Which situation would you prefer?

Reply #19

savagegoose — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:56:58 GMT

id prefer number 2 but 1 mill in a savings account = $12.5k a year :o

Reply #18

joker17 — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:39:30 GMT

Great post!

I'd like to be the first here on the LP, date stamped - to show that this will be the new wave. It won't be soon, but I think this idea of wealth spread will become more obvious even amongst the officials who make the decisions. Maybe we should start a rally here at the LP. When can a concerned citizen, especially an LP kind, afford the possibility to overlook on such an opportunity as this? If we can't pioneer this who can?

Power to the LP folks....

Reply #17

Hermanus104 — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:24:36 GMT

Number Two. Why?

- Because more people win money and

- Because more numbers would be drawn, meaning, if you have a raffle, more birthdays would win.

Reply #16

badboy00z — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:01:15 GMT

The draw would be just 1 set of numbers as usual. 20 people will pick the same numbers.

Reply #15

gsc5 — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:16:43 GMT

NUMBER 2. Now the question is, how would they do that? If the jackpot is 20 million, would they draw 20

numbers. Do you think any state would go for it? And would the jackpot ever really grow?

There's another benefit, being just a million dollars, people might not go as crazy as they have in the past with

multi-million dollar jackpots.

Reply #14

petergrfn — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:25:03 GMT

Depends on if that one guy is me! LOL Just Kidding..... I like to hear stories about both situations. That is why there are different levels of lottery prizes. Big progressive jackpots and lower prizes or scratch-offs....Different prizes appeal to various players... Large jackpot prizes are nice to stir up dreams but smaller jackpots are good for more down to earth fantasy...... So for me BOTH are appealing..in different ways.

Reply #13

rcbbuckeye — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:05:07 GMT

When I play MM, I megaply because it could mean $1 million for 5 of 5 without the megaball. While that isn't really enough for me to retire (right now), it would probably set me up to retire in about 10 years when I'm 65. I hope, maybe. Then again, who knows... in tens years it might take a million bucks just to live a year with the way the dollar is going. LOL.

I'd rather have 10 million after taxes.

Reply #12

lottocalgal — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:22:18 GMT

Hey Ambelamba,

I truly believe #2. And that is attainable for any of the states right now. I would love if CA remove the bonus number in their Super lotto plus. with their 5/49. Right now if one were to get 5/6 without the bonus, they would win somwhere around 20-30k. and its usually 3 or 4 people who win that. But if they split the my scenario's jackpot without the bonus #, they could win around 1 million each. Making 4 people really happy every few days would be great! Just wishful think... [ More ]

Reply #11

RustyBear — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:12:49 GMT

Hands Down in these time(s) I rather see many people be helped,

I divided the amount in the tarp funds by the amount of mortgage balances out there and still 222 billion remained out the first 700, now i certainly am glad of the job Obama is trying to do but he were able to have been spoken to by the american people as derctly as the Wall Street pleaded with him, what would be there arguement for helping EVERYONE and the next day we all would be debt free? They scream socialism to the hills..... [ More ]

Reply #10

luvrh — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:53:24 GMT

2.

And I would like to be one of the hundred people...a million is great! I ain't greedy.

Reply #9

hearsetrax — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:12:42 GMT

Reply #8

rdgrnr — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:49:50 GMT

Two.

Reply #7

badboy00z — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:37:34 GMT

If I was the guy that won the $100 million I'd pick #1. Lol.

If I wasn't a winner at all I don't really care.

Reply #6

QuickPic85 — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:25:46 GMT

I would go with number two also.

Reply #5

LadyMylena — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:08:15 GMT

I've said the same kind of thing before. Definitely 2

Reply #4

Coin Toss — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:51:12 GMT

I'll go with the flow here, 2.

No individual needs hundreds of millions.

Reply #3

ThatScaryChick — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:50:30 GMT

Number 2 as well.

Reply #2

sully16 — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:49:36 GMT

number 2..spread the wealth

Reply #1

Guru101 — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:56:23 GMT

I'll go with number 2.

Which situation would you prefer?

ambelamba — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:43:07 GMT

1. One guy winning $100 millions.

2. One hundred unrelated people winning $1 million each.

Seriously, I prefer number 2. And El Gordo is like this.