Quinto's on a roll, but...

Reply #26

dvdiva — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:27:05 GMT

I like the cards though. Right now I'm playing it since it's 3.6 million. Great jackpot this time.

Reply #25

CASH Only — Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:18:21 GMT

diva:And I've said many time Quinto should be replaced with a pick-5 NUMBER game.

Reply #24

dvdiva — Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:47:53 GMT

Yeah it's equal to a 7 million annuity jackpot. Kind of is bad that the Washington lottery can't get their act together and fix their website. If it keeps up they should outsource it to lotterypost. Now if only they would have the little symbols on the history page instead of letters here.

Reply #23

CASH Only — Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:40:43 GMT

That's a lot of cash for a pick-5.

Reply #22

dvdiva — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:25:05 GMT

well quinto is at 3.6 million now and it's been one week since the history feature has worked at the Washington lottery website.

Reply #21

CASH Only — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:04:24 GMT

I wonder why they don't.

Reply #20

dvdiva — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:18:25 GMT

yeah just keeps getting bigger. is bad though that the washington lottery site ( www.walottery.com ) doesn't have a working history feature atm.

Reply #19

CASH Only — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:55:05 GMT

$3.5 million for Saturday, Jan 29.

Reply #18

CASH Only — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:39:11 GMT

The $2 price is not helping Unlucky for Life (PA, WA) or Lose for Life (OR).

Reply #17

JimmySand9 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:00:51 GMT

Raising the price to $2 is probably the worst thing you can do to raise sales. Sure the jackpots may get larger. But they'll get there slower because most players are not going to pay $2 for just 1 play. Maybe 3 plays with the chance to combine them and win more, but not just 1 play. I guarantee if any of these big jackpot games decided to raise the price to even $1.50, it would crash and burn, leaving them to depend on another game for sales.

Reply #16

CASH Only — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:40:54 GMT

I suppose they could.

Reply #15

DoctorEw220 — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:17:00 GMT

if mega millions were to double in price, they'd need to double the jackpot.

Reply #14

dvdiva — Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:48:30 GMT

https://www.lotterypost.com/threads.asp?tp=99572 sp=1 sq=megabucks sm=l si=s sf=0 sd=90 ss=dd rp=Searchthats a link for you cashonly

Reply #13

CASH Only — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:24:12 GMT

Jimmy:I'd like to see proof that OR Megabucks is so generous.

Reply #12

JimmySand9 — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:23:17 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by CASH Only on January 20, 2005 One game that costs $2 (Massachusetts Ca$h WinFall) has a 60% payback, the highest of any US lotto game.Not quite, OR Megabucks pays out 75% from time to time. But as far as consistency is concerned, yeah.

Reply #11

CASH Only — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:23:25 GMT

One game that costs $2 (Massachusetts Ca$h WinFall) has a 60% payback, the highest of any US lotto game.

Reply #10

dvdiva — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT

Raising the price wouldn't really help sales that much. Tickets for some canadian lotteries are now $2 and their sales certainly didn't double. I think most players would rather see a change in the game instead of an increase in the price.Sadly though judging from how little the people that run both megamillions and powerball seem to care about sales or the opinion of players i think a price hike is more likely. Sad, since the first game that can change to get larger pots would really have great... [ More ]

Reply #9

CASH Only — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:39:35 GMT

I really think the next change to MM (not counting the TX Megaplier) is raising the price.

Reply #8

dvdiva — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:44:09 GMT

They need to change the odds. The game as it is now rarely breaks 135 million (it's odds) and has an average pot of ony 47 million - below that of powerball. I think most people would rather see a change in the odds than a change in the price but the current game is broken.

Reply #7

CASH Only — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:39:32 GMT

If nobody played, the jackpots would not increase.

Reply #6

JimmySand9 — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:36:24 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by CASH Only on January 19, 2005 diva:I expect the next change to Mega Millions to be a $2 price.Yeah, then the jackpots would grow, because everyone would stop playing.

Reply #5

CASH Only — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:50:06 GMT

diva:I expect the next change to Mega Millions to be a $2 price.

Reply #4

dvdiva — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:55:57 GMT

Well the lotto is worthless since the change from lotto plus. Biggest prize so far has been under 3 million. Oregon's lottery is far better. The current quinto jackpot is a record though. Its never been this big.I'm just hoping they can recomend a fix for the crappy Megamillions game and its low jackpots.

Reply #3

JimmySand9 — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:06:01 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by CASH Only on January 18, 2005 For the longest time, I've been calling for an all-number pick-5 game to replace Quinto.CashOnly, you might want to know that even the annutity jackpot for Lotto is smaller than Quinto's Cashpot right now.

Reply #2

CASH Only — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:22:35 GMT

For the longest time, I've been calling for an all-number pick-5 game to replace Quinto.

Reply #1

DoctorEw220 — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:52:25 GMT

i think people are playing WA's lotto because they're confused as to how you play quinto.

Quinto's on a roll, but...

JimmySand9 — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:56:47 GMT

WA's Quinto is now at an at least 2-1/2 year high. But WA Lotto is still growing faster, and therefore getting more sales. Either this a testament to WA Lotto's popularity or a wake up call to the WA Lottery to replace the cards with numbers. Worse odds, and a smaller jackpot, and still more sales than Quinto.