New Lottery idea

Reply #29

Just6ntlc — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:33:38 GMT

I disagree with this statement. If someone wins the lotto jackpot, they have 90 to 365 days to claim the jackpot. Otherwise, the money goes back into the state's situation. Besides, it's silly to have the jackpot not rollover for 3 days. Texas Lotto with bonus was an example when their estimated jackpot stuck at 8 million when sales were still decling.

Reply #28

Rip Snorter — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:12:30 GMT

I suppose the other possibility that might spark some sales would be player confidence. The PBMM and State lottery officials could tell it precisely as it is, give players the best bang for the buck they can, the best odds they can in some real-world scenario, and take whatever sales they can get on those terms.The problem with telling people, Yeah, we're going to give you $100 million, but it's really 50 mill we're going to invest for you at the lousiest possible interest rates, which you cou... [ More ]

Reply #27

BaristaExpress — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:11:16 GMT

Mmmmm, seems to me that the starting point of a PB, MM or any lottery game is a projected estimate of possible sales. Now didn't the officals in Texas get their butts in the ringer for not projecting estimated sales properly of their state lottery game? And the result of that happening they had to leave the jackpot at the same amount which in turn stalled sales for that current game. Then if someone did hit the jackpot the state would have to make up the difference between the wrong estimated sa... [ More ]

Reply #26

dphillips — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:57:09 GMT

Wow, what a novel idea! You should be a lottery director.

Reply #25

pacattack05 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:48:05 GMT

Sorry bud, my mistake, I see what your talking about now,,,yeah it was too simple.

Reply #24

acronym007 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:32:13 GMT

Now, think for a moment, would you like the game if it were a different game. That is, if this game were it's own unique game and it doesn't effect the others. This game would be a seperate game I by no means suggest they change PB or MM.

Reply #23

sagan — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:17:54 GMT

i prefer the rollover lottery, the larger the prize the larger the dream.i purchase tickets a month at a time (ten draws) and then go about my business.i may be traveling or occupied in an activity where there isn't opportunity to check tickets often enough. also i like the option of not having to rush to check numbers keeping the fantasy of winning the large ones for as long as possible.

Reply #22

RJOh — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:05:55 GMT

acronym,Ohio already have a you snooze, you lose limit and it's 180 days. That applies to all its games including MegaMillions. Other states like Michigan also has MegaMillions and its snooze limit is 1 year. Ohio doesn't carry live coverage of the MegaMillions game and for many Ohioans especially those living in rural areas, it's normal not to know the winning numbers right away. A 72hrs response or lose rule would all but kill that game in Ohio.RJOh

Reply #21

Chewie — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:28:01 GMT

Be a great idea. All we have to do is convince the directors of these lotterys to give up their huge bonuses (based on sales and sales equate to amount of jackpot), and have the legislators give up on the concept a huge windfall of unclaimed dollars. Wasn't it PB that just finished whinning and raised the odds because they weren't getting the big bonuses from the smaller jacpots?Listen to the cusomer? Novel idea. I look forward to a major supermarket chain carrying the product I want to buy inst... [ More ]

Reply #20

acronym007 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:44:01 GMT

RJoh, Makes sense to me to listen to the customer. However, what I am suggesting is merely one game. I don't think all games should be like this one but what if one MegaMillions or PowerBall was like this one. In my opinion it would be a huge success. I would pay it and I would be happy to know I wouldn't have to wait a year to find the winner and if the winner is sleeping then we all benefit. You snooze, you lose, this includes me. It would be a fast paced game, very exciting. So, this game... [ More ]

Reply #19

Rip Snorter — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:10:33 GMT

Good to know the system occasionally works.I'd bet those Ohio Lottery Authority folks keep their ear to the ground listening to what lottery players want these days. If a bit more of that sort of thing happened we'd probably be experiencing something entirely different throughout the US where lotteries sell their wares.Jack

Reply #18

RJOh — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:31:19 GMT

acronym,A few years ago when the Ohio lottery was at its peak with jackpots of up to $50M, Ohio came up with a rule that a single ticket could only win $20M and the rest went back into the pot it there were no other winners. The players voted with their pocket books and stopped playing. At the time about half of the winners were from surrounding states. Ohio never recovered from that bad decision. Out of state players never came back and Ohioans were going to Michigan, Indiana and Pennsylvan... [ More ]

Reply #17

Rip Snorter — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:17:55 GMT

acronym007Seems to me people who didn't stay on top of the draws simply wouldn't play this game. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a success. It means it mightn't. No way of knowing whether it would until players had a chance to make their own decisions about it.I think I might well play it.Jack

Reply #16

acronym007 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 02:59:46 GMT

Hey Pac, No wrong or right, I think what your missing in my concept is this. The 10 mil comes from the jackpot that was never collected within 72 hours. So, it's not new money, it's old money. The lottery could grow from sales also during this time but if there is at any point in time a jackpot winner and they fail to collect the 10 mil, that 10 mil would be placed back into the lottery for the next drawing. The answer to your question is this, the money comes from the lost winning ticket. T... [ More ]

Reply #15

pacattack05 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 02:30:46 GMT

Correction................Sorry rip I didn't meant to quote you. I meant to put this quote instead in my last thread. My bad

Reply #14

pacattack05 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 02:22:16 GMT

What were missing is where is the 10,000,000 coming from? It's nice to just add 10,000,000. It's not that easy.The reason Jackpots grow and grow and grow, upwards of 30 to 70 million, is not because someone decides to add more money to the pot. That money has to come from somewhere. It comes from future sales is all I was saying. If I'm wrong, Will someone out there correct me. It won't be the first time.By the way tonight in florida was 700. Just the reverse in you LP name...007 at the end........ [ More ]

Reply #13

RJOh — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 02:16:22 GMT

One thing a rule like that would do is stop those out of state players and those casual players who buy tickets and don't check them until they return to buy more tickets. It's almost like selling raffle tickets that requires the winners to be present at the drawing to collect their prize or it given to someone else. RJOh

Reply #12

Rip Snorter — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 02:12:00 GMT

I'd favor a wider range of options and alternatives available to allow the players to vote with their pocketbooks over what's right and best.I think the game suggested in this thread might be a popular one.Jack

Reply #11

JAP69 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:57:00 GMT

I think the rules are all wrong to begin with for a time limit to collect the money.To have a time limit is fine however as far as I am concerned the ticket is a bearer instrument being the property of the owner.After the time limit the funds should go into the states unclaimed funds bureau. After that if the ticket showed up at some point it should still stand as a collectible item.

Reply #10

Rip Snorter — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:47:53 GMT

A year seems a lot. Interesting they'd give it so long.But for what you're suggesting, a lottery where players know they'd have to stay on top of things and claim immediately, no reason it couldn't work. Rolling the unclaimed prizes back into the system already ought to be happening now, which it mostly isn't, so I think that's an awfully good idea as well.Ought to be a fast moving game that does some serious climbing fast. Nothing wrong with that from my point of view.Jack... [ More ]

Reply #9

JimmySand9 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:43:57 GMT

I think that is a great rule. If you're not excited enough to just go to the corner store to secure your winnings, then why are you playing in the first place

Reply #8

acronym007 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:12:56 GMT

Thanks, I thought is was unique that's all. Appreciate the good feedback. I got thinking about this waiting game we all play once someone wins, like in CT we're waiting to hear from the winner of the local CT lotto. It would nice if they had a less than a year. LOL.

Reply #7

Rip Snorter — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:03:15 GMT

Seems a good idea to me, acronym. A good plan.I don't have a clue what PAC was referring to in the last part of his message. I was agreeing with the first part.Jack

Reply #6

acronym007 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:31:13 GMT

You seem to be missing something? Perhaps this is too simple. If a jackpot is won the lottery is then reset to it's original amount. My concept/idea is this. That money, from the jackpot, whatever amount would be replaced back into the pot after 72 hours. So, if the amount is 10 million, 10 million would be placed back into the pot. What are we missing

Reply #5

Rip Snorter — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:28:13 GMT

I think you've just about summed it up, Pac.Jack

Reply #4

pacattack05 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:25:16 GMT

Maybe i m just an idiot, but I always thought rollovers that had a higher jackpot were due to the enticement of the public to purchase more tickets, based on the fact that they have another chance of winning, which in turn would raise the ante. Thereby creating the bigger Jackpot.This lottery must be in only in your mind.

Reply #3

acronym007 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:17:44 GMT

Don't need sales? If the jackpot is 10 million and no one claims it then the 10 million rolls over in 72 hours. So, if the jackpot starts at 5 million it would then become 15 million without a single sale, that is of course if the ticket owner does not claim the jackpot.

Reply #2

pacattack05 — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:50:06 GMT

It's a good idea except for this tiny liittle piece of info. The jackpot wouldn't all of a suuden grow just because you put the pot back for the next drawing. It takes a few days for the Pot to grow, according to sales.How can you increase the jackpot by two fold without sales? It's still fun trying though...........Just messing....

Reply #1

Rip Snorter — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:43:36 GMT

Good plan.Jack

New Lottery idea

acronym007 — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:40:27 GMT

Ok, so here it is. It's a new lottery idea. If you win the jackpot you have 72 hours to report you are the winner. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CLAIM IT THAT DAY but you do have to verify it. If the winner does not come forward in 72 hours then the next jackpot is increased by that much money. I think this would be exciting and get some of the silly waiting out of the way. Again, if you are setting up a trust or something of that nature you wouldn't have to claim it that day but someone would have to veri... [ More ]