would you play if.....

Reply #15

guesser — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 05:07:32 GMT

Sure, but if you were NOT that winner ?

My guess is nobody here would turn down $200,000, let alone 15 mill - or 300 mill., so why folks would 'want it all' vs. another shot at half of 100 mill is beyond me..

And you also forget that there may be more than one set of winning numbers, I guess we could factor that in: if the pot is over 100 mill and there are two sets (or more) of the same winning numbers floating around, then there is no secondary drawing...

Reply #14

psykomo — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 02:55:42 GMT

PSYKOMO.................just voted........................... YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can live with spreadin'g DEE............................. MONEY around

AROUND

...................................................................................????????????

PROBLEM??????????????????PEOPLE??????????????...................

ASK the DEMO's or RUPUB's...............THEY COLLECT!....................

NOT........................................... [ More ]

Reply #13

pigsNtrees — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:36:45 GMT

While I love the thrill I get right before I check my numbers for a really large jackpot, I can live just as good on a much smaller one. I voted yes

Reply #12

OldSchoolPa — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:01:15 GMT

I said I would still play, but I actually prefer it the way it IS right now. Sure, it may be disappointing to many people when there is a single winner for say a $100M or $200M annuitized jackpot, but if I was that winner, I would be somewhat disappointed sharing that jackpot with 1 or 2 other winners. I like that if someone wins a sub $75M annuitized jackpot prize that it is highly likely that winner will be the sole winner.

Also, I would not be in agreement with the above recommended c... [ More ]

Reply #11

LOTTOMIKE — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:20:40 GMT

i would've liked to have gotten hot lotto here.....before it got computerized.

Reply #10

jarasan — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:52:31 GMT

You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,

Know when to walk away and know when to run.

You never count your money when youre sittin at the table.

Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done

Kenny Rodgers circa 1976

Good strategy guesser

Reply #9

guesser — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:29:01 GMT

But we already know it's a fact less people play when the jackpot is 'small'.

Just look at how many folks hit the 5 WB's every drawing, sometimes it's none, but I am not so sure we have gone 2 straight games without a 5 WB winner.

I'd still vote for the same thing I always suggest: when the jackpot gets over 100 million, draw two sets of numbers. If neither set has a winner, roll it to the next drawing. If only one set wins, give them half and roll the other half to the next drawing, an... [ More ]

Reply #8

DoubleDown — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:44:44 GMT

Lottomike, my vote is yes.

One or two million might keep me from having financial problems later in life.

Or at least for a while......

...DD

Reply #7

jarasan — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:35:22 GMT

An addiction is an addiction, even if the dose is lowered I would still need my PB and MM fix.

You know if you read this 20 years ago you would think PB was peanut butter and MM was M Ms!

LOL jarasan

Reply #6

MegaWinner — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 04:39:31 GMT

It depends on the amout of the lowest jackpot amount. Me personally, I don't play anything but the Mega Millions (and powerball once in a while) because the lowest jackpot is just enough for me to retire on. The NJ Pick 6 Lottery game is too small and to me, not worth the aggravation. That jackpot is only $2 million (Annuity value) and that would be quickly reduced to less than a million after taxes and cash value.

If they lowered the Mega Millions Jackpot to anything less than what it i... [ More ]

Reply #5

tntea — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 03:39:47 GMT

With the way things are right now.. $1million isn't that much money.. But hey, if it is more than you have in your account right now..Why not try to win it with a dollar..lol

I use my dollar to win a lot less... with pick 3 and pick 4...

Money is money...

Winning is the challenge..

Reply #4

Tnplayer805 — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:52:38 GMT

I think the idea for MM and PB is to have large jackpots. I would still play; however, it would be hard to give up the excitement of a 200+ jackpot.

Reply #3

lottolaughs — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:44:42 GMT

I'm with you two! Love to see 200 $1M winners opposed to 1 $200M winner. But you're right,Mike. $1M doesn't sound like a lot and doesn't generate much interest. But if people stopped to think about it,though,gosh! I mean who wouldn't want to win just a mil

Reply #2

LOTTOMIKE — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:12:13 GMT

i like that idea a lot.too bad the majority of players these days are bewitched by the 200 million dollar jackpots.

Reply #1

Coin Toss — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:43:50 GMT

My vote is yes. I'd like to say more winners. I'd even like to see something like multiple drawings for the same jackpot, once a jackpot got over a certain amount- say instead of one $150,000,000 winnder, perhaps three $50,000,000 winners or even five $30,000,000 winners.

would you play if.....

LOTTOMIKE — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:38:09 GMT

if mega millions and powerball suddenly lowered back to their matrixes of seven years ago and the game got easier would you still play even if the jackpots were lower too