Would You Play This MUSL?

Reply #13

Stack47 — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 02:31:06 GMT

a consultation with a financial advisor would be a mandatory stipulation. and Just a consultation, they don't have to hire anyone or listen to any advice presented.

If the jackpot winner doesn't have to listen or do anything, what is point of making it mandatory?

Sounds like somebody believes the lotteries have some responsibility for financial mistakes by future winners and this mandatory stipulation gets them off the hook. FYI, each state lottery member of the MUSL decides their own rul... [ More ]

Reply #12

Saylorgirl — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:20:21 GMT

In that case then yes I love this new game

Reply #11

LottoBoner — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:58:20 GMT

I would only play if it was RNG.

I think that technology is the way to go.

Just like FB, Twitface, and Bitcoin, I think that as long as there is a computer involved and my name is not Dave, that there can be no harm done.

Reply #10

HoLeeKau — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:11:18 GMT

I would probably play it. I don't win the smaller prizes often anyway, so if there weren't any there's no skin off my nose. If the jackpot would grow quickly enough that the jackpot was often over a couple hundred million, I'd play. If there was a second prize, that would make it even sweeter, but honestly I would not miss the smaller prizes $1000 and under.

Reply #9

Teddi — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:56:52 GMT

Just a consultation, they don't have to hire anyone or listen to any advice presented. Something like what Camelot does for UK winners. Help them to avoid the common initial pitfalls.

Reply #8

Teddi — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:52:32 GMT

The odds are close to the Euromillions odds and they do pretty well, plus everything here goes to the jackpot so rollover amounts will be more than Mega Millions.

Reply #7

Teddi — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:50:01 GMT

$1 per ticket. Anything more than that and people would expect secondary prizes.

Reply #6

yomibid1 — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:14:11 GMT

I agree, bigbear29, and jjtheprince, looking for larger odds. Small odds, no play for me.

Reply #5

jjtheprince — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:57:41 GMT

No, the odds are too small, it would get fleeced and go bankrupt in no time. You'd never see large jackpots.

Bump the odds to at least 1 : 999,999,999,999 and it might be worthwhile.

Reply #4

bigbear29 — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:31:14 GMT

No, I would not play. You have to win something to keep people interested.

Reply #3

Saylorgirl — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:23:02 GMT

I think it is a great idea! I would play I am only interested in the jackpot amount anyway not the little prizes. The only item I don't like is the mandatory stipulation for a financial advisor. Other than that I'm in.

Reply #2

whiteballz — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:20:34 GMT

This lottery would have no annuities. Whatever is advertised is what you receive (minus taxes).

would having no tax on lottery winnings be too much to ask? All the other countries in the world don't tax lottery winnings, why should we

Reply #1

Tialuvslotto — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:51:05 GMT

What's the ticket price?

If a reasonable cost, it sounds great. But how many would keep playing week after week, month after month, year after year of losses and no wins? The lotteries learned from the slot machine operators that a trickle of small prizes is the way to keep 'em hooked.

Would You Play This MUSL?

Teddi — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:38:05 GMT

Hypothetical game...Just for fun

I know many on here don't care for large jackpots going to single individuals, but for those who love to see huge jackpots, would you play a MUSL game with the following criteria:

No secondary or tertiary win levels. You either win the jackpot or you don't. If all the numbers don't match, you get nothing. 80% of ticket sales would go towards the jackpot so that there would be large rollover amounts.

Odds would be 1:120 million

This lottery would have... [ More ]