the measurable monies that were brought in by each player,  should be used to sort out the payouts to each player including the two who did not contribute additional dollars.

It depends on how their pool is set up. If it's simply a set buy-in pool and everyone gets an equal share in the event of a jackpot win regardless of the amount they put in(\$1 vs \$2), then these two should be entitled to equal share of the overall jackpot. I've done a pool before and that's how we set it up. Each buy-in gave the person an equal share in the event of a jackpot win. I've sinced stopped doing pools, but I sure as hell wouldn't join a pool if those weren't the rules. In other words, we'd have the buy-in set at \$2, and if you wanted to contribute any more than that, that's up to you, but we'd all get equal share if we won. If Johnny wants to put a "little extra" into the pot, that's up to him, but he isn't taking away from my share. I just don't see how you could have it any other way.

If it was set up differently, then it should follow those rules.

Australia
Member #37136
April 11, 2006
3300 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 18, 2012, 7:39 am - IP Logged

anyone who runs a pool , heres a  nickle , ill pay you the rest later.

2014 = -1016; 2015= -1409; 2016 JAN = -106; FEB= -81; MAR= -131; APR= - 87: MAY= -91; JUN= -39; JUL=-134; AUG= -124; SEP = -123; OCT= -84  NOV=- 73 TOT= -3498

keno historic = -2291 ; 2015= -603; 2016= JAN=-32, FEB= +12 , MAR= -86, APR = -77. MAY= -48, JUN= -29, JUL=-71; AUG = -52; SEPT= -43; OCT = +56 NOV = -33 TOT= -3297

Johannesburg
South Africa
Member #113589
July 12, 2011
48 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 18, 2012, 8:15 am - IP Logged

It looks like the people who won the grand prize that day have forgotten that they were once upon a time just poor Pita Pan employees making Greek pitas, and other breads.

I predict that their Mega Millions prize money will bring them ONLY bad luck unless they reach a compromise with Franco and Medina.

I hope the lucky winners change their minds, so that all of them in the lottery pool win.

United States
Member #113300
July 6, 2011
35 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 18, 2012, 9:39 am - IP Logged

It depends on how their pool is set up. If it's simply a set buy-in pool and everyone gets an equal share in the event of a jackpot win regardless of the amount they put in(\$1 vs \$2), then these two should be entitled to equal share of the overall jackpot. I've done a pool before and that's how we set it up. Each buy-in gave the person an equal share in the event of a jackpot win. I've sinced stopped doing pools, but I sure as hell wouldn't join a pool if those weren't the rules. In other words, we'd have the buy-in set at \$2, and if you wanted to contribute any more than that, that's up to you, but we'd all get equal share if we won. If Johnny wants to put a "little extra" into the pot, that's up to him, but he isn't taking away from my share. I just don't see how you could have it any other way.

If it was set up differently, then it should follow those rules.

COMPLETELY disagree! So you're saying if I put in \$10 to a lottery pool and everyone else put in a \$1, that those winners are ALSO entitled to an equal share of the jackpot. What are you smoking? Where is the fairness in that? That does NOT make one ounce of sense.

I remember a story on The Lottery Changed My Life where people who worked at some Tiki restauraunt pooled for the Lottery. Well, they hit. The woman who put in \$2 got a higher percentage than those who put in \$1.

So, while i respect your opinions, i believe they are WAY off. \$2 vs \$1 is a 100% difference in equity.

If this case settles in favor of the non-participants, then they will most likely end up with the percentage of their ownership of the \$9 previous win.

S.E.Iowa
United States
Member #120504
December 21, 2011
534 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 18, 2012, 9:57 am - IP Logged

If you like fighting with your co-workers...join a lottery pool.If you enjoy giving lawyers a share of your winnings...join a lottery pool.If you want to avoid the fights with your co-workers and avoid paying the lawyers a share of your winnings...then say NO when invited to join a lottery pool.Seems pretty simple to me.Play your own numbers and you don't have to share with anyone except Uncle Sam & your state, through taxation.

When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it. ~Clarence Darrow

There ought to be one day - just one - when there is open season on senators. ~Will Rogers

PA
United States
Member #66141
October 16, 2008
1672 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 18, 2012, 10:11 am - IP Logged

I always play on my own, but I don't have any coworkers anywho!

dpoly1 - Playing the lottery to save the jobs of those that build, transport, sell & maintain luxury items! -

Eschew Poverty ........... Vote Conservative!

Plano
United States
Member #12225
March 8, 2005
25 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 18, 2012, 3:06 pm - IP Logged

NEVER EVER EVER EVER PLAY in a Lottery Pool without a Lottery Pool Contract. I don't care if they're your best friends, relatives or even your own mother or father. Today, we live in a wicked world,  were values are put on the back burner and trust isn't everything. I play in a Lottery Pool, there are ten onf us. we all signed a contract, and if anyone wihes to drop out it has to be in writing, that way if someone does drop out we have it on paper, no reason to go to court, to hold up everyones money that is due to them.

It is EXTREMELY DUMB  and I undeline the DUMB to join in a Lottery Pool without a contract.

That's my 2 cents now spend it wisely.

United States
Member #124814
March 20, 2012
219 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 18, 2012, 6:08 pm - IP Logged

COMPLETELY disagree! So you're saying if I put in \$10 to a lottery pool and everyone else put in a \$1, that those winners are ALSO entitled to an equal share of the jackpot. What are you smoking? Where is the fairness in that? That does NOT make one ounce of sense.

I remember a story on The Lottery Changed My Life where people who worked at some Tiki restauraunt pooled for the Lottery. Well, they hit. The woman who put in \$2 got a higher percentage than those who put in \$1.

So, while i respect your opinions, i believe they are WAY off. \$2 vs \$1 is a 100% difference in equity.

If this case settles in favor of the non-participants, then they will most likely end up with the percentage of their ownership of the \$9 previous win.

Like I said, it depends on the rules of their pool. If the pool has a \$2 buy-in, and you decide to put a little extra in, that's up to you, but only \$2 was required to get in. If Johnny decides to get bold with a \$10 bet, why should the rest of the pool suffer? I'm just sayin, I wouldn't join a pool with any other set of rules. If you're telling me the buy-in is \$5, I don't want someone coming in out of nowhere and putting in \$20 and taking money away from everyone else.

Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
United States
Member #73904
April 28, 2009
14903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 18, 2012, 10:28 pm - IP Logged

Some girl'd giggle and I'd get red

And some guy'd laugh and I'd bust his head

I'll tell ya, life ain't easy for an ol' boy in a pool

Good thing I don't get in pools cuz Bubba don't play dat.

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

--Edmund Burke

NY
United States
Member #23835
October 16, 2005
3474 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 19, 2012, 1:16 am - IP Logged

Reality is... these JackPot winners SHOULD NOT be liable to split the jackpot with the other NON-participants. The Roll over money that existed should simply be paid out according to percentage of the Lottery Pool to the 2 "players" that were in the pool previously. So \$9.00 divided by number of players for that draw is what SHOULD be paid out to those individuals who were NOT a part of the JackPot winning draw.

If these Lottery Players who DID NOT participate were so concerned about NOT being included, why didn't they say ANYTHING on Thursday when the ORIGINAL collections would take place on prior draws to those who were in charge of the Lottery Pool? Apparentley they had NO qualms about NOT putting money in when it WASN'T asked for on Thursday because it was apparently collected on Wednesday! Even though they MAY not have been informed of the unusual Wednesday collection. Reality is, the NON-participants may have possibly thought "ah, ill just skip this draw and keep my money in my pocket for now instead of participating in this drawing", thinking that they might just be throwing there money away for this upcoming drawing.

It's not like they were making waves for NOT being able to participate PRIOR to the FRIDAY Mega Millions draw. If anything, maybe the one buying the tickets bought them a day earlier possibly due to the Jackpot excitement of \$118,000,000 or just NOT being able to purchase the tickets on Thursday because of other plans or a combination of both. Who Knows...

All I know, based on the common sense of Property Ownership, the 2 non-participants should receive their share of the \$9.00 winnings and that's it! Simple as that. You don't participate, YOU DON'T WIN!

Lottery Pools should NOT be obigated to make sure everyone who were in previous draws are magically included in future draws based upon past participation. That's just not fair. What's fair is that all who ARE part of the pool and want to remain A PART of the pool, pony over the dough when required or in worst case scenario before the drawing occurs.

Crying about it AFTER the Jackpot was won, well, that's just greed on the non-participants part.

This is the same as if you played the same numbers every drawing for 10 years, but, failed to play them the night they actually were drawn. Should the lottery be responsible to pay out based upon previous participation with the winning numbers? Of course not, and so it is in this case that the jackpot should be paid to those WHO PARTICIPATED FOR THAT SPECIFIC DRAWING! SIMPLE!

This is EXACTLY why I WANT NOTHING to do with Lottery Pools!

"All I know, based on the common sense of Property Ownership"

It's not about "property ownership". It's a contract dispute that's governed by contract law. If the claims in the article are true the two people suing were members of the pool and participated in the winning drawing. As members they're entitled to share in the winnings under the same rules as all other members. If those rules are that prizes are shared equally they're entitled to equal shares.

A party (or parties) to a contract can't unilaterally change the terms without the consent of all parties to the contract.  Absent terms to the contrary, any member(s) of the pool could leave at any time, and start a new pool with new rules, but that's not what they did.  They simply chose to ignore the terms of the contract and collect money on a different day without notifying all parties to the contract. In doing that they gave up the right to change the terms that they would have had if they had given all parties the chance to agree to the new terms or to discontinue the existing pool. If the other members simply forgot to notify everyone and collect money they simply lost the few bucks they could have collected. If they intended to eliminate anyone from the pool they should have done it lawfully when those people weren't already included by virtue of the money from the previous winnings.

Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
United States
Member #73904
April 28, 2009
14903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 19, 2012, 10:43 am - IP Logged

This is just one more example of a lesson not learned. A never-ending saga of having to deal with all the hassles that always arrise and the inevitable sleazy, slimy lawyers who will take and steal as much of your money as they possibly can.

Stay out of pools.

They rarely win anyway, compared to individuals.

And you won't have to deal with all the headaches and sleazy lawyers dripping slime all over what should be a celebration.

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

--Edmund Burke

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7302 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 19, 2012, 1:57 pm - IP Logged

This is just one more example of a lesson not learned. A never-ending saga of having to deal with all the hassles that always arrise and the inevitable sleazy, slimy lawyers who will take and steal as much of your money as they possibly can.

Stay out of pools.

They rarely win anyway, compared to individuals.

And you won't have to deal with all the headaches and sleazy lawyers dripping slime all over what should be a celebration.

but there is somebody who will tell us the "smart way" to run a pool. And if that pool wins the jackpot we'll have another article about a another lawsuit.

Lavender Rocket

United States
Member #124616
March 16, 2012
2642 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 19, 2012, 4:08 pm - IP Logged

but there is somebody who will tell us the "smart way" to run a pool. And if that pool wins the jackpot we'll have another article about a another lawsuit.

1.  everyone put in the price of 1 ticket into the pool.

2.  pool manager buys tickets with the exact same number on each ticket.

3.  pool manager hands out tickets, one to each member.

4.  if they win - everyone cashes in their OWN ticket for their OWN portion of the pool.

5.  those IN the pool have a ticket to prove it.  those NOT in - dont have a ticket.

(typed using 'innocent-look-in-eyes' font)

Egg Harbor twp.south Jersey shore
United States
Member #112968
June 29, 2011
3854 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 19, 2012, 4:13 pm - IP Logged

1.  everyone put in the price of 1 ticket into the pool.

2.  pool manager buys tickets with the exact same number on each ticket.

3.  pool manager hands out tickets, one to each member.

4.  if they win - everyone cashes in their OWN ticket for their OWN portion of the pool.

5.  those IN the pool have a ticket to prove it.  those NOT in - dont have a ticket.

(typed using 'innocent-look-in-eyes' font)

LOL Good one !

Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds    -- Charles Mackay  LL.D.

Bahamas
Member #114685
August 5, 2011
422 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 19, 2012, 4:17 pm - IP Logged

1.  everyone put in the price of 1 ticket into the pool.

2.  pool manager buys tickets with the exact same number on each ticket.

3.  pool manager hands out tickets, one to each member.

4.  if they win - everyone cashes in their OWN ticket for their OWN portion of the pool.

5.  those IN the pool have a ticket to prove it.  those NOT in - dont have a ticket.

(typed using 'innocent-look-in-eyes' font)

That would be costly and defeat the purpose of the pool which is to be in position to buy a large number of tickets

"Freedom of Speech? Keep reading and you will discover that freedom comes at a price!"

 Page 4 of 6