Hey I just thought of something.....

Reply #12

Just6ntlc — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:56:21 GMT

Absolutely not as my vote. I don't want to spend too much money on lotto. If CA SLP jackpot is at least $48 million or more, I'll start spending money, but at only up to $5 per play.

Reply #11

Chewie — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:05:23 GMT

Isn't that what the Spanish Lotto is based on? Make one huge bet one time and sit around for a year for the results, or sit around for a year and make one huge bet one time. I enjoy the lottery too much to just sit around and watch professional wrestling every week for a year and lottery one time.

Reply #10

time*treat — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:36:17 GMT

I'd break this up into 3 trips at least, unless you're going to europe to get your tix.You'll draw less attention than playing ~$1000 at once (let alone carrying that much $$$)You'll know if the method shows promise. You can use your less-than-jackpot early wins to set up that trust you're working on.Then when you hit the big one... all the pieces will be in place and aged

Reply #9

Editgap — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:55:06 GMT

That's genius. You crack me up.

Reply #8

sirbrad — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:16:40 GMT

My post was assuming that you are on a lottery budget, and only had that much to spend for one year. Course I am sure some spend huge amounts at one time, and all throughout the weeks/months as well. I wish I had that kind of money, then I would not have to play the lottery

Reply #7

four4me — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:46:39 GMT

Do a test run wheel your perfected set of numbers for 960 tickets and check to see what happens? Of course it's entirely possible that your selected numbers might hit in a wheel that big who knows.

Reply #6

Coin Toss — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:24:12 GMT

I voted no, because a player is going to play.Trying to do what you mentioned would be just like when someon tries to stick with a Slim-Fast diet- eventually all that happens is they revert back to their regular way of eating but are also consuming a can or two of Slim Fast in addition to what they've been consuming.

Reply #5

Tenaj — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 05:35:19 GMT

It's like getting paid once a month.

Reply #4

LckyLary — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:45:23 GMT

Coming up with that much dough on one day would be a bugger. By the time the day got around I'd probably rather just keep it in the bank as if I'd won $1000. It's more fun if on any given day for a few dollars you can win hundreds. Suddenly that gadget you couldn't afford right now, you can... but my biggest reason is that if I played that many numbers it would severely water down my algorithms.. I'd be playing numbers that are at 20% strength.. and since only one number wins you are guarantee... [ More ]

Reply #3

RJOh — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:45:15 GMT

The problem with playing a $1000 at one time, you would probably win half your money back and would want to try it again soon and once you did that you would be hooked on playing a $1000 at a time until you had lost several times.

Reply #2

Raven62 — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:35:53 GMT

$20 X 52 = $1040FYI: Their are 4.33333333 weeks per MonthIf you lose: Will you wait a years to play again

Reply #1

sirbrad — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:34:25 GMT

Perhaps, but I have a hard enough time playing once a month, then waiting for the next month! It is just too tempting to play each week. Plus while you wait for the next month, the large jackpots are gone by then as well. The lottery is simply lose-lose for the most part.

Hey I just thought of something.....

rundown99 — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 03:39:25 GMT

What if, instead of playing $10 twice a week, you play ($10 x 2 drawings/week) x (4 weeks/month) x (12 months/year) = $960 once a year? You would have more chances to win, but you would only play on that drawing? Is it worth it? Your thoughts......