why did more people win in the 1990's than today? Lotto.

Reply #33

Stack47 — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:41:00 GMT

Because if the amount of players is the same and the matrix is the same you should have the same outcome correct??

There are only 258 different ways to match five numbers in a 6/49 matrix so the number of 5 out of 6 winners depend on how many of those combos are sold including duplicate tickets. Since most tickets are QPs and there is a fixed payoff, it's possible they now program the RNGs in their terminals to distribute the QPs raffle style. When the game had a pari-mutual payoff it really... [ More ]

Reply #32

Scientistman — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:08:58 GMT

Thanks Jon D

Reply #31

Jon D — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:54:55 GMT

I just noticed your thread, and the answer is very simple: revenue.

The lottery and casinos offer games with a built-in certain statistical certainty over time, that's how the business works. More revenue means more winners, but the same percentage, that does not change. They always get their expected cut.

I don't know anything about Washington Lotto game, but one quick look at your list and it is easy to see, by my eyeball looking at it, EVERYTHING is higher in 1993 versus 2012, number of... [ More ]

Reply #30

Scientistman — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:25:54 GMT

Hi Psykomo, yes it mekes a lot of cents lol

In the game in question The Washington State lotto in the 1990's they have had the same matrix the entire time and have gone from over 100 (one hundred) wins of 5 of 6 numbers correct in one night to only 2 to 10 people who can get 5 of 6 numbers correct on average now. Using the same number of balls.

Stake47 may have given me some insight on why? Im still checking it out now

Reply #29

JosephusMinimus — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:21:47 GMT

Scientistman: Seems to me there's an excellent chance your basic premise is flawed. But if it isn't, there might be a lot of explanations, some of which have been mentioned here already.

More people might well have been playing lotteries early in the 1990s for the simple reason that in most states lotteries were spanking new. Texas didn't have one until around that time, and when it began huge numbers of people might have regularly bought tickets, but gradually ceased doing so as the new wor... [ More ]

Reply #28

psykomo — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:03:30 GMT

JP:

this make's CENT'$

PSYKO is CRAZY !

MO number'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

RAI$E UR investment in LOTTERY

Reply #27

Scientistman — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:35:19 GMT

Congratualations RJOh on your win! ( I know you felt great when that occured) wow!!!! wow!!! wow!!! You've been working away at that forever! You deserved it man

Reply #26

Scientistman — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:30:57 GMT

hey Stack47 that was a darn good read I appreciate the simplicity of it and how you broke everything down. I have to re-read it again because I want to respond on some other things. I like the fact that you are able to break things down in the way that you do. Great job man!

I dont know the % of people on LP who have actually won 5 of 6 numbers right. I know RJOH just won yet thats the first 5 of 6 win that I have heard of on LP in a long time other than myself a couple weeks ago, but it seem... [ More ]

Reply #25

Stack47 — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:34:29 GMT

This thread was never about the ticket sales or $$$$$$$$. Its about how 75, 89, 100, 103 to 150 human beings in Washington state almost every drawing were able to somehow attain or pick 5 of the 6 winning numbers in 1993 and today only 5 to 10 people can do it on average today.

The loss in volume of ticket sales is a contributing factor and more so a factor now because there are three drawings a week. If there were two drawings a week in 2001 or 1993, the average ticket sales per drawing wer... [ More ]

Reply #24

RJOh — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 04:09:08 GMT

The last person I met who matched 5of6 in a 6/49 game was me and it was a week ago.

Pick 6

Statistic Current Month Last Month Current Year Last Year Lifetime

Picks 10 80 140 590 3,527

Hits 0 1 4 16 72

Hit Ratio 0.00% 1.25% 2.86% 2.71% 2.04%

Winnings $0 $5,000 $5,015 $270 $5,735

Prize Ratio 0.00% 6250.00% 3582.14% 45.76% 162.60

Reply #23

Scientistman — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:58:20 GMT

Stake47 Im talking about 1990's and before not 2001 and 2012. Regarless thanks for the info. regardless I dont give a rip! ITS NOT THE POINT! You think ticket sales is the point but its not the point. Thats your issue. Im just commenting on it off the cuff so fine I may stand corrected in my figures but I dont care about all that, its not the point of this thread.

Thank you for the fine work you did in an attempt to over throw an argument that I could care a less about. Its your issue that yo... [ More ]

Reply #22

Stack47 — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:15:51 GMT

You are trying to get me to believe that their are LESS people playing lotto today when its the opposite.

According the Washington State Lottery's Annual Report, in 2001, Lotto sales were $155 million and in 2012, $54 million or a 65% drop in sales. In 2003 when Washington joined MM, the lotto sales dropped to $104 million. I don't know where you're getting your information, but lotto sales were three times higher in 2001 than in 2012 which proves considerably LESS people are now playing lot... [ More ]

Reply #21

maringoman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:57:17 GMT

Before the last matrix change the PB odds were over 195M to 1.

Mary mother of Jesus! did anybody ever win on that? even now I still think the odds are ridiculous but I cannot help it lol I still throw in my $3

Reply #20

Coin Toss — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:41:26 GMT

maringoman,

Before the last matrix change the PB odds were over 195M to 1.

Scientistman,

The odds againt hitting 5 + 0 on MM are somewhere around 3.9M to 1.

The odds against hitting the Illinois loto, with jackpots usually beywen $1 and $3M, are over 20.3M to 1.

An extra buck on the MM is a much better chance to hit $1M than the Illinois 6/52 when the jps are low.

Reply #19

maringoman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:02:40 GMT

Could it be because the matrixes of playing the game have changed more than 3 times since the 1990s? I wonder which game between MM and PB will first increase the odds of winning the JP to be 1:200,000,000 because that is where it is headed. Say it ain't so o_O

Reply #18

Scientistman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:57:06 GMT

Alot of people do not mind at all if a lottery changes their games, it doesn't really matter. If it's better chances to win, then that's a good thing.

Most people would be very thrilled to play a game that pays less as long as they have a better chance to win. Winning a Jackpot in MM or PB is like next to impossible yet in a lower pay game if your chance is better more people will play it and still play the bigger games like MM and PB when the jackpot gets real high. That reminds me I need to... [ More ]

Reply #17

RJOh — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:30:35 GMT

Most states decided if you can't beat 'em then join 'em, that's what Ohio did even with its Classic Lotto.

Reply #16

Coin Toss — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:33:42 GMT

Maybe we can say that what Wal Mart is to local businesses MM and PB is to state lotteries.

Reply #15

RJOh — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:35:55 GMT

I don't about other states but in the 90's and early 2000's more people played Ohio's 649 game Super Lotto because it had the largest jackpots in the area. Players came to Ohio from all the surrounding states and the game generated enough funds to increase the jackpots as much as $4M after each drawing.

When Ohio decided to limit the amounts a ticket could win to $20M, people stopped coming to Ohio to play and the game started losing money. When Ohio reversed that rule a year later, surround... [ More ]

Reply #14

Scientistman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:36:56 GMT

msharkey2011 thanks for the reply.

I understand his and your theory its just that I'm not buying it!!!

Your theory goes a bit like this...

The more people who play the more winners. Its not rocket science here guys! I understand.

Yet if it were true that more people won back in the 1990's playing their state lotteries because there were no MM or PB then you are making a theory that goes a bit like this.....

1993 1000 people playing lotto 53 people win.

2012 100 p... [ More ]

Reply #13

msharkey2001 — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 10:39:55 GMT

Scientistman are you a climate change scientist by day? Just like them you are cherry picking data to try and prove a theory of yours rather than taking into account ALL changes in variables, such as what Joshua eluded to which is less people playing these games due to a multitude of new game choice options now vs the 1990's. Not following the scientific method? Bad scientist.

Reply #12

joshuacloak — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:49:39 GMT

So the question remains (why were there so many many more 2nd prize winners in lotto in the 1990's than now?)

i make it simple, why did i bring up PB/MM/ and more money being won by the prizes

back then they didn't have both MM/PB, to play in

ofc players are playin that now .a lot more so then then your whatever state lotto pick 6

they moved on to diff games, pb/mm are 2 major games when it comes to pick 6 games, not your local state lotto anymore

and sense VERY soo... [ More ]

Reply #11

Scientistman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:49:33 GMT

Joshuacloak, thanks for your reply. Ive read your entire post. Joshua I do not like to purposely make someone look bad but really railed on me a bit there for no reason so with that said.....

YOU SIR, HAVE COMPLETLY, MISSED THE MARK! MISSED THE BOAT and MISSED THE MESSAGE OF THIS THREAD completely!!

Yet it was a fun read! Thanks Joshuacloak

Yet for those of you who also read joshuacloaks post let me remind you of the title of this posting so you also do not MISS THE MESSAGE of this thre... [ More ]

Reply #10

Stack47 — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:00:05 GMT

It's a fact the Ohio Lottery had more jackpot and secondary prize winners when their lotto was a 6/44 game. The number of winners lowered when they added more numbers, but the volume of play stayed about the same. The only comparison now is their Classic Lotto game that began in 2007 after Ohio joined MM. The volume of the current game is not even close to any of the former games, but the reason is obvious; Ohio has both MM and PB.

I'm pretty sure any state lottery including Washington saw th... [ More ]

Reply #9

joshuacloak — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 07:02:28 GMT

Ive noticed that there are less winners today than in the past scientistman

however u have 1 major flaw, u dare put in 2013 numbers, when year NOT even done

a fair look at amount of winners should only be done in WHOLE year grouped data numbers

some months will have low jackpots, its not far at all to compare month to month data,

yearly data, godly more fair

so sense 2013 not even over buddy, lets do 2012 data as a whole vs 1993

my data shows 2012 had a lot... [ More ]

Reply #8

Coin Toss — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:54:43 GMT

Scientistman,

Yeah, more numbers make the odds to win harder.

In the game you're looking at did the matrix expand? Over the years that seems to be the trend.

Also, those prizes for 5 of 6 seem a little light. I'm thinking that being the case the earlier game matrix might have been considerably smaller.

I was also thihnking that just maybe ball drawings vs computerized might have something to do with it, if that game went from one to the other.

Reply #7

Scientistman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 05:23:23 GMT

yeah that's what I was thinkin! Good question

Reply #6

Scientistman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 05:16:15 GMT

Thanks for the reply JAP69

I think you meant.... More numbers in the pool decreases the odds of winning. Just a play on words I suppose it depend on which side you're on right?

Increases their odds of winning more like it. lol

Reply #5

Scientistman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 05:05:22 GMT

That's me the science guy! onlymoney thanks for the reply...Glad to cheer your day. lol

In otherwords you're saying the lotteries are controlled in an enviornment by humans by incorporating pre-tests to create a lower amount of winners? In otherwords the lottery drawings are by human design rather than random in order to controll the amount of winners so they dont end up with as many winners as they did in the past? Is this what you're implying onlymoney?

And if I can prove that they had j... [ More ]

Reply #4

helpmewin — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 05:01:54 GMT

Good question

Reply #3

Scientistman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 04:59:21 GMT

So if a lottery back in the day had only lets say 44 numbers compared to 49 then you're saying it should naturally have more winners? So what about lotteries today that only have 44 numbers I checked and most of them only have 2 to 5 winners who get 5 or 6 numbers correct. Why would the state matter where the lottery is drawn? In otherwords if you have 50 states and all 50 states have 44 numbers then you should pretty much get the same amount of winners across the board. Yet if one had like lets... [ More ]

Reply #2

onlymoney — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 04:49:44 GMT

To the science guy. lol,

That's probably because there were less pre-tests and post-tests back then, or none at all.

Reply #1

JAP69 — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 04:41:21 GMT

If you check the history of the size of the number pool over the years you may find an increase in the amount of numbers in the drawing pool.

More numbers in a pool increases the odds of winning.

why did more people win in the 1990's than today? Lotto.

Scientistman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 04:37:51 GMT

Most lottery websites have posted on them somewhere the amount of winners and how many numbers they got correct.

Ive noticed that there are less winners today than in the past. For example in the Washington State Lotto below if you look below you will see that the amount of people who got 5 of the 6 numbers correct in every drawing is considerably so much higher than today.

Today the average amount of winners who get 5 of 6 numbers correct is roughly 5 to 10 winners compared to about 50 to... [ More ]