'All or Nothing' game

Reply #13

GASMETERGUY — Sun, 06 May 2007 01:06:46 GMT

In my august opinion an all or nothing game is the only way the lottory should be played.

Those who like lower tier prizes are hoping to reap a profit over time. I do not believe this is possible. So why not have one huge jackpot for the winner

$500 for winning the P3 is not worth the effort. $5000 for the P4 might be better but agan, not enough of a jackpot to be worthwhile. So roll those P5, PB, and MM games and let those who like $10 to $50 every now and then have at the P3/P4 gam... [ More ]

Reply #12

justxploring — Sat, 05 May 2007 17:18:58 GMT

Although I usually don't even get a bone it's nice to get those little $5 prizes or even win a free ticket. I'm not sure I would want to play a game where there is only a jackpot prize. I mainly play the Florida Lotto which is a 6/53 game and the 5/6 prize is usually around $5,000. I think it stinks that the 4/6 prize is only about $70 (4 numbers is the most I've gotten) but unless the odds of winning the jackpot were increased by lowering the matrix, I vote No. If they changed it back... [ More ]

Reply #11

Just6ntlc — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:38:08 GMT

If it's only $1 per game, that's my vote.

Reply #10

tnlotto1 — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:57:07 GMT

i know what you mean especially this month because i have only hit the powerball number once all month and i have had powerplays because of the 10x multiplier so i keep hitting the nothing part but it will be worth it when i hit the all ...

Reply #9

justxploring — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:54:42 GMT

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Reply #8

Coin Toss — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:42:32 GMT

Pick 5 games just don't get to that level of jackpots. In Illinois ours is now a 5/ 39 with a prgoressive jackpot that has gone over $1,000,000 a few times, but that's rare.

I've posted before about a 'wider' winner base, which is something I'd like to see.... say three $50 million dollar winners when a jackpot is $150 million, but put this poll up for fun.

Nothing else creates a frenzy like a huge jackpot - just watch the board, and the TV news the next time PB or MM is up.

Also, most... [ More ]

Reply #7

rdc137 — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:56:47 GMT

I proposed something similar to this in the Pick 5 forum a few months ago. It was a Pick 5/25 with whoever matches 5/5 gets or splits the pot. If no one, those matching 4/5 get it, etc. It received a big thumbs down.

Reply #6

OldSchoolPa — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:14:18 GMT

I like the idea of an all or nothing game...must start at no less than $30 million with the CVO being 60% of the annuitized jackpot amount. Twice a week draws with a 5 + 1 matrix of 1 - 53 and 1 - 40 bonus ball. $1 per play (this would be the only game that wouldn't need a multiplier feature since it's all or nothing!!!).

Now the only few times I have ever played pick 4 was straight...I don't play pick 3 because $500 is chump change and I don't play pick 4 because like DoubleDown I have as... [ More ]

Reply #5

DoubleDown — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:05:12 GMT

The games I play seem to already be all or nothing..

I usually get nothing and someone else gets the all .

Reply #4

KY Floyd — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:51:46 GMT

The states already offer plenty of games with low level prizes for those who prefer them to the structure of the jackpot games. Statistically you should expect to lose at least half of your money over the long term, and if winning 10 grand over the course of 20 years makes a significant difference in your life you shouldn't be playing the lottery anyway. Even a modest jackpot will change your life. An all or nothing game should appeal to all players with sense.

With jackpot games typically p... [ More ]

Reply #3

MegaWinner — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 03:54:21 GMT

Only if were no more than a dollar per ticket. It would have to start at with at least a $20 million annuity jackpot and be held once a week to keep it going.

Reply #2

JimmySand9 — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 03:12:26 GMT

I agree whole-heartedly. That's why I don't play Pick 3 and 4, at least straight. I would never play a game with no lower tiers, and no one with a brain would either.

Reply #1

LckyLary — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:37:40 GMT

I think the opposite, I would rather get more for the lower prizes. I'd be as happy with 20 MILL as with 200 MILL, and the reason a lot of people stop playing is when they get something like 4+0 and find it pays $100 and not $1000 or so, or that 2+1 pays only 10 dollars. I don't like games where you have to mail in losing tickets, it would be ok if it could be entered online simply entering a code and hitting the button and if it wins THEN you mail it in. An all or nothing might be OK starting a... [ More ]

'All or Nothing' game

Coin Toss — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:49:25 GMT

Would you play a game- more than likely a Pick 5 + 1, or maybe a Pick 6 - with a grid no larger than any current grids, where the jackpot builds and there are no winners other than the jackpot?

Explain your answer if you will, please.

Where would the jackpot have to start for you to play it?

What would the jackpot have to build to for you to play it?

Are you playing to 'win it all' already, anyway?

*For option 8 above, I mean some kind of second chance drawing. One of those w... [ More ]