POLL: Think about this one!

Reply #22

rubberbandman — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:54:49 GMT

True, it would be interesting,

but why come up with such a concept, if multiple people win and they divide the jackpot, it would still be plenty of money.

Reply #21

Coin Toss — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:44:23 GMT

KY Floyd

Personally I'd like to see QP's abolished.

That would probably be a very hard sell to any lottery, considering their own stats. that tell us 70-80% of sales, and jackpot winners are quick picks.

I would imagine that there's even a certain percentage of lottery players who have never filled out a play slip - and don't even know how to or that they exist at all.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if any lottery offered such a game.

Reply #20

KY Floyd — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:54:35 GMT

They already log every single sale. The log records the combination, the time, place and amount of the sale, and probably a few other things. How else would they know whetehr or not there was a winner other than waiting to see if one came forward? They also have at least some rudimentary ability to control what combinations are available. Every day some of the combinations for P3 and P4 sell out and are unavaiilable for the rest of that drawing period. The raffle games also have the ability to c... [ More ]

Reply #19

Coin Toss — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:04:52 GMT

bobby623

I agree with you, but you know what? - Judgng from some of the members here being a bit fanatical about my numbers I think such a lottery would have a built-in target market!

The Once A Set of Numbers Is Taken Lottery

Do you solemnly swear to play these numbers every drawing until they hit or until you depart, so long as you shall play?

I do.

By the powers vestd in me by the Intergalactic Lottery Commission I now pronounce you player and number set. May you dutifully

Reply #18

bobby623 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:58:27 GMT

If officials ever tried to limit the sale of individual combinations to the first person who bought it, I think we would have a lottery revolution.

To do that, officials would have to have a way of controlling and logging combinations sold, and this wouldn't be a good idea.

There are a ton of posts here by folks complaining about how they think the games are being manipulated.

Imagine the fireworks if the Texas lottery, for example, started keeping track of combinations sold and blocked... [ More ]

Reply #17

tntea — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:36:21 GMT

No one is complaining about how many people bought the escort . They are just upset about the money business that was going on.. The way the money was being moved around became the problem.

Reply #16

Raven62 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:27:03 GMT

Did the escort: Escort more than one person at a time?

The escort is a singer by profession: Singing to the Grand Jury and the x-governors constituents.

Reply #15

rubberbandman — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:22:45 GMT

im the same way lol, but then again 100 mill and up i still wouldnt complain

Reply #14

MaddMike51 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:04:29 GMT

$20,000,000 and under only nets you 4 or 5 million and being the greedy bastard that I am,it isn't enough,I'd take it but I want more.When I hit,I don't want to share the jackpot with anyone else.

Reply #13

rubberbandman — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:39:42 GMT

I suppose

Reply #12

pacattack05 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:26:11 GMT

At the end of the session, you come into a lot of money....

Reply #11

rubberbandman — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:19:44 GMT

what does that have to do with the lottery

Reply #10

pacattack05 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:12:23 GMT

The Governer of NY was caught using a very upscale and costly escort service. I think he paid 4500 bucks....WOW

Reply #9

rubberbandman — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:10:58 GMT

i don't know what you are talking about but i assume its negative am i correct

Reply #8

rubberbandman — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:08:49 GMT

Interesting answer, if the jackpot was 20 and under i would understand your dilema but if its 270 and up i wouldnt complain

Reply #7

rubberbandman — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:06:01 GMT

OMG that is a great quote, i got to remember that, thanks.

Reply #6

MaddMike51 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:28:15 GMT

Good one

Reply #5

justxploring — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:07:52 GMT

You obviously haven't been following the story about the NY 'escort' service.

Reply #4

MaddMike51 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:50:46 GMT

I would be very,very upset.If I want to share my jackpot with others I'd join a pool

Reply #3

ThatScaryChick — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:34:25 GMT

I wouldn't be upset about it. spiltting a jackpot among a couple of people will still give one a lot of money.

Reply #2

Raven62 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:38:10 GMT

It's the ideal situation for the Lotteries: Where else can you sell the same item to multiple people and no one complains

Reply #1

pacattack05 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:30:18 GMT

True, but consider someone's QP is your set.

I wonder if the officials ever thought about no repeat sets. That set belongs to whomever buys it first. Once that exact set is bought, no one else can purchase it for that drawing only.

But then multiple winners can be a good thing too. A fifth of 30 million is still not too shabby...lol

POLL: Think about this one!

Coin Toss — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:18:11 GMT

Consider, that your set of numbers is someone else's quick pick