CA screws players

Reply #15

KyMystikal — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:08:46 GMT

Neither am I. I hate pari-mutual lottery games almost as much as I hate RNG games.

Reply #14

johnph77 — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:34:39 GMT

ryanm -A pari-mutuel lottery payout system is only good if you're the person running it or taxing it. P-M takes all the risk out of a lottery and puts all the liability on the bettor. In a P-M lottery system the State cannot lose.If you've ever been to a horse race and placed a bet, you've participated in a pari-mutuel gambling system. But, in any such system, the circumstances are different. You'd have trainers, jockeys and other employees to pay, animals to feed, and owners looking at the bott... [ More ]

Reply #13

RJOh — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:39:36 GMT

Using the odds of 5/56+1/46, I calculated the amounts a state can expect to pay out using the standard payout amounts per 176 Millons tickets sold.MATCH PLAYING ODDS EXPECTED WINNING COMBOS PRIZE AMOUNTS PAY OUT PERCENT5/5+B 1 : 175711536 1 JACKPOT $56,227,691.52 32.05/5+0 1 : 3904701 45 $250,000 $11,250,000.00 6.44/5+B 1 : 689065 255 $10,000 $2,550,000.00 1.... [ More ]

Reply #12

ryanm — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:35:11 GMT

That's because California is chicken.

Reply #11

KyMystikal — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:02:32 GMT

I don't see why they just don't change the law? The only way pari-mutual is any good is if you're the only winner.

Reply #10

ryanm — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:38:34 GMT

California's pari-mutuel prize law was created out of greed.

Reply #9

Just6ntlc — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:33:01 GMT

I hope that CA stops playing MM if they win the lawsuit. Besides, they screw CA players of winning MM by paying mainly less for pari-mutuel prizes.

Reply #8

dvdiva — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:37:53 GMT

I'm just wondering how much is in these state have in reserves for second tier prizes. I doubt that Washington could cover a Mega wheel and have the prize be even 1/2 without wiping out the reserves.

Reply #7

Todd — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:05:51 GMT

I guess you'll have to update your signature and add California to the much better than NY Lotto list.

Reply #6

CASH Only — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:01:40 GMT

I don't believe CA screws their players, although NY Lotto does.

Reply #5

JimmySand9 — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:24 GMT

He's right. You can't have it both ways.

Reply #4

Todd — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:23:51 GMT

Right on, RJOh.

Reply #3

RJOh — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:51:43 GMT

According to New York and California lottery websites, each state contribute 32% of ticket sales to the jackpot which only leave 18% of tickets sales for the other prizes if the state keep 50% for themselves. I assume each member state does the same, but that's the cost of having that big jackpot which every body seem to want. If the states don't take the cost of running the lottery out of their 50% then less than 18% is left for the other prizes.RJOh

Reply #2

ryanm — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:33:48 GMT

They probably rolled over their match 5+0 prize amount for the next drawing because they had no match 5+0 winners. I think that's what they do because it happened before and then the drawing after they had 2 match 5+0 winners and each of them got $203,000.

Reply #1

johnph77 — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:26:42 GMT

Reserved for rollovers

CA screws players

Bradly_60 — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:05:06 GMT

California sold over 5.3 million tickets in last nights drawings. They only gave out $508,855 is their so called pari mutual prize structure. That's only a 9.6% return. How can that be. They have to give 50% out in prizes don't they. I am pretty sure they didn't put 40.4% of their sales into the jackpot pool. Anyone else see this. Anyone else with answers? I am sure glad I don't live in California Brad