Powerball Lottery States Vote to Change Game

Comment #60

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:27:35 GMT

matching 5 for 200,000 sounds tempting.

Comment #59

ryanm — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:34:55 GMT

Probably no ticket sales on 28th

Comment #58

dvdiva — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:20:04 GMT

good question jag - I just noticed that date also. usually they make the anouncement to take place for the drawing the rules change occurs on. What are people on sunday going to buy - reduced odds tickets. Or are there going to be no ticket sales on the 28th

Comment #57

JAG331 — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:55:39 GMT

August 29th is a Monday. So the 31st will be the first new matrix drawing

Comment #56

four4me — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:10:37 GMT

thank's tony95 i'm glad you see things in the same manners as i do. it's really interesting how people react to dvents that are not predictable. The different state lottery's that have mega and powerball probably went through every different senerio about people winning the games at different levels. They probably had think tanks go through many days of banter about what if and how they might respond to various gaming situations of their games.One of their biggest problems is the peoples reactio... [ More ]

Comment #55

tony95 — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:41:05 GMT

four4me is correct. As I have already stated in this post, last year the current Powerball odds produced 5 winners over $100million dollars and 2 of them were over $200million. What he did not point out is the fact that adding the state of California would not reduce the jackpot size, in fact it would simply cause the jackpot to grow that much faster. The only things that can reduce the jackpot sizes are 1) caps on the growth after a draw [I understand the current cap has never been broken

Comment #54

four4me — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:54:15 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by dvdiva on April 12, 2005There isn't a fluke happening with Powerball. The number of possible players and odds don't match up to generate large jackpots. Same is true in Mega. While mega has broken 100 million that would end if CA joined and the game didn't change. Jackpots of 300+ million are a big windfall for states selling tickets for participating states. That's what the games are there for. To make money for the states selling tickets. As a side benefit those who... [ More ]

Comment #53

dvdiva — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:02:34 GMT

There isn't a fluke happening with Powerball. The number of possible players and odds don't match up to generate large jackpots. Same is true in Mega. While mega has broken 100 million that would end if CA joined and the game didn't change. Jackpots of 300+ million are a big windfall for states selling tickets for participating states. That's what the games are there for. To make money for the states selling tickets. As a side benefit those whom like large jackpots get a small chance at winning... [ More ]

Comment #52

LOTTOMIKE — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 06:49:12 GMT

Comment #51

four4me — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:12:52 GMT

ryanm wrote: Well, unfortunately, the main purpose of a lottery is to raise money for states, and if jackpots stay small, the money stays in people's wallets.No joke really i wondered about that. I know quite well what the lottery is in place for besides generating revenue it was supposed to reduce our tax burden but that a joke too.my point was. just because people had a run of luck dosen't mean they will continue to have a run of luck winning the smaller jackpots. on the contrary it was a fluk... [ More ]

Comment #50

ryanm — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:28:46 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by four4me on April 10, 2005Quote: Originally posted by hypersoniq on April 10, 2005well that bites... a matrix change means ALL previous data becomes irrelevant (IF you believe history is relevant... I am one that does)... gotta start from square one with everything. (pb red ball data will still count tho)grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........so, aug 29th is the end of the 5/53 world.... now we have a deadline.... get crunchin'!hypersoniq that's probably one of the many reason... [ More ]

Comment #49

JAG331 — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:03:22 GMT

I reckon it could be me, just as it will be someone, dventually. Most PB and MM draws have no jackpot winner. That's millions of losers every draw! Then once in a while, about every 130 millionth ticket, one person wins. You could spend $5 on every Powerball draw for the next 50 years (disregarding price/odds hikes), and still stand only a 1:4,602 chance of cashing in big time.These games need a system. You need a strong system and good fortune to have any chance. This is why I don't belie... [ More ]

Comment #48

golotto — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:19:14 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by JAG331 on April 11, 2005Really though, am I going to win on just plain luck with odds of 120m:1? No. Someone will, but I'd be delusional to think it would be me, unless there's a code inherent to randomness itself that can be found. Regardless of odds ...why couldn't it be you? All of the numbers on your ticket are in the drawing machine ready and able to be chosen and they might just be the ones that tumble down that chute

Comment #47

JAG331 — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:31:45 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by ayenowitall on April 9, 2005Quote: Originally posted by ayenowitall on March 19, 2005https://www.lotterypost.com/news/109635.htmMaybe MUSL should create a game with astronomical odds that increase exponentially from draw to draw. That would virtually guarantee an ever increasing super-sized jackpot that would be highly unlikely to be hit. Certainly that would placate all the giant jackpot fans.JAG,It was just a mildly sarcastic joke when I made the above comments in a... [ More ]

Comment #46

rock_nc — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 02:10:02 GMT

hey,suppose all the drawing i see on tv,for pb is not live drawing

Comment #45

four4me — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:19:34 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by hypersoniq on April 10, 2005well that bites... a matrix change means ALL previous data becomes irrelevant (IF you believe history is relevant... I am one that does)... gotta start from square one with everything. (pb red ball data will still count tho)grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........so, aug 29th is the end of the 5/53 world.... now we have a deadline.... get crunchin'!hypersoniq that's probably one of the many reasons they change the games structure. From time to time.... [ More ]

Comment #44

hypersoniq — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:43:54 GMT

and they better not get any bright ideas about $2 minimum tickets... if they do that they should be boycotted... we already have a pennsylvania for that.

Comment #43

hypersoniq — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:41:43 GMT

well that bites... a matrix change means ALL previous data becomes irrelevant (IF you believe history is relevant... I am one that does)... gotta start from square one with everything. (pb red ball data will still count tho)grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........so, aug 29th is the end of the 5/53 world.... now we have a deadline.... get crunchin

Comment #42

ayenowitall — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:41:03 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by ayenowitall on March 19, 2005https://www.lotterypost.com/news/109635.htmMaybe MUSL should create a game with astronomical odds that increase exponentially from draw to draw. That would virtually guarantee an ever increasing super-sized jackpot that would be highly unlikely to be hit. Certainly that would placate all the giant jackpot fans.JAG,It was just a mildly sarcastic joke when I made the above comments in another thread. Maybe some lottery organization should re... [ More ]

Comment #41

JAG331 — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:16:02 GMT

Me Big jackpots require big odds. I want to play for a $1 billion jackpot and I would play a game with 300m:1 odds.

Comment #40

tony95 — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:37:42 GMT

What kind of a jerk wants less of a chance to win

Comment #39

JimmySand9 — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:22:06 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by dvdiva on April 9, 2005 I haven't seen anywhere if they changed the lame rules regarding limits to record jackpots. Jag, I wouldn't worry about the whiners. Some people just don't get the concept of multi-state games and big jackpots. The difference between 120 and 146 or even 160 million isn't much. People who don't like odds above 100 million should stick to one state games. Leave the large jackpots to those who want a chance at them. It would be like me saying that... [ More ]

Comment #38

dvdiva — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:07:39 GMT

So the same stupid rule is still there

Comment #37

DoctorEw220 — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:39:40 GMT

yeah. remember that once it gets to record levels, without the limit, the rollovers could be in the $100 million range.

Comment #36

weshar75 — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:36:37 GMT

They are probably not going to get rid of the match 5 bonus rule since they have created it and it has not gone into use yet. I emailed a week ago about getting rid of the rule and they were talking it up but one thing they did say that was interesting is that the record at which match 5 bonus starts is 340 million. But the next time it gets to the record it will be 365 million and then 390 million and so on. So it is not always set at the same start up point. It goes up in 25 million increm... [ More ]

Comment #35

dvdiva — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:23:46 GMT

I haven't seen anywhere if they changed the lame rules regarding limits to record jackpots. Jag, I wouldn't worry about the whiners. Some people just don't get the concept of multi-state games and big jackpots. The difference between 120 and 146 or even 160 million isn't much. People who don't like odds above 100 million should stick to one state games. Leave the large jackpots to those who want a chance at them. It would be like me saying that pick 3 should be banned. If you don't like a game l... [ More ]

Comment #34

JAG331 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:48:39 GMT

I don't think the increase is a big deal. Where's the cutoff point for you? 138m:1? Is there some magical number where above that line you won't play more than $2?Powerball is a game of dreams. It's an excursion from my 8-5 job. I'd rather put down $5 for a $500m fantasy than $5 for a $19m dream that is slightly more probable.

Comment #33

tony95 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:19:04 GMT

You speak as if a 21% increase in odds against winning is no big deal. If that is the case why not just double them. How about 300mil:1? Then we could watch 2-3 winners a year win half a billion dollars or so, thats obsurd. You can already see $100-200 million jackpots with the 120m:1 odds as it happened 5 times last years, so why jack it up just because a few people hit it early this year. And as for a 3.5mil:1 chance of winning $200,000 being a great deal.. this is equally obsurd. Our lo... [ More ]

Comment #32

JAG331 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:14:18 GMT

C'mon now. If you're playing at 120m:1, you'll play at 145m:1. The game will be 20% harder to win. Match 5 is 21.2% more difficult: 1:3,478,761 compared to 1:2,869,685, but second prize increases by 100%?? That's a deal! It's still only $1.

Comment #31

tony95 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:38:44 GMT

Yes, a few years ago the odds were 80m:1. I wish I had been able to participate in it back then. But they have added many states and thats why the odds have increased. Also, if anyone was wondering or missed it in the article, then new odds are not going into effect until August 29th. So, I have almost four months to play it the way I like it and then I will resolve myself to 1-2 tickets per draw and of course lotto south.

Comment #30

CASH Only — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:39:07 GMT

Mike:No lottery game is a stingy as NY Lotto 6/59...

Comment #29

murdoog — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:18:41 GMT

I just went to the powerball page and noticed that this is not the first time they have made the odds worse. Apparently it started off with 49 numbers. (Click the news and info link, and then click History of Multistate Lottery Association

Comment #28

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:03:18 GMT

jimmysand i agree,i wish we had prizes for matching two on lotto five but then again that would mean a lot more money they would be paying out and you know how stingy they are with prize payouts......

Comment #27

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:01:06 GMT

that would be commercial suicide if powerball went computerized,that would ruin the magic of the game......

Comment #26

golotto — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:29:20 GMT

Even though they plan to drop two new numbered balls into the mixing hopper on August 29, it certainly won't keep me from continuing to regularly play favorite old number sets. My main concern is the type of drawing conducted regardless of tweaking the odds. I'm just relieved and thankful that Powerball didn't change to computerized draws.

Comment #25

JimmySand9 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:41:49 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by LOTTOMIKE on April 8, 2005 good question....by the way i agree with the person who would rather play pick five,i could use 100,000 dollars as much as i could 10 million and by the time i buy ten pick five tickets that would equal buying a hundred powerball tickets to get to the same odds,i ,ight spend one dollar on powerball maybe but my main allegiance will be to games that are winnable on a daily basis like pick 5,a winner won on pick 5 last night in memphis where i... [ More ]

Comment #24

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:28:38 GMT

also i would love lottosouth,if we could get that here in tennessee i'd quit powerball forever....

Comment #23

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:27:46 GMT

good question....by the way i agree with the person who would rather play pick five,i could use 100,000 dollars as much as i could 10 million and by the time i buy ten pick five tickets that would equal buying a hundred powerball tickets to get to the same odds,i ,ight spend one dollar on powerball maybe but my main allegiance will be to games that are winnable on a daily basis like pick 5,a winner won on pick 5 last night in memphis where i live,all the more reason to stick with pick 5....

Comment #22

murdoog — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:09:24 GMT

Does anyone know when this will take effect

Comment #21

tony95 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:46:45 GMT

Sorry to rant, but one last reason this change is bad for Powerball. Before the change, Powerball had better odds than MegaMillions (130m:1 vs 120m:1). Now MegaMillions has a substantial advantage (130m:1 vs 146m:1). People on the border may decide to play MegaMillions over Powerball. I won't feel sorry for them if sales drop, especially since this change was motivated by greed on the part of the lottery officials and not on making the game better for the players. They should have left it a... [ More ]

Comment #20

tony95 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:45:06 GMT

I have to believe that there are a lot of people out there who know the odds are very long at 120m-to-1 and this will push them away from the powerball. I doubt that I am much different than any other person as I set a budget for the lottery and try buy my plays toward the back end (after the pot has been built up a bit). If those pots are 50 million dollars or 200 million makes very little difference to the average guy. I am not going to go take out a bank loan just because the lottery has g... [ More ]

Comment #19

gvpazkn — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:07:38 GMT

I would like to know just how many of the 29 lotteries in the PB game actually voted FOR changing the game

Comment #18

gvpazkn — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:02:02 GMT

I just can't see changing the matrix. It is difficult enough now to just win $3....much less the BIG ONE!!!! This is all about GREED from the smaller states. When the jackpot is hit(and just by luck) numerous times over the last 3-4 months..states with small populations lose $30-$50 million/month just in lost revenue, only because the jackpots are not escalating to enourmous amounts. I think this change will turn off many players....and like ME, will stick to the smaller payouts, like Pick3 an... [ More ]

Comment #17

ayenowitall — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:07:59 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by tony95 on April 7, 2005The current odds of 120m-to-1 are depressing as it stands and odds of 146m-to-1 are ridiculous at best. Even the Mega Millions is better at 130m-to-1 which has been described as infinitesimal by statisticians.... I hope the powerball officials are not doing this just because the numbers were hit early a few times, because that can happen again at 146m-to-1, and if it does, are they going to raise them again? I don't think the public needs to h... [ More ]

Comment #16

tony95 — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:56:34 GMT

I agree, I run up to Kentucky to buy lotto south tickets

Comment #15

CASH Only — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:10:58 GMT

Tony:You need to push for Tennessee to join Lotto South or Hot Lotto.

Comment #14

tony95 — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:06:05 GMT

The current odds of 120m-to-1 are depressing as it stands and odds of 146m-to-1 are rediculous at best. Even the Mega Millions is better at 130m-to-1 which has been described as infinitesimal by statisticians. We just got the lottery last year and I was buying 2-20 tickets depending on the pot, but now I will never buy more than a couple at a time and only when the jackpots are 100+ million or I may just play my wife's single number and be done with it. Other than that I plan to pay more atte... [ More ]

Comment #13

JimmySand9 — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:48:19 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by smd173 on April 7, 2005 Quote: Originally posted by JimmySand9 on April 6, 2005 May I also suggest the removal of the Match 5 Bonus Pool which limits jackpot growth to $25,000,000 per draw. Especially now, considering that with PowerPlay multiplier of x5, matching 5 with no Powerball would still net $1,000,000, and that's every draw.But the Match 5 Bonus has never even been reached. Almost made it twice, but it was hit right before it would have went into effect. Alth... [ More ]

Comment #12

smd173 — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:44:39 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by JimmySand9 on April 6, 2005May I also suggest the removal of the Match 5 Bonus Pool which limits jackpot growth to $25,000,000 per draw. Especially now, considering that with PowerPlay multiplier of x5, matching 5 with no Powerball would still net $1,000,000, and that's every draw.But the Match 5 Bonus has never even been reached. Almost made it twice, but it was hit right before it would have went into effect. Although limits aren't ideal, when you are getting up to... [ More ]

Comment #11

Todd — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:26:40 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by CASH Only on April 7, 2005...I thought PB would go for longer odds than 1 in 146 million....I'm glad they didn't.

Comment #10

CASH Only — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:58:34 GMT

The press release said nothing about changes to the lower tier prizes.I thought PB would go for longer odds than 1 in 146 million. At least the starting jackpot and initial increases will be higher.

Comment #9

Denali — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 23:14:45 GMT

The upcoming powerball change includes increasing the match 5 amount to $200,000.

Comment #8

JimmySand9 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:38:39 GMT

O.K. Now this is a realistic proposal. Somewhere between a rip-off (PA Lucky For Life) and a complete bank-breaker (doesn't exist). 5 Powerball: Jackpot (Of Course)5 (No Powerball) : $200,0004 Powerball: $10,0004 (No Powerball): $2003 Powerball: $2003 (No Powerball): $102 Powerball: $101 Powerball: $40 Powerball: $3May I also suggest the removal of the Match 5 Bonus Pool which limits jackpot growth to $25,000,000 per draw. Especially now, considering that with PowerPlay multiplier... [ More ]

Comment #7

DoctorEw220 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:06:01 GMT

they will need to do so. winning $100,000 for matching 5 of 55 is way too little for the odds.

Comment #6

JimmySand9 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:43:25 GMT

I just hope they raise the lower prize amounts. They didn't when they went to the current format.

Comment #5

DoctorEw220 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:12:20 GMT

and it will take only 17 draws (maximum) for the jackpot to get back to $100 million.

Comment #4

DoctorEw220 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:10:56 GMT

i think it will. now that they are raising the starting jackpot, increasing the matrix (even though they should have increased the number of powerballs to choose from), and increasing the minimum rollover, they should have no problem getting the jackpot back up into the $100 million range.

Comment #3

weshar75 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:06:42 GMT

I like the changes and I hope it leads to higher jackpots that powerball has been having lately.

Comment #2

ineed9million — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:06:13 GMT

I like it. No formula is going to make everyone happy, but this suites me just fine. It will only take two draws to increase the jackpot to 25M. An amount that has only been achieved twice this entire year

Comment #1

JimmySand9 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:02:49 GMT

I said 5/55 + 1/40. They say they going to do 5/55 + 1/42. I was half right.

Powerball Lottery States Vote to Change Game

Lottery Post — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:57:05 GMT

The 29 lotteries that participate in the Powerball game have voted to make changes that will boost the average jackpot size, but also will boost the odds of winning.Starting Aug. 29, the beginning jackpot will increase to $15 million from the current $10 million, the Multi-State Lottery Association announced Wednesday. The top prize will grow by no less than $5 million between each drawing. Lottery games need to be changed from time to time, to respond to both player demands and population chang... [ More ]