Raffle rules applied to a jackpot game

Reply #7

KY Floyd — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:55:45 GMT

Then see my first post. The game you're describing is essentially unworkable.

There are only three ways for the lottery to raise jackpots while keeping ticket prices the same. They can: 1.make the games harder to win (there's a reasonable argument that this is effectively an increase in the cost of playing), 2. reduce lower tier prizes to put more in the jackpot pool, or 3. keep less for themselves. We know that option 3 isn't likely, so pick your poison.

Reply #6

Coin Toss — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:59:50 GMT

Actually I as thinking kind of a combination of both a regualr jackpot game- people playing their numbers and QPs - but there's no drawing until all combinations are sold so there would have to be a winner.

(I'm also thinking we're entertaining our lottery commission lurkers, too).

It would beat expanding the matrix again, wouldn't it?

It doesn't look like the lotteries are doing anything to keep the ticket price the same and increase the jackpots.

And for the $1 player this woul... [ More ]

Reply #5

KY Floyd — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:01:08 GMT

It sounds to me like you're now describing a game that works differently than the one in your first post. When somebody buys a raffle they get the next available number because the game is designed to be sold sequentially. They don't get to choose the number, it isn't random, and I doubt that most people see the ticket number as a combination. FWIW, while they aren't promoted as such, scratchers work the same way, except that the tickets arent sold sequentially and if all of the tickets don't... [ More ]

Reply #4

Stack47 — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:25:39 GMT

Ohio didn't sell out its 650,000 raffle tickets at $20 a pop in six weeks, but between March 2 and March 6 when the Mega Millions jackpot was estimated at $370 million, Ohio sold $15.1 million tickets. The players may have viewed that draw as a must win raffle with top prizes of $100 million with more and higher secondary prizes. Nation wide, Mega Millions sold almost 213 million tickets but if that 70% QP figure is true and no duplicate QPs were sold, they still would be short of selling out... [ More ]

Reply #3

Coin Toss — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:02:48 GMT

KY Floyd

...The combinations that wouldn't sell would be the ones that nobody plays simply because of probability. As a group, people don't pick combinations randomly...

In essence though, when soemone buys a raffle ticket, aren't they just taking the next number for sale?

So it would be the same in this game. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just saying W hat if?

If people started seeing a $400,000,000 and beyond jackpot it would stir up a whole lot of interest, and attr... [ More ]

Reply #2

Guru101 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:51:01 GMT

I don't think it would work out. It would take way too long to sell all the combinations.

Reply #1

KY Floyd — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:26:06 GMT

There are major problems with not having a drawing for a typical jackpot game until every single combination has been sold. The main one is how difficult it would be to sell all of the combinations. The frenzy over raffles is produced by the perception that the odds are better and the fear of not getting a ticket while they're available, and that won't exist for the game you suggest.

I can promise you that plenty of people play 1 2 3 4 5 6 for every drawing (I had a coworker who was one o... [ More ]

Raffle rules applied to a jackpot game

Coin Toss — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:50:34 GMT

With the frenzy over raffles, and the $500,000,000 MM jackpots that never happened despite the hype about California joining making it possible, what if there was a jackpot game that was conducted like a raffle- no draw until all the thiclets are sold?

In this case all the tickets would mean all the combinations.

Granted, no seasoned lotto player is going to play 1 2 3 4 5 6, but some people would play that just to get a drawing conducted.

The jackpot would build until all the tickets