<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
	<channel>
		<title>A More Mega</title>
		<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.lotterypost.com/rss/topic/119814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description>Lottery Post Forum Topic: A More Mega</description>
		<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
		<generator>Lottery Post RSS Generator</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #6</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446903</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446903</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:02:24 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>JAG331</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Or, how does a 6/31 + 3/15 matrix look?  I have no idea how you would award the prizes. But look at the pool.  All birthday and anniversary numbers.  People would have a field day!  They&#x27;d think they were THIS close to winning, every time!  A near perfect tromp l&#x27;oeil.  The only thing that&#x27;s messy are the three bonus balls.With odds of 335,007,855:1 you could build a billion dollar jackpot.   I&#x27;m sure you could fit in the same regional jackpot changes.</p>]]></description>
			<category>JAG331</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #5</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446878</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446878</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:10:04 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>JAG331</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Great concept as usual Jimmy.The 62 number pool scares me though...just seems so impossible. Don&#x27;t you think a 5/40 + 2/25 matrix would be a lot more inviting??  Same odds.</p>]]></description>
			<category>JAG331</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #4</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446875</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446875</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:01:05 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>JimmySand9</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I wasn&#x27;t really thinking it the whole way through. Maybe later I&#x27;ll make a better state list, but for now don&#x27;t take the list above seriously.</p>]]></description>
			<category>JimmySand9</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #3</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446853</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446853</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:10:46 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>twisted</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>If thats the case why is Texas paired with Georgia when New York is all alone? Texas has a higher population. If you are going to say SALES, then why is California alone when their sales are right now below that of New Jersey?New Jersey sales for the last drawing where $8,171,718 (est. pop. 8,698,879).  Thats almost $1 per person.  California only had sales of $6,339,615 (est. pop. 35,893,799).</p>]]></description>
			<category>twisted</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #2</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446835</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446835</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:43:16 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>JimmySand9</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Population, that&#x27;s why. You don&#x27;t want too many players in one region, or the whole appeal of a mini jackpot will be lost, simply because it&#x27;ll hardly ever roll.</p>]]></description>
			<category>JimmySand9</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #1</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446644</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814/446644</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:23:14 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>DoctorEw220</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Why Illinois/Washington?  Why not California/Washington and then Illinois/Michigan/Ohio?  Also, why not Massachusetts/New Jersey/New York?  I think that would make things interesting, especially for Washington players.</p>]]></description>
			<category>DoctorEw220</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>A More Mega</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:07:32 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>JimmySand9</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Now, it&#x27;s just been revamped with the addition of CA. But when the moratorium on new states is lifted, it might have to change again for potential MM members NC, FL (though for FL I reccommend Powerball), and who knows who else. Well, this would be my plan if I was in charge. Just a bit more put towards smaller prizes, but 28.37% of sales will still be found in the jackpot. And 1:12.748 overall odds and a CA-style mini-jackpot will get sales going all through the jackpot cycle.Pick 5 white balls... &#x5b;&#xa0;<a href="https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/119814">More</a>&#xa0;&#x5d;</p>]]></description>
			<category>JimmySand9</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

