Simple Concept

Reply #13

sirbrad — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:04:00 GMT

A 38 number field, using software, reveals more discernible patterns than a field of 75 numbers, using parameters like repeating, consecutive, or adjacent numbers. Yes that is true, that is why I have much better results tracking LFL as opposed to powerball. Less balls are easier to divide up and sort.

Reply #12

hypersoniq — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:52:04 GMT

PA might try that, get gus the groundhog to flip a coin every nightcost to play $1choices (heads/Tails)payout 25 centsthat logic works for PA

Reply #11

RJOh — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:22:08 GMT

Greg wrote: I wonder what our fellow LP readers have to say? I think you both are dreaming. It's unlikely that JimmySand9 have job designing lottery games and it's unlikely that there will ever be a lottery game where players have a 50-50 chance of winning. Keep dreaming, some times dreams do come true.

Reply #10

Greg — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:40:48 GMT

O.K. I work for them . At last, you admit it! Consider yourself unmasked! :-) As in, I don't want them to go bankrupt so our money-well doesn't run dry. Put out one of your 100,000% payout games, and that's it, no more lottery. No Jimmy, I didn't say that. Don't confuse the issue here. Lower the odds and lower the prize amounts so that more people win which will actually increase the number of players and increase sales! It's as simple as that.Besides, it doesn't necessarily matter what... [ More ]

Reply #9

JimmySand9 — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:03:38 GMT

O.K. I work for them . As in, I don't want them to go bankrupt so our money-well doesn't run dry. Put out one of your 100,000% payout games, and that's it, no more lottery. Besides, it doesn't necessarily matter what amount of numbers are in the field, but both that and the number of balls picked by the player. So while the field may seem like it's impossible to crack, you have to look at all the parameters. Because all that really matters are the odds. Look at the odds of my game, 1 in abo... [ More ]

Reply #8

RJOh — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:16:49 GMT

Pick3 have odds of 1:1000 for a straight hit and 1:220 for box hits so prizes of $500 and $50 are there for those players who want lower odds and lower prize amounts. Those kinds of odds will never exist for those players who want to play for $500,000 or more.

Reply #7

Greg — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:05:52 GMT

RJ, my thinking is that by introducing a lower odds game with slightly lower prize amounts, that more people will be enthused to play more often thus increasing the state's profitability by ensuring more winners.

Reply #6

RJOh — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 01:38:06 GMT

Greg,A 5/19 game would have odds of 1:11,628 for a 5/5 and odds of 1:3 for matching 2/5. What you want is a game where the odds of winning your money back is about the same as flipping a coin. Get real, you're never going see such a lottery game.

Reply #5

RJOh — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 01:28:45 GMT

While overall odds of 1:5 are common on scratch-off games where the out comes are controlled with printed tickets, 1:9 has been the best overall odds allowed for any on-line games where the outcomes are the results of a random drawing. It may be doable but I don't think any states will ever allow those kinds of overall odds on a game where the out come is the results of a random drawing and may jeopardize their guaranteed 50% of sales some times.

Reply #4

Greg — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 01:20:44 GMT

There you go again, Jimmy: giving us a lotto game with a hugely OPPRESSIVE (i.e. LARGE) number field!I'm (seriously) convinced you work for THEM, not US!By the way, NJ did away with LOTZEE about 2 years ago, which was just like your game, had a CONSISTENTLY low number of winners and was rejected by players as evidenced in rather poor sales. NJ gave up on the game because players refused to play it. Why? Too large of a number field!Tell your people that a low number field game (5/19; 5/26; 5... [ More ]

Reply #3

JimmySand9 — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:20:09 GMT

Well the odds of matching 1 number is about 1 in 5. It may seem like something you can do with your eyes closed, but it's not that easy. I calculated it so it would pay out 50% on average, so I don't see any reason why they couldn't do it.

Reply #2

powerplayer — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:36:20 GMT

Winning on 1 number....where do I sign up...I can do that with my eyes close...well maybe...Good concept but, I don't think they will go lower then picking 2 balls...other wise it would be to easy.PP

Reply #1

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:26:22 GMT

sounds like a good concept to me.......

Simple Concept

JimmySand9 — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:24:50 GMT

O.K., I know what you're thinking Oh boy, another concept from JimmySand9 . But hear me out, this is a good one. I want to hear your feedback.Very simple idea, this is. Just pick 4 numbers out of 75. That's it. There aren't 100 lines of numbers or anything, just 1 line for $1. And the best part, not only is there a growing jackpot, but you can win by matching as little as 1 number.Cost : 1 Play for $1Minimum Jackpot : $50,000PrizeOddsMatch 4Jackpot1 : 1,215,450Match 3$5001 : 4,279.8Match 2$51... [ More ]