Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 4:15 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Texas Lottery suspends sales for 'All or Nothing' game

Topic closed. 46 replies. Last post 3 years ago by Ronnie316.

Page 3 of 4
3.76
PrintE-mailLink
RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19817 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 4, 2013, 9:58 pm - IP Logged

Seriously?!?  I have never played pick3 or pick4 games, so don't know anything about them, but it blows my mind that on any game where you pick your own numbers, you might not be allowed to play the numbers you want!!!  What a rip-off!!!

If you know those are the rules before you play, how can it be a rip-off?  Besides, if you can't buy a ticket how are you going to get ripped-off.  Same thing applies if your numbers come in but you played them too late for the drawing they were drawn.

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

    Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
    Los Angeles, California
    United States
    Member #103813
    January 5, 2011
    1530 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: June 4, 2013, 11:39 pm - IP Logged

    There you go, player angst. Wink

    I really don't agree with limiting number combos as a way to limit liability. Why do it on the front end and piss off players unneccessarily when you don't have to? Any particular number combo with a large number of wagers is not likely to be drawn anyway. So just deal with it on the back end with pari-mutual prize payout exceptions, if and when it happens. Then the only people it affects are those winners. And if the rules are made clear about reduced prizes under certain circumstances, I'm sure they'll be more understanding.

    Maybe it was a bonehead move to include the odd/even and high/low options on the All or Nothing playslip in the first place. It would be more of a bonehead move to come out now and say the solution is to remove those options, and limit duplicate wagers on the same sets of numbers. A pari-mutuel exception rule change is the way to go.

      Avatar
      NY
      United States
      Member #23835
      October 16, 2005
      3474 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: June 5, 2013, 12:34 am - IP Logged

      Maybe some high rollers have come up with a winning scheme like what happened in Massachusetts.  The lottery would only start losing money if the regular players felt the high rollers had an unfair advantage and stopped playing. 

      I would be surprised if Texas didn't have a liability clause somewhere in their rules.  Ohio has them but most players never bother to read them even when they are printed on the play slips as was the case a few years ago when Buckeye5 had a top prize of $100K with a cap of $1M if there were more than ten winners.  A guy brought 20 tickets with the same combination which won and he sued when he got 20/21 shares of $1M instead of the $2M he thought he won.  He lost the case.

      Nobody has come up with a winning a scheme, because the game is random and has fixed prizes. The problem is that in this game they advertise that the prizes are guaranteed. There's no escape hatch when they get an unusually high number of winners, and some idiot designed it so that it exposed them to the possibility of an extremely high number of winners.

      There are about 2.7 million combinations for a 12 of 24 game. That makes the odds of having all or nothing 1 in 1.35 million, and the prize structure is based on those odds. If people picked their 12 numbers randomly averaging more than 1 winner for every 1.35 million tickets sold would be very unusual, but not all people pick random combinations. Based on the figures they've reported they've been selling about 130,000 tickets per day, and collecting about $260,000.  Even if they hadn't been stupid enough to give people a choice right on the slip to play odd, even,  1 to 12, or 13 to 24  there would probably have been at least 100 tickets for each of those combinations for every drawing. By making it so easy they may have had thousands of people playing each of those combinations, and if one of them is drawn all the people who played the opposite combination also win. The chances of paying for one of those combinations is only 1 in 676,000, but if it happened they could have been on the hook for a half billion or more.

        savagegoose's avatar - ProfilePho
        adelaide sa
        Australia
        Member #37136
        April 11, 2006
        3300 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: June 5, 2013, 8:11 am - IP Logged

        yeah could be they see half the players ar playing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

        and if it actually came out the liabilty would be a few billion.

        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

          helpmewin's avatar - dandy
          u$a
          United States
          Member #106665
          February 22, 2011
          19750 Posts
          Online
          Posted: June 5, 2013, 8:31 am - IP Logged

          yeah could be they see half the players ar playing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

          and if it actually came out the liabilty would be a few billion.

          01-02-03-04-07-08-16-19-20- all draws under 20 is a good deal Yes Nod

            rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
            Texas
            United States
            Member #55889
            October 23, 2007
            5588 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: June 5, 2013, 9:30 am - IP Logged

            Well whatever happens, it ain't gonna be quick. For whatever rules changes there might be, the lottery director (Grief) has to present the commissioners with a proposed rule change. Then there is a comment period (can't remember how long) in which anyone can comment on the proposed rule change. Then the commissioners rule to accept or decline the rule change. This usually takes 2 or 3 months as a whole. Also, I can't remember the commissioners not accepting a proposed rule change presented to them. Their kinda like "puppets". On a string. LOL.

            CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

            A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)

              helpmewin's avatar - dandy
              u$a
              United States
              Member #106665
              February 22, 2011
              19750 Posts
              Online
              Posted: June 5, 2013, 11:18 am - IP Logged

              Well whatever happens, it ain't gonna be quick. For whatever rules changes there might be, the lottery director (Grief) has to present the commissioners with a proposed rule change. Then there is a comment period (can't remember how long) in which anyone can comment on the proposed rule change. Then the commissioners rule to accept or decline the rule change. This usually takes 2 or 3 months as a whole. Also, I can't remember the commissioners not accepting a proposed rule change presented to them. Their kinda like "puppets". On a string. LOL.

              that's good news Smiley

                Avatar
                Kentucky
                United States
                Member #32652
                February 14, 2006
                7297 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: June 5, 2013, 11:55 am - IP Logged

                Nobody has come up with a winning a scheme, because the game is random and has fixed prizes. The problem is that in this game they advertise that the prizes are guaranteed. There's no escape hatch when they get an unusually high number of winners, and some idiot designed it so that it exposed them to the possibility of an extremely high number of winners.

                There are about 2.7 million combinations for a 12 of 24 game. That makes the odds of having all or nothing 1 in 1.35 million, and the prize structure is based on those odds. If people picked their 12 numbers randomly averaging more than 1 winner for every 1.35 million tickets sold would be very unusual, but not all people pick random combinations. Based on the figures they've reported they've been selling about 130,000 tickets per day, and collecting about $260,000.  Even if they hadn't been stupid enough to give people a choice right on the slip to play odd, even,  1 to 12, or 13 to 24  there would probably have been at least 100 tickets for each of those combinations for every drawing. By making it so easy they may have had thousands of people playing each of those combinations, and if one of them is drawn all the people who played the opposite combination also win. The chances of paying for one of those combinations is only 1 in 676,000, but if it happened they could have been on the hook for a half billion or more.

                "If people picked their 12 numbers randomly averaging more than 1 winner for every 1.35 million tickets sold would be very unusual, but not all people pick random combinations."

                It's unlikely even in the 5/39 games with a fixed jackpot that very many players will play the same combination twice so the lottery doesn't assume they will have extra multiple jackpot and secondary prize winners. In this game, mathematically there is no difference between betting the same combo twice and playing one combo and the opposite combo. But in this game it's more likely that more players will play the opposite set and double the secondary and jackpot prize payouts. Because there are four drawings a day, creating individual rolling jackpots for matching 12 and matching 0 is not a very good solution.

                "By making it so easy they may have had thousands of people playing each of those combinations, and if one of them is drawn all the people who played the opposite combination also win."

                I Agree! In every lottery game there are highly played numbers, but this game actually encourages it on their play slips. As for winning the jackpot, it really wasn't a dumb idea because the odds are still 2.7 million to 1 against, but when more than average drawings have 9 or more even or low numbers, it really cuts their profits. And if that 2.7 million to 1 chance happened in the next 100 drawing, they will show a huge overall loss.

                "The chances of paying for one of those combinations is only 1 in 676,000, but if it happened they could have been on the hook for a half billion or more."

                That would require 1000 players playing both high and low or even and odd, but considering they did close the game, you might not be that far off.

                  PlayToWin47's avatar - Lottery-041.jpg
                  Joplin MO
                  United States
                  Member #138489
                  January 28, 2013
                  190 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: June 5, 2013, 1:17 pm - IP Logged

                  There you go, player angst. Wink

                  I really don't agree with limiting number combos as a way to limit liability. Why do it on the front end and piss off players unneccessarily when you don't have to? Any particular number combo with a large number of wagers is not likely to be drawn anyway. So just deal with it on the back end with pari-mutual prize payout exceptions, if and when it happens. Then the only people it affects are those winners. And if the rules are made clear about reduced prizes under certain circumstances, I'm sure they'll be more understanding.

                  Maybe it was a bonehead move to include the odd/even and high/low options on the All or Nothing playslip in the first place. It would be more of a bonehead move to come out now and say the solution is to remove those options, and limit duplicate wagers on the same sets of numbers. A pari-mutuel exception rule change is the way to go.

                  Nicely put ... I agree!

                    PlayToWin47's avatar - Lottery-041.jpg
                    Joplin MO
                    United States
                    Member #138489
                    January 28, 2013
                    190 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: June 5, 2013, 1:22 pm - IP Logged

                    If you know those are the rules before you play, how can it be a rip-off?  Besides, if you can't buy a ticket how are you going to get ripped-off.  Same thing applies if your numbers come in but you played them too late for the drawing they were drawn.

                    Whether it is in the rules or not, before I play or whatever, to be told that "no, you can't play those numbers because too many other people are already playing them" just isn't right!!!

                    At least the pari-mutual thing if too many people win with the same set is understandable.  I may not be so happy that I didn't win as much as I should have or as much as is advertised ... but it IS understandable.

                      PlayToWin47's avatar - Lottery-041.jpg
                      Joplin MO
                      United States
                      Member #138489
                      January 28, 2013
                      190 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: June 5, 2013, 2:17 pm - IP Logged

                      If you know those are the rules before you play, how can it be a rip-off?  Besides, if you can't buy a ticket how are you going to get ripped-off.  Same thing applies if your numbers come in but you played them too late for the drawing they were drawn.

                      Sure ... you're right ... "rip-off" is not correct ... unless the numbers that you wanted to play came up, and you didn't win because you were not allowed to play those numbers.  Then, the lottery ripped you off of the winnings that should be in your pocket.

                        Avatar
                        NY
                        United States
                        Member #23835
                        October 16, 2005
                        3474 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: June 7, 2013, 12:33 am - IP Logged

                        "The chances of paying for one of those combinations is only 1 in 676,000, but if it happened they could have been on the hook for a half billion or more."

                        That would require 1000 players playing both high and low or even and odd, but considering they did close the game, you might not be that far off.

                         

                        It's not people playing both high and low or even and odd. Even if nobody played both even and odd or high and low it's a fairly safe bet that all four options are played equally. If 500 people play even there are probably close to 500 who play odd.  Whatever the actual numbers are, if the winning numbers are all odd, then everyone who played even also wins. They didn't just make it easy for huge numbers of people to play the same winning combination, they effectively doubled that number by making everyone with the "losing" numbers a winner also.

                        FWIW. A very long time ago the NY Lottery ran ads telling people not to play obvious patterns o the play slip (I think it was in relation to promoting the then-new QP option). The most commonly played combination was the diagonal pattern starting at the top left. The diagonal starting at the top right was a close second. IIRC, each one was played close to 10,000 times in a typical drawing. Based on that I could easily believe that the Texas game could have several hundred repeats on each of the four choices.

                          rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
                          Texas
                          United States
                          Member #55889
                          October 23, 2007
                          5588 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: June 7, 2013, 11:14 am - IP Logged

                          In the latest press release on Texas's lottery website thay explain that often players were "gravitating to a smaller subset of number combinations available for selection. We saw the potential for unusually and high prize payouts should one of the favored combinations be drawn." It goes on to say that they are looking at options for liability and or wager limits.

                          This game was growing on me, but I think when they start it up again I'm done with it.

                          CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

                          A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)

                            Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
                            Los Angeles, California
                            United States
                            Member #103813
                            January 5, 2011
                            1530 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: June 7, 2013, 12:52 pm - IP Logged

                            In the latest press release on Texas's lottery website thay explain that often players were "gravitating to a smaller subset of number combinations available for selection. We saw the potential for unusually and high prize payouts should one of the favored combinations be drawn." It goes on to say that they are looking at options for liability and or wager limits.

                            This game was growing on me, but I think when they start it up again I'm done with it.

                            I looked at the sales data and made a plot of it. The Sales had been in steady decline since launch, I guess some of that is expected for a new game. But with this recent cancellation and any bad feelings if they come back with limiting combos, the sales may suffer even further.

                            With that said, I wouldn't mind seeing this All or Nothing game here in CA. It's got better payout and an interesting playstyle compared to other draw games, perfect for replacing our awful Daily Derby $2 game. Maybe not 4 times a day though. And ours would be pari-mutuel from the get go, with rollover, starting small like $100,000 and building higher on each roll based on sales.

                            AllorNothing

                            From 9/10/12 through 6/1/13 before the shutdown, it had $62,520,970 sales and $36,672,564 in prizes. Over 228 play days with 4 draws per day saw 29 Jackpots, 1 of them a double all+nothing hit on 5/25/13. The game is designed to pay out about 56% in prizes, but at the end of this (relatively) short period paid it out 58.66% which is due to several more lucky jackpots than statistics would predict. If you take out a couple of the jackpots towards the ending and beginning of the game, it is right back to the 56% payout it should have.

                              Avatar
                              Texas
                              United States
                              Member #132455
                              September 4, 2012
                              483 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: June 23, 2013, 1:58 am - IP Logged

                              They will definitely revise their system if a lot of players already develop a technique to win huge amount of prizes. I guess it's not good too if there are a lot of winners for sure the prizes will go down. Hopefully they can develop new system that will benefit both the players and the state.