Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 9, 2016, 6:13 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

$636 Million Mega Millions jackpot split by 2 tickets

Topic closed. 86 replies. Last post 3 years ago by THRIFTY.

Page 5 of 6
3.97
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
San Diego, CA
United States
Member #58386
February 12, 2008
287 Posts
Offline
Posted: December 18, 2013, 10:30 pm - IP Logged

Time value of money

Excellent point.

    Avatar
    NY
    United States
    Member #23835
    October 16, 2005
    3474 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 18, 2013, 10:40 pm - IP Logged

    It was pretty close in terms of sales depending on how you looked at it. But we can't tell for sure because it was a mixed run, part old matrix, part new matrix.

    On the previous record run, it took 19 draws to break $200M sales and then got won, and pulled in almost $1.5 Billion total. On the new matrix, if counting from the start of the new matrix 10/22, it took 17 draws to break $200M sales and then got won, and pulled in just under $1 Billion. One more draw would have been an undisputed record on the 18th draw.

    Will be very interesting to see the next clean run on the new matrix, without the mix of the old matrix. And one not weighted down by the holidays, which I think negatively impacts sales. People are thinking more of giving, not buying lottery tickets for themselves. I know I do that. Sales got absolutely pummelled for the Black Friday draw, and if not for that, MM may have hit the "soft" record last night. It might be a while though, I'd expect a short run or two in the interim before the next big run.

    "It was pretty close in terms of sales depending on how you looked at it."

    How do you look at it to make $1 billion over 22 drawings  and $1.5 billion over 19 drawings "pretty close"? 

    Every single drawing had bigger sales during the record run, with average sales of about $78 million per drawing. For the current run the average is a bit shy of $45.5 million.

    For the modest jackpots in the first  several drawings the record run  only saw sales that were about 8 to 25% higher. Once the jackpots got past $150 million sales during the record  run ranged from 80% higher (drawing number 14) to 1000% more (drawing number 19). Even the 22nd drawing of this run only racked up 52% of the sales for the 19th drawing of the record run. That suggests to me that the regular players  are playing a little bit less then they used to, but the big jackpots are bringing in  much less than they used. Either the regular players aren't spending as much more as they used to, or the infrequent players aren't playing as much, or both.

    It's that last that makes the experiment a real failure, assuming  subsequent runs don't see much bigger sales. MM succeeded in generating an unusually large jackpot (though well shy of their record), but it produced far less in sales than in the past.

      Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
      Los Angeles, California
      United States
      Member #103813
      January 5, 2011
      1530 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: December 18, 2013, 11:08 pm - IP Logged

      "It was pretty close in terms of sales depending on how you looked at it."

      How do you look at it to make $1 billion over 22 drawings  and $1.5 billion over 19 drawings "pretty close"? 

      Every single drawing had bigger sales during the record run, with average sales of about $78 million per drawing. For the current run the average is a bit shy of $45.5 million.

      For the modest jackpots in the first  several drawings the record run  only saw sales that were about 8 to 25% higher. Once the jackpots got past $150 million sales during the record  run ranged from 80% higher (drawing number 14) to 1000% more (drawing number 19). Even the 22nd drawing of this run only racked up 52% of the sales for the 19th drawing of the record run. That suggests to me that the regular players  are playing a little bit less then they used to, but the big jackpots are bringing in  much less than they used. Either the regular players aren't spending as much more as they used to, or the infrequent players aren't playing as much, or both.

      It's that last that makes the experiment a real failure, assuming  subsequent runs don't see much bigger sales. MM succeeded in generating an unusually large jackpot (though well shy of their record), but it produced far less in sales than in the past.

      You're ingnoring the data to fit your narrative. Just look at the sales. Compare the new matrix sales post-matrix-change, compared to the record run.

      Wow, it looks just like the record run in March 2012 except slightly greater rate of increase of sales. Like I said, $1.5 Billion in 19 draws compared to $1 Billion in 17 draws for the new run, and 1 more draw would be easily bust that $1.5 Billion number and then some. Breaking all records for Sales, Cash and Annuity on the 18th draw. Since the new matrix, rate of sales increased dramatically, and reversed the decline and turned it around.

        LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
        Happyland
        United States
        Member #146344
        September 1, 2013
        1129 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 18, 2013, 11:35 pm - IP Logged

        When the matrix changed, the advertised jackpot was $55 million. That in itself skews the sales results.

        If you compare the closest amount from the record run ($51 million) and start from there, sales then are still greater than the recent run. Even the average sales increase per draw is greater (~38% vs. 24.6%) and the slope is less than half.

        YearRunDrawsTotal SalesAverage Sales
        2012$51M - $640M14$1,394,213,421$99,586,673
        2013$55M - $636M17$988,757,966$58,162,233

        Apparently jackpot fatigue is a factor, but regardless I don't think it's an accurate to compare sales for a run that started above the reset versus a run that ran from reset to completion. I believe it would be better to just wait for another run and then compare before concluding that the new matrix is "working."

        If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the potential payoff does.
        If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?

        2016: -48.28% (13 tickets) ||
        P&L % = Total Win($)/Total Wager($) - 1

          Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
          Los Angeles, California
          United States
          Member #103813
          January 5, 2011
          1530 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 18, 2013, 11:43 pm - IP Logged

          When the matrix changed, the advertised jackpot was $55 million. That in itself skews the sales results.

          If you compare the closest amount from the record run ($51 million) and start from there, sales then are still greater than the recent run. Even the average sales increase per draw is greater (~38% vs. 24.6%) and the slope is less than half.

          YearRunDrawsTotal SalesAverage Sales
          2012$51M - $640M14$1,394,213,421$99,586,673
          2013$55M - $636M17$988,757,966$58,162,233

          Apparently jackpot fatigue is a factor, but regardless I don't think it's an accurate to compare sales for a run that started above the reset versus a run that ran from reset to completion. I believe it would be better to just wait for another run and then compare before concluding that the new matrix is "working."

          Agreed. And I think I said that, didn't I:

          But we can't tell for sure because it was a mixed run, part old matrix, part new matrix.

          Look, I could care less if the new MM matrix succeeds or fails. But this constant whining about, "Oh the new MM matrix is horrible, it's evil, it's going to fail!" is just not consistent with the data we have post-change. Let's just wait and see.

            psykomo's avatar - animal shark.jpg

            United States
            Member #4877
            May 30, 2004
            5124 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 19, 2013, 7:30 am - IP Logged

            That would be quite a waste.

            PNE:

            I Agree!>>>cause eighteen>>>nineteen>>>twenty year ole's know bout blow^ng 100 MILPuke

                                                           Big Grin Angel Jack-in-the-Box Big Grin Angel

              ressuccess's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg

              United States
              Member #93164
              June 23, 2010
              1325 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: December 19, 2013, 2:34 pm - IP Logged

              This is part of my current event to end the year 2013.

                rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                United States
                Member #73904
                April 28, 2009
                14903 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: December 19, 2013, 9:04 pm - IP Logged

                This is part of my current event to end the year 2013.

                And you're doing a good job, ressuccess.

                I've been watching you.  Thumbs Up

                  Avatar
                  NY
                  United States
                  Member #23835
                  October 16, 2005
                  3474 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: December 20, 2013, 10:21 am - IP Logged

                  You're ingnoring the data to fit your narrative. Just look at the sales. Compare the new matrix sales post-matrix-change, compared to the record run.

                  Wow, it looks just like the record run in March 2012 except slightly greater rate of increase of sales. Like I said, $1.5 Billion in 19 draws compared to $1 Billion in 17 draws for the new run, and 1 more draw would be easily bust that $1.5 Billion number and then some. Breaking all records for Sales, Cash and Annuity on the 18th draw. Since the new matrix, rate of sales increased dramatically, and reversed the decline and turned it around.

                  No, I'm using the data. You seem to be ignoring it even when you acknowledge it, since you know that a previous run reached $1.5 billion in sales over 19 drawings, whereas this one took 22 drawings to reach only $1 billion. As usual I can't tell much from that stuff you've got jammed together on the graph, but the raw numbers are easy to understand. Here they are, along with comparisons to one another.  Other than corrections for the final totals the annuity values are from lottoreport, as are the sale figures. Cash value for the record and the post-matrix change are based on the final cash /anuity ratio; the first 5 cash values for the current run are based on 70% of the annuity value.

                  The only thing where there's any argument at all that the numbers don't favor the record run is the first 4 drawings after the change. All of the actual sales figures for the record run are better, but the increases relative to the curent record have some minor regression. 1. The greater sales for the record run relative tot he current run for those 4 drawings don't continue the steady increase that's seen in all the other drawings. 2. For drawings 7 and 8 the sales increase over the previous drawing are slightly better for the current run than for the record run. Fell free to take it as an advantage, but the sales are still a minimum of 30% better during the record run.

                  One other thing that could potentially be a factor would be a general awareness  of how much more inflated the annuity values are under the new schedule. Sales obviously correlate to  jackpot values, so if people make their decisions based on the actual cash then sales for two identical annuity values aren't a reliable measure of sales potential. Unfortunately, that  doesn't  really help with an argument that  the new matrix has improved anything. When similar cash values aproaching $200 milion are compared  they're  much closer than an annuity comparison, but those cash values came 3 drawings later with the curent run, and I think it's asafe bet that those sales were  largely related to the  higher annuity  that was advertised.

                  You can wait for another run that's entirely based on the new matrix, but I don't see any reason that this run isn't a valid indicator, unless there was some factor that's independent of the lottery that  caused people to play less. If you think  there's a reason that the change makes the current run bad for comparison, feel free to explain what it is.

                   

                   

                   

                  DrawingJackpotJackpotSalesSalesRecord run sales as% of prev% of prev
                  #RecordcashNewcashRecordNew% of new run salessales, recordsales, new
                  1$12$9$12$8$18,166,511$16,808,335108%
                  2$15$11$14$10$17,274,916$15,088,504114%95%90%
                  3$23$17$22$15$19,843,752$16,379,027121%115%109%
                  4$32$23$29$20$19,361,572$15,449,067125%98%94%
                  5$41$30$37$26$22,222,098$16,807,527132%115%109%
                  6$51$37$55$30$21,548,361$15,914,045135%97%95%
                  7$61$44$65$35$23,255,125$17,705,909131%108%111%
                  8$72$52$75$40$22,835,162$17,583,890130%98%99%
                  9$83$60$87$47$26,363,391$19,784,295133%115%113%
                  10$94$68$99$53$28,218,276$21,054,818134%107%106%
                  11$108$78$115$62$36,910,446$24,391,491151%131%116%
                  12$127$91$132$71$39,934,885$25,014,830160%108%103%
                  13$148$107$149$80$46,018,464$26,925,918171%115%108%
                  14$171$123$165$89$49,925,735$27,709,836180%108%103%
                  15$200$144$181$97$66,658,484$32,248,473207%134%116%
                  16$241$174$205$110$78,423,325$37,315,945210%118%116%
                  17$290$209$230$124$111,282,952$36,816,769302%142%99%
                  18$363$261$257$138$190,922,875$49,042,172389%172%133%
                  19$640$461$291$157$651,915,940$57,476,6521134%341%117%
                  20N/A$344$185N/A$75,359,128131%
                  21N/A$400$215N/A$167,868,489223%
                  22N/A$648$349N/A$336,545,306200%

                  Those last  3 percentage figures under sales should be in the far left column. The empty cells were just duscarded and I'm not going to start over to fix it.

                    Jon D's avatar - calotterylogo
                    Los Angeles, California
                    United States
                    Member #103813
                    January 5, 2011
                    1530 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: December 20, 2013, 11:04 am - IP Logged

                    No, I'm using the data. You seem to be ignoring it even when you acknowledge it, since you know that a previous run reached $1.5 billion in sales over 19 drawings, whereas this one took 22 drawings to reach only $1 billion. As usual I can't tell much from that stuff you've got jammed together on the graph, but the raw numbers are easy to understand. Here they are, along with comparisons to one another.  Other than corrections for the final totals the annuity values are from lottoreport, as are the sale figures. Cash value for the record and the post-matrix change are based on the final cash /anuity ratio; the first 5 cash values for the current run are based on 70% of the annuity value.

                    The only thing where there's any argument at all that the numbers don't favor the record run is the first 4 drawings after the change. All of the actual sales figures for the record run are better, but the increases relative to the curent record have some minor regression. 1. The greater sales for the record run relative tot he current run for those 4 drawings don't continue the steady increase that's seen in all the other drawings. 2. For drawings 7 and 8 the sales increase over the previous drawing are slightly better for the current run than for the record run. Fell free to take it as an advantage, but the sales are still a minimum of 30% better during the record run.

                    One other thing that could potentially be a factor would be a general awareness  of how much more inflated the annuity values are under the new schedule. Sales obviously correlate to  jackpot values, so if people make their decisions based on the actual cash then sales for two identical annuity values aren't a reliable measure of sales potential. Unfortunately, that  doesn't  really help with an argument that  the new matrix has improved anything. When similar cash values aproaching $200 milion are compared  they're  much closer than an annuity comparison, but those cash values came 3 drawings later with the curent run, and I think it's asafe bet that those sales were  largely related to the  higher annuity  that was advertised.

                    You can wait for another run that's entirely based on the new matrix, but I don't see any reason that this run isn't a valid indicator, unless there was some factor that's independent of the lottery that  caused people to play less. If you think  there's a reason that the change makes the current run bad for comparison, feel free to explain what it is.

                     

                     

                     

                    DrawingJackpotJackpotSalesSalesRecord run sales as% of prev% of prev
                    #RecordcashNewcashRecordNew% of new run salessales, recordsales, new
                    1$12$9$12$8$18,166,511$16,808,335108%
                    2$15$11$14$10$17,274,916$15,088,504114%95%90%
                    3$23$17$22$15$19,843,752$16,379,027121%115%109%
                    4$32$23$29$20$19,361,572$15,449,067125%98%94%
                    5$41$30$37$26$22,222,098$16,807,527132%115%109%
                    6$51$37$55$30$21,548,361$15,914,045135%97%95%
                    7$61$44$65$35$23,255,125$17,705,909131%108%111%
                    8$72$52$75$40$22,835,162$17,583,890130%98%99%
                    9$83$60$87$47$26,363,391$19,784,295133%115%113%
                    10$94$68$99$53$28,218,276$21,054,818134%107%106%
                    11$108$78$115$62$36,910,446$24,391,491151%131%116%
                    12$127$91$132$71$39,934,885$25,014,830160%108%103%
                    13$148$107$149$80$46,018,464$26,925,918171%115%108%
                    14$171$123$165$89$49,925,735$27,709,836180%108%103%
                    15$200$144$181$97$66,658,484$32,248,473207%134%116%
                    16$241$174$205$110$78,423,325$37,315,945210%118%116%
                    17$290$209$230$124$111,282,952$36,816,769302%142%99%
                    18$363$261$257$138$190,922,875$49,042,172389%172%133%
                    19$640$461$291$157$651,915,940$57,476,6521134%341%117%
                    20N/A$344$185N/A$75,359,128131%
                    21N/A$400$215N/A$167,868,489223%
                    22N/A$648$349N/A$336,545,306200%

                    Those last  3 percentage figures under sales should be in the far left column. The empty cells were just duscarded and I'm not going to start over to fix it.

                    Once again, you're just doing a simplistic analysis of things like individual intervals or totals, not looking at the overall sales activity and trends.

                    Just simply looking at the $1.5 Billion total of the record 2012 draw is ignoring the circumstances of that draw. You can deny the graph which is as plain as day, but you can't deny the facts:

                    For 2012 record run, it took 18 draws for the sales to reach a level that significantly exceeded the odds on the game for a likely winner, $191M, for a total of $839M for the run. But they got lucky and it rolled instead of being won, causing the sales for the 19th draw to balloon to nearly 4 times odds at $651M, creating not just a win but 3 winners. That was luck, not the norm.

                    Since the start of the new matrix 10/22, this run took 17 draws for the sales to reach a level that significantly exceeded the odds on the game for a likely winner, $337M, for a total of $988M for the run. Luck did not intervene and what was expected from probability actually occurred: 2 winners. If they had gotten lucky and the 12/17 draw rolled, then the 18th draw would have certainly broken the $1.5 Billion total, and both the annuity and cash jackpot records 0f 2012.

                    But as I've said many times before, we can't tell for sure because it was a mixed run, part old matrix, part new matrix. Best to wait until we have clean run on the new matrix.

                     

                    Probability curves for new MM showing likely outcome of 2 winners for 12/17 draw:

                      brees2012's avatar - animal whale.jpg

                      United States
                      Member #125177
                      March 26, 2012
                      180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: December 20, 2013, 11:08 am - IP Logged

                                 The states that's NOT anonymous , should be ............

                        Avatar
                        Portland, OR
                        United States
                        Member #145973
                        August 20, 2013
                        226 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: December 21, 2013, 2:44 pm - IP Logged

                        I agree.  Based on what I've seen, I seriously doubt Curry will have a penny to her name in 4 years.   She'll be completely broke by then.  I wish her good luck because she is really going to need it.

                        "Understand... people are more complicated than the masks they wear in society... everyone is playing to win, and some people will use moral justifications to advance their side"

                                                                                                                                                                                  Robert Greene

                          DC81's avatar - batman39
                          MI
                          United States
                          Member #54830
                          August 31, 2007
                          985 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: December 22, 2013, 1:57 pm - IP Logged

                          Its her Money, she can do what she wants.
                          When an NFL team wins the Superbowl, they don't get to touch the Trophy 6 months after the win.

                          And the award for horrible comparison goes to...

                          You know who loves the fact that she came forward so quickly? The other winner.

                          You can't predict random.

                            Avatar

                            United States
                            Member #145267
                            August 1, 2013
                            1534 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: December 22, 2013, 4:03 pm - IP Logged

                            What have you seen that would tell that Curry will be broke in 4 years????

                              Avatar
                              NY
                              United States
                              Member #23835
                              October 16, 2005
                              3474 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: December 23, 2013, 2:51 pm - IP Logged

                              Once again, you're just doing a simplistic analysis of things like individual intervals or totals, not looking at the overall sales activity and trends.

                              Just simply looking at the $1.5 Billion total of the record 2012 draw is ignoring the circumstances of that draw. You can deny the graph which is as plain as day, but you can't deny the facts:

                              For 2012 record run, it took 18 draws for the sales to reach a level that significantly exceeded the odds on the game for a likely winner, $191M, for a total of $839M for the run. But they got lucky and it rolled instead of being won, causing the sales for the 19th draw to balloon to nearly 4 times odds at $651M, creating not just a win but 3 winners. That was luck, not the norm.

                              Since the start of the new matrix 10/22, this run took 17 draws for the sales to reach a level that significantly exceeded the odds on the game for a likely winner, $337M, for a total of $988M for the run. Luck did not intervene and what was expected from probability actually occurred: 2 winners. If they had gotten lucky and the 12/17 draw rolled, then the 18th draw would have certainly broken the $1.5 Billion total, and both the annuity and cash jackpot records 0f 2012.

                              But as I've said many times before, we can't tell for sure because it was a mixed run, part old matrix, part new matrix. Best to wait until we have clean run on the new matrix.

                               

                              Probability curves for new MM showing likely outcome of 2 winners for 12/17 draw:

                              You seem to be confused about when a jackpot run starts. It happens right after there's a winner and the jackpot is reset to the minimum, not when they change the matrix. You wouldn't be stupid enough to  say that it only took 5 drawings after the start of December, so why do you pretend it took 17 drawings?  The simple fact is that it took 22 drawings to garner a billion in sales, compared to 19 drawings to reach 1.5 billion. More drawings, smaller sales, period. The purpose of MM  is to sell tickets for the 50 cent profit they make on each one, so success is measured by total sales.

                              That the record run benefitted from the final rollover is irrelevant, because sales for the record jackpot were higher at every single point along the way. Similarly, that the current run would have likely reached 1.5 billion with another rollover is irrlevant, because it would then have had 4 drawings more than the record instead of 3 more. Selling 1.5 billion tickets over 23 drawings isn't better than seling 1.5 billion tickets over 19 drawings, no matter what you think your graphs are showing.

                              You still haven't explained why the mixed matrix prevents us from making a valid comparison. There isn't a single sales figure where the current run was better than the record run. It started out with lower sales while still using the old matrix, and sales slipped further and further behind as the jackpot increased under the new matrix. Even if you forget how long it took to reach any given point and just compare sales for similar cash value jackpots towards the end of each run,  current sales are lower. Here's  a table showing sales per million dollars of cash value for each drawing:

                              drawrecord sales percurrent sales percurrent as
                              #$ million cash$ million cash% of record
                              1$2,102,605$2,000,99295.2%
                              2$1,599,529$1,539,64396.3%
                              3$1,198,294$1,063,57388.8%
                              4$840,346$761,03890.6%
                              5$752,781$648,93986.2%
                              6$586,829$537,81891.6%
                              7$529,488$506,31795.6%
                              8$440,493$435,78498.9%
                              9$441,154$422,68795.8%
                              10$416,937$395,30794.8%
                              11$474,671$394,23883.1%
                              12$436,733$352,24280.7%
                              13$431,855$335,89477.8%
                              14$405,505$312,15377.0%
                              15$462,906$331,16871.5%
                              16$451,956$338,34474.9%
                              17$532,964$297,53355.8%
                              18$730,498$354,69448.6%
                              19$1,380,242$367,12726.6%
                              20N/A$407,188N/A
                              21N/A$780,058N/A
                              22N/A$965,353N/A