Odds Don't Change When Jackpot Goes UP

Reply #60

Stack47 — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:49:59 GMT

Just,

Lottery commissions made studies that say more people play when the jackpots are high so they look for ways to insure high jackpots. Ohio went to the multi-state Mega Millions for that reason and I saw where your Florida Lotto has 53 numbers. Are people waiting for the jackpot to grow or did they hear about the huge jackpot through clever advertising?

When I vacationed in Florida, I had fun playing the $5 Grouper without knowing the odds or the payoffs.

Reply #59

Stack47 — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:54:30 GMT

Coin,

Because we don t know the exact payoff in Lotto games, it s impossible to determine the true odds. Saying they are getting more for their buck by waiting until the payoff equals the game odds, would only be true if they won the jackpot.

Reply #58

Wintariofan — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:43:01 GMT

By the way, I totally agree with Cointoss...in the case of the troops, you still have 99,996 men against you. That is like you having 4 ticket combinations and having 99,996 others that could still come up when the draw is over. It's really simple math.

In the case of the PICK 3 (straight play) scenario earlier, it's not 1 in 500 after buying a second ticket. There's still 998 other possiblitlies.

Reply #57

Wintariofan — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:01:31 GMT

Wow, I really opened a can of worms on this one. Let me ramble...lol

All I am saying is that people think their odds of winning change when they buy a ticket once the jackpot is rolled-over. At that point, if you are so fortunate to win , then you might share with many. But does it matter at that point...? When you look at $30 million and there's 6 winners, you still are taking home 5 million. I wouldn't scoff at that at all.

Now being in Canada lotteries are tax... [ More ]

Reply #56

justxploring — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 07:28:35 GMT

Although I agree the odds don't change when the jackpot increases, I like what you wrote here. I play whether the Florida Lotto is $3M or $20M, because I know I have very little chance of winning in either case! However, as the jackpot rolls and rolls, it certainly makes sense that many people figure someone will eventually hit it. I still think it's silly that some people only play when a jackpot is huge, but spending my money on a jackpot game is silly to begin with. So even though in the w... [ More ]

Reply #55

ayenowitall — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:53:10 GMT

I was hoping against hope that this time it would turn out differently.

Reply #54

KY Floyd — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:46:38 GMT

Some of the people here can't understand it when it's really simple, so why confuse them even more? If you were able to place the dice with whichever face you chose showing and hope one matched a random roll of a die then you would exactly double your odds by using two dice instead of one. That's the real analogy for multiple tickets, where you'd presumably buy tickets with different numbers. With the number of possibilities in lottery games, the difference between two tickets with different... [ More ]

Reply #53

KY Floyd — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:39:10 GMT

Ordinary algebra doesn't work on the lotteries to describe how easy or hard it is to win.

I've never heard that before. Perhaps you could explain it in more detail? Is there some sort of special lottery algebra we should be using, and if so, just when should we use it?

Suppose I had a really big sock drawer, with 14 million socks in it. If I was blindfolded and tried to pull out the only red sock, would the probability of that be figured using lottery algebra or regular algebra? Would... [ More ]

Reply #52

Coin Toss — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:17:22 GMT

Stack47

Maybe they are smarter then you think because they realize betting a buck on a 14 million to 1 longshot should return at least a $14 million payoff.

_________________

Assuming a solo hit, granted, most hits are solo, but in 'things lotto' you can never assume a solo hit.

Reply #51

Stack47 — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:21:21 GMT

Wintariofan: It surprises me that some people believe the odds of winning a lottery go up when the jackpot gets bigger.

I believe some of the logic behind only playing when the jackpot is higher is based on more randomly generated quick pick combinations because of the larger number of tickets sold. They are assuming the winning ticket will be sold somewhere so they have better odds of it being sold to them.

Wintariofan: If you're smart (grin), you will realize the odds of win... [ More ]

Reply #50

Thoth — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:21:16 GMT

Dice Rolling:

Supposing the the objective is to roll a six. While rolling one die the odds are 1 in 6. The chance or probability is 1 6=0.16666...

Does rolling 2 dice at once double the chance that you will get a six?

There are 6x6=36 possible outcomes, of those 36 there 5x5 that will not cointain any sixes at all. The inverse of that figure is that there are 36-25=11 outcomes of the two combined dice that contain at least one six.

The probability is 11/36=0.30555... So does the c... [ More ]

Reply #49

Stack47 — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:05:56 GMT

If the object is that a sniper hits one target with one shot then a second sniper would in fact double their chances of hitting the target.

But how can the odds change to 1 in 50,000 when the second sniper would still have 99,999 targets to choose from?

How does adding a second sniper eliminate 49,999 possible targets

Reply #48

MillionsWanted — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:08:45 GMT

If your lottery offer 14,000,000 chances of winning with one ticket, there's still 13,999,999 chances you won't win. And 13,999,998 chances of losing if you buy two tickets.

People who are not into statistics too much think they have increased their chance of winning from 1/14,000,000 to 2/14,000,000 (or 1/7,000,000) when buying two tickets.

Coin Toss is most accurate I would say.

Ordinary algebra doesn't work on the lotteries to describe how easy or hard it is to win.

Reply #47

KY Floyd — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:34:48 GMT

I didn't say anything about the probability of a particular outcome.

If you buy lottery tickets, and you've got a lick of sense, each ticket will have a different number because you get to choose the numbers, so if you buy a ticket for all of the possibilities you are guaranteed to have awinning ticket.The results of rolling dice will essentially be random, so there is no guarantee.

Reply #46

paurths — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:13:09 GMT

So are you saying that if you were to have 6 go's to roll the dice you will have a 6 for sure?

First roll; you have 1 in 6

Second roll: you have 1 in 6

The difference is that it is more likely that you will roll a 6 because of your 2 shots at it, in comparison to a person that will roll it only once.

Reply #45

KY Floyd — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:25:41 GMT

You've misunderstood. I'm only trying to demonstrate a simple point about how probability works. Which games are played in which casino doesn't matter. Probability existed, and worked the same was it does today, long before people invented games of chance.

Let's try again. The game is strictly educational. There is no cost for playing and there is no monetary prize for winning. The object of the game is to roll dice and get a die that lands with a 6 showing. Not a combination that totals 6... [ More ]

Reply #44

Coin Toss — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:24:12 GMT

KY Floyd

You've mentioned dice often enough, maybe that will make sense to you. Suppose we're playing a game that requires you to roll a 6 to win. If you roll one die and I roll two dice, do I have twice as much chAnce of rolling a 6?

One die was a no roll in any joint I ever worked in. With dice a six can only be made 2-4, 5-1, or 3-3, there is no 6-0. There is no 6-0 and there is no cutting the odds in half with another ticket.

noahproblem

re:42 - at least not to the Japane... [ More ]

Reply #43

noahproblem — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:43:35 GMT

So 42 really is the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

Reply #42

KY Floyd — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:09:29 GMT

Buying a second ticket on no way means you now have 50,000 combinations covered, and that is what cutting the odds in half would mean.

I see a major part of the problem. You don't understand the difference between being twice as likely to win and half as likely to lose.

You've mentioned dice often enough, maybe that will make sense to you. Suppose we're playing a game that requires you to roll a 6 to win. If you roll one die and I roll two dice, do I have twice as much chAnce of rolling... [ More ]

Reply #41

Coin Toss — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:49:51 GMT

BobP

I honestly am not the one yanking anyone's chain here.

From your example:

The enemy has 100,000 troops and you are alone scouting, if you attack the odds are 1in 100,000 or 1 versus 100,000.

Your buddy shows up, the odds are now 2vs100,000 or 1in 50,000 because each of your share to take on is half the 100,000.

You're telling us that if a game had 100,000 to 1 odds, when your buddy (the second dollar) showed up you would have double the coverage . Once again, nope..... [ More ]

Reply #40

BobP — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 08:56:47 GMT

It might help to keep in mind we are not physically dividing the game's combinations into two independent stacks for this odds splitting trick. It's like shooting fish in a tank, they keep moving back and forth no matter how many guns we add to cut the odds.

I think you're just yanking our chain, so I'll leave the last laugh to you.

BobP

Reply #39

justxploring — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:51:45 GMT

Despite all the eduaction being offered in this thread, I just can't see an additional dollar cutting the above in half!

I still agree with Coin Toss.

I've always liked the way some people study logic. Ex:

Men, women and some animals are mammals

Most animals walk on 4 legs (horses, cows, dogs, cats, lions tigers bears (oh my!)

Most men and woman walk on 2 legs

Conclusion: The average mammal walks on 3 legs.

Reply #38

Coin Toss — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:34:53 GMT

The enemy has 100,000 troops and you are alone scouting, if you attack the odds are 1in100,000 or 1 versus 100,000.

Your buddy shows up, the odds are now 2vs100,000 or 1in50,000 because each of your share to take on is half the 100,000.

Unless you're Israeli Commandos I'd say you have a problem!

-Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ah - this is the formula for Powerball courtesy of the Idaho lottery website:

POWERBALL CHANCES OF WINNING THE JACKPOT:

(5 of 5 plus th... [ More ]

Reply #37

BobP — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 04:19:11 GMT

It's not coverage, it's versus like a battle.

The enemy has 100,000 troops and you are alone scouting, if you attack the odds are 1in100,000 or 1 versus 100,000.

Your buddy shows up, the odds are now 2vs100,000 or 1in50,000 because each of your share to take on is half the 100,000.

Two more of your guys show up, the odds are now 4vs100,000 or 1in25,000.

Four more of your guys show up, the odds are now 8vs100,000 or 1in 12,500.

Eight more of your guys show up, the odds are no... [ More ]

Reply #36

Coin Toss — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:45:47 GMT

Only the second ticket cuts the odds in half, because the second ticket is the only one that doubles the number of tickets you have.

__________________________________________________

BALONEY. Let's say there's a game with 100,000 combinations.

Buying a second ticket on no way means you now have 50,000 combinations covered, and that is what cutting the odds in half would mean. That's all there is to it.

Bye.

I know a lot of graduates of Maven University post on christian bo... [ More ]

Reply #35

KY Floyd — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:13:27 GMT

This would be so much easier if you understood the things you read and then quote. I'll quote my statement and highlight the proper part of it: You are definitely the only one who has suggested that anyone thinks each additional dollar cuts the odds in half again. What people have said is that the second dollar doubles your chances of winning, which means it cuts the odds in half.

Now let's look at what you said:

If the second dollar (ticket) actually cut the odds in half, ..... [ More ]

Reply #34

Coin Toss — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:39:57 GMT

Ky Floyd

You just said:

You are definitely the only one who has suggested that anyone thinks each additional dollar cuts the odds in half again. What people have said is that the second dollar doubles your chances of winning, which means it cuts the odds in half.

That is:

You are definitely the only one who has suggested that anyone thinks each additional dollar cuts the odds in half again.

followed by

What people have said is that the second dollar doubles your chances o... [ More ]

Reply #33

KY Floyd — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:41:02 GMT

Pick 3

1000:1

dollar two = 100:1

dollar three= 10:1

dollar 4= 1:1, where's my payoff?

That is what some people here are saying

As near as I can tell nobody has actually said that, except for when you've chosen to post imaginary conversations. You are definitely the only one who has suggested that anyone thinks each additional dollar cuts the odds in half again. What people have said is that the second dollar doubles your chances of winning, which means it cuts the odds i... [ More ]

Reply #32

Coin Toss — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:10:04 GMT

BobP

How do you think buying fewer than all the possible combinations guarantees a jackpot?

I don't. I never even came close to saying I did. But you might want to pose that question to the magic dollar crowd, the folks here who honestly believe that each adittional dollar cuts the odds in half .

Pick 3

1000:1

dollar two = 100:1

dollar three= 10:1

dollar 4= 1:1, where's my payoff?

That is what some people here are saying, the only thing different is the game and... [ More ]

Reply #31

BobP — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:54:54 GMT

Otherwise, using your example, when Powerball or Mega Millions was in the huindreds of millions people with deep enough pockets would be buying the amount of tickets necessary to guarantee a jackpot.

How do you think buying fewer than all the possible combinations guarantees a jackpot? If there is even one combination left unpurchased the jackpot is not guaranteed.

When the lottery sells tickets they don't run through all the possible combinations and begin again, not even for Quick... [ More ]

Reply #30

CA LotteryGuy — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:55:07 GMT

Toth...I think you hit the nail on the head with the odds/probability comment.

Reply #29

Thoth — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:13:49 GMT

The real problem here is that ODDS are being confused for PROBABILITY and the two are being used interchangeably...

Buy 1 Pick 3 combination the ODDS are 1 in 1000 or 1:999. The PROBABILITY is .001 ...written as a fraction, that decimal becomes 1/1000. As a percent it is .1% (one tenth of one-percent).

Buy two different Pick 3 combinations the ODDS are 2 in 1000 or 2:998. The PROBABILITY IS .002, written as a fraction it equals 2/1000 or 1 in 500 reduced. Whether reduced are left alone,... [ More ]

Reply #28

CA LotteryGuy — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:33:57 GMT

Let s try this explanation on for size:

Game: Mega Millions

Odds: 1: 175,711,536

I buy 1 ticket: I have 1 chance in 175,711,536

The odds of me winning are infinitesimal.

I buy 2 tickets: I now have 2 chances in 175,711,536

My chances of winning have doubled. (I had one chance, now I have two.)

The odds of me winning are still infinitesimal.

I buy 3 tickets: I know have 3 chances in 175,711,536

Reply #27

Coin Toss — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:14:32 GMT

Ky Floyd

In the case of the Florida raffle the odds of winning with one ticket are 1 in 125,000 because there will be 10 combinations drawn out of 1,250,000 available combinations.

Hello. that's a raffle....in the lotteries we are talking about there is one, and only one combination drawn. Quite a difference. All the difference in the world when it comes to odds on various games.

And with that, I give up. As long as people honestly think they cancvut the odds in half with anothe... [ More ]

Reply #26

Surge — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:41:24 GMT

Lottery Odds Calculator Results

Total numbers to draw from49

Numbers drawn per draw6

Total played numbers7

Total 6 number combinations of 77

Odds of matching 6 of the 7 played1 in 1997688.00

Total numbers to draw from49

Numbers drawn per draw6

Total played numbers8

Total 6 number combinations of 828

Odds of matching 6 of the 8 played1 in 499422.00

It really depends on how many different numbers there are on 2 tickets, if playing only 2 tick... [ More ]

Reply #25

KY Floyd — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:50:27 GMT

Winning the raffle has everything to do with the number of combinations. The game's odds always depend on the number of possible combinations, regardless of whether or not the game has been designed to guarantee a winner(s). The only difference between a typical raffle and a lottery is that with a raffle the possible combinations are limited to the ones that are played and each combination can only be played once.

In the case of the Florida raffle the odds of winning with one ticket are... [ More ]

Reply #24

KY Floyd — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:33:00 GMT

How do you figure he implied that buying two tickets covers half of the total combinations? He didn't even say anything about the number of combinations. He's talking about the ratio of the possible combinations to the number of combinations you have tickets for. The ratio is what determines your odds.

Let's use pick 3 so I can type shorter numbers. With 1 ticket your odds are 1 in 1000. Buy a second ticket and your odds are 2 in 1000. Since 2 in 1000 is a ratio it's the same as 1 in 500.... [ More ]

Reply #23

justxploring — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:23:48 GMT

1 ticket = 1in14mil

2 tickets = 1in7mil

I agree with Coin Toss, but I think the confusion might be that the lottery isn't the same as a raffle. Recently there have been some state raffles with limited tickets printed. So when then FL lottery sold 1,250,000 tickets and announced that 10 people would win $1 million, the odds became 1 in 125,000. (odds stated on the FL web site) So winning a raffle with a set amount of tickets that will be selected has nothing to do with the amount of co... [ More ]

Reply #22

paurths — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:18:20 GMT

oops,

i wrote: If one person played one combination the odds would be 1 in 146 million, meaning 146.000.000 - 1 = 159.999.999 combinations left.

if two persons would play one combination each (different numbers) the odds would be 146.000.000 - 2 = 159.999.998 combinations left.

the odds would not be 146.000.000 / 2 --> 1 in 73.000.000!!!

That should ofcourse be:

If one person played one combination the odds would be 1 in 146 million, meaning 146.000.000 - 1 = 145.999.999 combination... [ More ]

Reply #21

Coin Toss — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:00:46 GMT

1 ticket = 1in14mil

2 tickets = 1in7mil

Horsefeathers.

If 1 ticket = 1 in 14,000,000

2 tickets = 2 in 13,999,999.

Otherwise, using your example, when Powerball or Mega Millions was in the huindreds of millions people with deep enough pockets would be buying the amount of tickets necessary to guarantee a jackpot.

But people with the expertise to be able to amass enough money to do that aren't so lame as to fall for this nonsense about odds being halved.

And in your own... [ More ]

Reply #20

BobP — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:10:35 GMT

You're confusing odds with division.

If your team has 1 guy and the other team 10 odds are 1in10.

If your team has 2 guys and the other team 10 odds are 1in5.

If your team has 5 guys and the other team 10 odds are 1in2.

If your team has 10 guys and the other team 10 odds are 1in1.

When you have two columns of assending numbers one running up and the other down they meet in the middle.

1-9

2-8

3-7

4-6

5-5 *

6-4

7-3

8-2

9-1

This is the odds progression in action . .... [ More ]

Reply #19

Surge — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:09:25 GMT

EXACTLY!! It's simple math. For every combination you play, you're just taking that number of combinations from the total odds.

Buying two tickets DOES NOT cut the odds in half.

If you want to cut the odds in half of a 150,000,000 to one lottery, buy 75,000,000 tickets.

Reply #18

Coin Toss — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:07:16 GMT

JimmySand9

Do you realize you just implied that buying two tickets covers half of the total combinations?

And yes, buying 2 tickets does cut the odds in half. That's like telling me that if I buy half of the total combinations in a game, my overall odds are not 1 in 2.

I'm just going to let all you people who really believe that keep thinking it - it sells a lot more tickets for the lottery, most tickets are losers, and that's how jackpots grow.

In any form of gambling, the los... [ More ]

Reply #17

paurths — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:45:08 GMT

If one person played one combination the odds would be 1 in 146 million, meaning 146.000.000 - 1 = 159.999.999 combinations left.

if two persons would play one combination each (different numbers) the odds would be 146.000.000 - 2 = 159.999.998 combinations left.

the odds would not be 146.000.000 / 2 --> 1 in 73.000.000!!!

Yes, the odds of someone winning the jackpot will go up with the more people playing it,

but the odds for 1 person, who is not someone , would not go up if a million... [ More ]

Reply #16

JimmySand9 — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:52:23 GMT

Uh, I know. It's the expected rate of return that changes.

And yes, buying 2 tickets does cut the odds in half. That's like telling me that if I buy half of the total combinations in a game, my overall odds are not 1 in 2.

Reply #15

bobby623 — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:42:13 GMT

It's amazing how many folks can quote statistics, cite odds of this and that happening, etc.

You buy one ticket, you have one chance of winning the jackpot.

Buy two tickets, you have two chances of winning the jackpot and sharing it with yourself, etc.

I've read hundreds of posts and have not found one where someone has demonstrated that knowing the odds makes one bit of difference. In fact, the posts on this subject discourage folks from buying a ticket.

Keep it simple - buy a tick... [ More ]

Reply #14

KY Floyd — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:16:04 GMT

Your math and your analogy are both wrong.

If the younger person gets a year older then the other person also gets a year older, but if I buy another lottery ticket the number of possible combinations stays exactly the same.

The second ticket cuts the odds against you in half, from 1 in n to 2 in n. A third ticket reduces your odds from 2 in n to 3 in n, and a 4th only reduces it to 4 in n. You run out of odds when you've bought n tickets. Your odds become 1 in 1 and you are guarante... [ More ]

Reply #13

Coin Toss — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:05:54 GMT

... I had to be nice to that old fart for over 60 years, but it finally paid off.

and since I've read some of those posts, I wonder when we would have become the same age.....

Reply #12

justxploring — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:27:27 GMT

Okay, I understand this but Who's on First?

BTW, this is a very good analogy. Simple but true. I like it. to continue... In 10 years you are 60 and she is now 30. You are twice her age. in 20 years you are 80 and she is 50. and in 15 years you are dead and she is enjoying the money you left her thinking I had to be nice to that old fart for over 60 years, but it finally paid off.

Reply #11

CASH Only — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:56:10 GMT

Regardless of how many plays you get per dollar, NY Lotto has the lowest payout percentage of any US lottery game. The payout is only 38%-40%.

Reply #10

ayenowitall — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:46:41 GMT

BobP wrote:

A lot of what you read is dependent on phraseology, how the question is asked and answered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That pretty well sums it up. This has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards. It mostly amounts to a lot of people talking past one another because they're all asking and answering different questions in different terms.

Some people understand odds and probabilities; some people don't. I've neve... [ More ]

Reply #9

Coin Toss — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:34:10 GMT

Easy, theoryhetically each additional ticket would cut the odds established by the ticket before it in half, and you would run out of odds long, long beffore you ran out of possible combinations.

Even if the above did work (which is a fallacy, but follow) that would assume a solo hit, and you can never assume a solo hit. Granted mnost are, but all anyone with deep enough pockets would need to do would be buy a huge amount of tickets thinking they had a 'lock'.

Old Abbot and Costello r... [ More ]

Reply #8

BobP — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:19:29 GMT

Uh-huh and the states that sell two tickets for a dollar don't know how to figure the odds of their game either. New York always cut their true odds in half to reflect their two plays for a dollar, though in Canada they appear to agree with you.

If buying two tickets doesn't cut the odds in half, and four tickets into quarters, etc. then how do you explain working it all the way through to buying all the tickets cuts the odds to 1in1?

BobP

Reply #7

guesser — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 06:20:59 GMT

But what's funny is we have not had a split jackpot for a long time, and overall, we don't have a lot of them.

(I mean multiple winning tickets sold, not multiple people sharing one winning ticket

Reply #6

Coin Toss — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:04:29 GMT

Wintariofan

Welcome. You are certainly a breath of fresh air- therre are people here who sincerely believe purchasing two tickets instead of one cuts the odds in half.

There is such a things as odds vs 'money odds'. Take a crap table where the 2 pays double and the 12 pays triple in the field.

The odds of the field numbers are 20 combinations not in the field, 16 in the field. So, 20:16 of losing the field bet. But since the 12 pays triple and the 2 pays double, the 'money odds' ar... [ More ]

Reply #5

justxploring — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:29:08 GMT

I don't think anyone who understands statistics would believe that a $50M jackpot is easier to win than a $2M jackpot. I think that the reason so many people stand in line when it rolls over a lot is greed. For some strange, unknown reason the average person who earns $35K a year isn't as interested in or gets more excited about winning $1 million than $100 million.

When more people play, the chance of someone winning goes up, but the odds don't change. If you flip a coin, the odds of gettin... [ More ]

Reply #4

johnph77 — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:03:28 GMT

The odds don't go up but the payout percentage - the expected rate of return - does.

gl

j

Reply #3

guesser — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 06:21:45 GMT

I would think the odds of someone winning a Jackpot would go up if more people were playing it:

If ONE person buys ONE ticket, their chances are 1 in 146 million, but if TWO people buy one ticket each, wouldn't their combined odds be 2 in 146 million ? (assuming they don't have identical numbers).

So I would think the odds of 'somebody' winning the jackpot would be better with more people playing, more tickets sold

Reply #2

BobP — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 06:04:14 GMT

Welcome to Lottery Post.

A lot of what you read is dependent on phraseology, how the question is asked and answered.

Of course the lottery is a closed number universe, the overall odds never change, but there are also odds for every possibility that might occur some dependent on events.

The odds against winning a full jackpot do go up as the jackpot gets bigger because the odds of multiple winners go up as well.

Winning a half or a quarter of a jackpot is NOT winning a lottery ja... [ More ]

Reply #1

TheGameGrl — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:35:43 GMT

Thanks for sharing the reality of statistics. The misconceptions that are out there floating around are amazing. Welcome to the forums

Odds Don't Change When Jackpot Goes UP

Wintariofan — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:09:45 GMT

It surprises me that some people believe the odds of winning a lottery go up when the jackpot gets bigger. If you're smart (grin), you will realize the odds of winning any prize is the same whether the jackpot is $2 million or $35 Million. I was reading in a few articles that people feel that their chances of winning are much slimmer as the jackpot goes up as more people are buying tickets. The only thing that changes is the prize structure not the odds. More money is being divided amongst m... [ More ]