New England states start new lottery game Thursday

Comment #57

JonnyBgood07 — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:25:08 GMT

Congrats to the massechusettes first winner

Comment #56

GYM RICE — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:42:47 GMT

Agree 100%. I believe this game is going to do really well. The lottery actually pays the winner a weekly check. And the best thing is if you're lucky enough to win the jackpot, you don't really have to run around and lawyer up. You can claim your prize the next day and just give them your regular bank account and then take your time figuring out the rest. Its not so much money at once to become fearful of what to do with it. The best thing is that the money just keeps rolling in until your 6 fe... [ More ]

Comment #55

mcginnin56 — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 22:12:56 GMT

I picked up two more numbers yesterday, and two more today just for good measure. Hoping any LP'ers from those states will get in on the action.

Comment #54

JonnyBgood07 — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:44:46 GMT

bought 3 more tickets today!...good luck to all LP'ers .Hope someone from here wins

Comment #53

GiveFive — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:18:10 GMT

Well Brat, here's the real truth.

The Special Agent is my 20 something daughter. I'm about forty years her senior. She knows full well that if by some wild chance I win L4L, it won't be me that'll claim the winnings. It'll be her. Hopefully, she'd be collecting long after I'm gone.

In addition, I have another daughter. She's a few years younger than The Special Agent. She attends a university in Fairfield Connecticut. Mom and I drive over to Fairfield on occasion because it's only 60 miles... [ More ]

Comment #52

mcginnin56 — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:05:58 GMT

It wuz my 4 bucks, not her's.

Comment #51

JonnyBgood07 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:39:58 GMT

connecticut didn't have a heap of 1st prize winners when it was 4+1 Lucky4life...

Comment #50

mediabrat — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:17:40 GMT

I know it ain't neighborly to wish against someone winning here, but I kinda hope you don't win, only because I don't want things to get ugly between you and your Special Agent.

But, on the odd chance you're just joking around, good luck.

I'm a little less than an hour from Vermont, but since I don't normally have reason to go there, it seems a bit much to go out of my way to acquire some LFL tickets. I did make a special trip to Bennington once for lottery tickets, though, when Powerball... [ More ]

Comment #49

GiveFive — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:43:58 GMT

Oooooooh hoo hoo hoo!

Here I am! Sittin' here in New York State with my two Lucky for Life tickets!

Yessir!! I sent my Special Agent over there to Danbury (she was goin' to The Danbury Fair Mall anyway) to get me a couple of L4L tix. So I'm in on the inaugral drawing!

She sez she's entitled to some of the money if I win, 'cept I know better. It wuz my 4 bucks, not her's.

Let the games begin

Comment #48

Nino224 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:51:34 GMT

This might be the greatest game ever devised. Sure, there are other games that pay a lot more, but $1,000 a day for life just makes me all warm and gooey.

Comment #47

chuck32 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:38:08 GMT

Yeah. Too political. I actually intended to drop it out, but failed. Sorry to all. As an old journalist myself, I just hate to see the state of news reporting today. I don't even watch MSNBC and the high-school, dumbed-down quality of CNN with its 60 seconds of flashy musical intro for every 30 seconds of news makes me shiver. There, have I insulted everyone now?

I really only mean to say that maximum tax rates are at an all-time low and with record low interest rates, the CASH option does lo... [ More ]

Comment #46

dallascowboyfan — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:46:52 GMT

WOW, Oklahoma needs a game like this....

Comment #45

mcginnin56 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:10:43 GMT

Being from NH, I also regularly played weekly grand, and never hit more than a couple of numbers + the lucky ball

worth $20-25.

This LFL will be like the Weekly Grand on steroids, and then some

Comment #44

Hermanus104 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:03:55 GMT

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

Comment #43

chops — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:23:33 GMT

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 appr... [ More ]

Comment #42

rdgrnr — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:10:48 GMT

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

Uh-oh.

Comment #41

RedStang — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:27:29 GMT

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

Comment #40

VenomV12 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:17:47 GMT

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 dolla... [ More ]

Comment #39

chuck32 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:42:28 GMT

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... [ More ]

Comment #38

CDanaT — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:27:08 GMT

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

Comment #37

chuck32 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:10:07 GMT

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... [ More ]

Comment #36

chuck32 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:53:08 GMT

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 comp... [ More ]

Comment #35

mediabrat — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:14:25 GMT

Good luck

Comment #34

kyokushin187 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:59:41 GMT

already got my qp.

Comment #33

rcbbuckeye — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:38:16 GMT

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.

Comment #32

mediabrat — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:28:57 GMT

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.

Comment #31

mediabrat — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:12:41 GMT

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.

Comment #30

NightStalker — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:44:25 GMT

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.

Comment #29

faber98 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:27:35 GMT

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 ar... [ More ]

Comment #28

winwi5 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:03:20 GMT

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.

Comment #27

mcginnin56 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:00:09 GMT

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

Comment #26

Guru101 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:43:49 GMT

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

Comment #25

Bigheadnick — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:34:25 GMT

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 dest... [ More ]

Comment #24

ressuccess — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:25:48 GMT

Good luck to the people playing this new game.

Comment #23

Cletu$2 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:23:55 GMT

Just curious,what age group are you in

Comment #22

mediabrat — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:16:06 GMT

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... [ More ]

Comment #21

faber98 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:07:31 GMT

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 go... [ More ]

Comment #20

mcginnin56 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:59:39 GMT

Thank you CO

Comment #19

mcginnin56 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:57:05 GMT

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.

Comment #18

C0w Pi3 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:53:44 GMT

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

Comment #17

mcginnin56 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:29:17 GMT

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.

Comment #16

Bigheadnick — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:25:03 GMT

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.

Comment #15

rooster8786 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:21:31 GMT

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...

Comment #14

mcginnin56 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:15:49 GMT

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

Comment #13

mcginnin56 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:12:09 GMT

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.

Comment #12

CDanaT — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:09:54 GMT

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... [ More ]

Comment #11

GiveFive — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:56:20 GMT

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... [ More ]

Comment #10

VenomV12 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:55:19 GMT

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.

$400... [ More ]

Comment #9

Todd — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:39:46 GMT

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.

Comment #8

mediabrat — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:21:00 GMT

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... [ More ]

Comment #7

mediabrat — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:16:05 GMT

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-tim... [ More ]

Comment #6

Nikkicute — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:24:49 GMT

LOL@ grovel

Comment #5

Grovel — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:59:14 GMT

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

Comment #4

rdgrnr — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:54:14 GMT

Roger that, dk.

Comment #3

NightStalker — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:50:42 GMT

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.

Comment #2

mcginnin56 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:23:21 GMT

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.

Comment #1

dk1421 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:03:39 GMT

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.

New England states start new lottery game Thursday

Lottery Post — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:00:22 GMT

Updated Mar. 13, 2012, 11:12 am: New game replaces Weekly Grand Extra.

By Todd Northrop

For the first time ever, the six New England states will jointly run a multi-state lottery game, starting this week.

The new Lucky for Life regional draw game begins this Thursday, March 15 for the six following states: Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massechusetts, and Rhode Island. Ticket sales for the new game started Sunday.

For Connecticut, the new Lucky for Life replaces a simila... [ More ]