PA Unlucky for Life

Reply #32

CASH Only — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:57:39 GMT

I'll really be laughing when they finally retire UfL

Reply #31

sirbrad — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:06:52 GMT

Well if a lifetime of checks without working is hell, then bring it on

Reply #30

CASH Only — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:21:21 GMT

brad:How could you be in heaven when Unlucky for Life is the game from H_ll

Reply #29

sirbrad — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 02:23:18 GMT

True if it was one dollar I would be in heaven. About the only thing the extra dollar does is limit me to how often I play, and how many tries I play each time. I hate limitations...

Reply #28

hypersoniq — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 02:13:03 GMT

I don't like this game for the simple fact that it is a $2 game... I don't like that trend (unless it's MY choice like the PB powerplay...)BUT, to be realistic... they are targeting the scratch-off crowd with that game, and they show no signs of slowing sales (right Gus ?)I think we're stuck with that one.

Reply #27

JimmySand9 — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:32:58 GMT

That's true. But it's not really that much of a concern, seeing that only an idiot would take the annuity with a jackpot that low

Reply #26

CASH Only — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:16:38 GMT

jimmy:The minimum amount for a 30-year annuity seems to be $2 million. Divide 500k by 30, subtract 25% towards federal taxes and see what you have. Then suppose multiple winners.

Reply #25

JimmySand9 — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 04:41:53 GMT

I guess the evil empire decided to come up with another, better low-matrix game for PA .Easy Money LottoPick 6 from 36Price : $1Jackpot begins at $500,000 30-year annuity, or $250,000 all-cash. And if and when it reaches $2,000,000 annuity value, the jackpots rolls down to the lower tiers. I could have just had it roll on until won, but PA already has 3 different games that do that. Prize Rolldown Prize Odds Match 6 Jackpot* N/A 1 : 1,947,792 Match 5 $1,000 Approx. $5,000 1 : 10,821 Match 4 $20

Reply #24

Chewie — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:32:40 GMT

Ever consider poker? Its all cash option. Longevity is obviously not your strong suit, so stick with five card, seven card takes too long. For me, any increase in Social Security is a good thing. Not a great things, but a good thing.

Reply #23

CASH Only — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:27:00 GMT

brad:OK. I was in Massachusetts yesterday to play Ca$h Winfall. I _never_ play MA Megabucks because it does NOT have a cash option...yet it's not a lifetime prize.

Reply #22

sirbrad — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:24:53 GMT

If you actually cared about benefiting the seniors, then you would be praying for losses everytime, not wins. Lets face it, we play to 'win' for ourselves, not to 'lose for the seniors.' I already said that LFL is far to low to have a cash option. I am not speaking of MEGA jackpots. That is why the odds are so much better for LFL, less payout...

Reply #21

CASH Only — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:21:04 GMT

brad:By your logic, Mega Millions' $225 million jackpot is less appealing BECAUSE there is a (lower) cash option.Even if UfL had a cash option, the $3,000-a-month figure would still be advertised.

Reply #20

sirbrad — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:17:49 GMT

No, I would still play either way. But obviously the cash option is going to be lower than the annuity, so it would not be worth me playing as much then. A lifetime of checks would be a great security blanket even if you are not a millionaire technically. But the way lucky for life is set up, it actually provides MORE funds for seniors over time than a cash option would.

Reply #19

CASH Only — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:10:32 GMT

brad:What would you do if PA suddenly offered a cash option on Unlucky for Life? Would you boycott it? I would then make a special trip to PA.

Reply #18

sirbrad — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:07:25 GMT

Cash, I don't believe YOU quite get it. The money being donated by all of the lotteries players is what is actually benefiting SENIORS, not the game structures. The games were not made specifically for seniors, or to help seniors win. The income generated from the games is what helps them. How can you offer a cash option on such an already low prize? Personally I like how it is set up, and it is unique from all the other lotteries. You want a cash option, play match 6.

Reply #17

bellyache — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:01:01 GMT

I would take the $3,000 a month for life. It would still be a steady amount of income coming to you for life. What's to hate about that? It's not like anyone is being forced to play this game. If they don't like the payout system...don't play. Simple as that.

Reply #16

CASH Only — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:47:58 GMT

brad:You don't quite get it. I'm not questioning the idea of a lifetime prize. I just think it was poor judgment for PA to offer the game as is, with NO cash option. This is the state, remember, whose lottery is supposed to benefit SENIOR CITIZENS, yet this is a game they should not be playing.

Reply #15

sirbrad — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:26:49 GMT

Cash you should give it a rest man. You don't like annuity payouts, we get it already! No one is forcing you to be a loser for life. Personally I would be happy with the lifetime prize, I don't need a lump sum to be happy. True I may be happier much more quickly, but hey what can I say, I am not greedy. I am sure there would be a lot of people out there happy to be 'losers for life' by your definition of term. You don't like them types of lotteries, well you stick to the larger jackpots wit... [ More ]

Reply #14

CASH Only — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:42:51 GMT

It's bad enough UfL produces the occasional lifetime loser. It would be TERRIBLE if UfL produces a repeater.

Reply #13

sirbrad — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:12 GMT

Agreed. Money is money, and it is even sweeter when you are not putting in 60 hours a week for it. Although you could work part-time doing whatever you want to, and be pretty well off. Of if you skimp, you would not have to work much at all. Can someone win lucky for life more than once? I don't see why not, if so, then we are talking some even better money. Thankfully I only 2 out of 6 tonight, not the usual 4! Lol.

Reply #12

Greg — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:01:07 GMT

How many numbers is not the issue here; it's the lack of a cash option.I disagree. 1.)The number of number determines the likelihood of winning. The more numbers, the greater the odds AGAINST you! 2.) I can live on $3000/mo. minus taxes for life ...

Reply #11

JimmySand9 — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:20:21 GMT

I just want a prize that will actually set me for life.

Reply #10

CASH Only — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:45:54 GMT

How many numbers is not the issue here; it's the lack of a cash option.

Reply #9

Greg — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:43:42 GMT

Jimmy, what's wrong with you? You work for THEM, don't you??? Keep the number field to 38 numbers! grrrrrr

Reply #8

sirbrad — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:52:27 GMT

I prefer the scratch off game- Win for Life with 1k per week for life. More weeks and more cash! Then the $2 isnt so much to surrender for that chance :) True the prize is better, but there are only 4 top prizes left in my area, which would be absolutely terrible odds. Then again they could also just not be claimed, even worse. The thing I hate about scratch offs is you have no contol of the numbers, and they are all 'pre-determined.' At least with lucky for life 'ball draws,' I have some say ov... [ More ]

Reply #7

sirbrad — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:17:27 GMT

Nonetheless, I have already been unlucky for life the majority of my life, this in fact would be the best I ever had it if I won lucky for life! I would simply skimp as I am already used to doing, and invest wisely. Later I would be rolling in riches.

Reply #6

sirbrad — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:22:36 GMT

Not bad. But I still like only 38 balls! Lol. The headquarters told me that for life means for life, and I have the email saved to prove they said it in writing when I win. The guarantee is only for older people, and beneficiaries. It does not go into effect unless something happens to the original winner, so they say.

Reply #5

JimmySand9 — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:35:22 GMT

If they want people to play, they got to offer enough money for someone to be really set for life. $3,000/month, or even $1,000/week won't cut it, especially with taxes. You've got to offer at least $2,500/week ($130,000/year) for it to really be appealing. And a cash option is a must seeing that there are a lot of older people playing, and a lifetime annuity wouldn't be practical for them. How about this idea for a revamp?Pick 6 from 47.Instant Win Removed.Still $2. Prize Odds Match 6 $4,000/we... [ More ]

Reply #4

TheGameGrl — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:33:14 GMT

In wee little print it states A guaranteed amount- Not sure if its 1 mill or 2. Anything beyond that doesnt have to be paid out. On average a 30 year payout equals 1.08 mill before fed taxes.I prefer the scratch off game- Win for Life with 1k per week for life. More weeks and more cash! Then the $2 isnt so much to surrender for that chance :)Sirbrad- I think we should take up a letter of recommendation to the PA lottery Commission . I'd gladly help get our wonderful State reps to sign it since... [ More ]

Reply #3

sirbrad — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:05:30 GMT

Yes I did actually, but they seem stubborn to change. They claim this is what the players wanted. I am not sure who these players are however, but I sure did not have a say in the vote. But they did say it is indeed for life for the individual, and about 30 years for a benificiary. I think they would much rather pay out so little for so long, as opposed to a large lump sum up front. So that is why they don't change it. I personally recommended at least $5,000 a month for life. I also hat... [ More ]

Reply #2

CASH Only — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:55:22 GMT

brad:Did you ask them about adding a cash option? Even lifetime prizes need an alternative.

Reply #1

sirbrad — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:51:37 GMT

I highly doubt it. I talked to the PA lottery about it, and apparently no changes will be being made. I believe it will only grow even more so, especially with 5 or 6 winners in the last 6 months. Although I do agree that the jackpot is not great, and should raise with inflation, I like the odds of only 38 balls.

PA Unlucky for Life

CASH Only — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:36:41 GMT

Unlucky for Life began in late September 2004. Lately the average of 3/6 winners has dropped to below 5,000 per drawing.