New national lottery with a twist

Reply #34

bigbear29 — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:11:47 GMT

Yes, Pickone4me, My thought was for each state to keep their own money as far as for the state part of the game.

Reply #33

bigbear29 — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:59:13 GMT

Yes, it would be very hard to set up this game to make it fair for everybody. I would hope that the state part would give maybe a little more than 1 million. But at least the state game would not have to be up against large populated states.

Thanks for the info.

Reply #32

pickone4me — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:14:05 GMT

why would NY, CA, etc. sign up to let some of their ticket sales go to subsidize prizes in the other 48 states, with no chance of it ever going the other way

Think how much and how long the other states have been subsidizing prizes in those few states that too often win. This is about making things right letting every state have a fair chance, instead of no chance.

Reply #31

Tialuvslotto — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:54:50 GMT

The Canadian 6/49 Lottery has a guaranteed $1 Million prize every draw -- I believe its based on ticket numbers, but only one prize for the whole country.

The model you propose would be fun, but difficult to implement. States might be reluctant to sign on to another National Lottery in addition to MM and PB. Also, the State level prize would have to be variable, based on the size of the population. Otherwise, why would NY, CA, etc. sign up to let some of their ticket sales go to subsidize pr... [ More ]

Reply #30

bigbear29 — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:12:23 GMT

Hi Teddi, thanks for the info. It would be nice if the lottery people came up with something that got more people to play the lottery and as a result jackpot winnings were spread out much better than they are now.

Reply #29

Teddi — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:45:42 GMT

Actually, no it doesn't. Because the same problem will exists. With this system, the only time everyone has an equal chance to win is at the national level. It matters a very great deal how many people are in each state, because if you make the odds small enough so that a person in a low population state is able to produce a winner, then the people in high population states will probably have multiple winners. While on paper the odds of winning on a state level will be the same across the board,... [ More ]

Reply #28

Coin Toss — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:57:43 GMT

Oh I sound like a spoiled brat huh?

I guarantee you that most of the people who have been here a while read your OP and wondered if you didn't realize that not all states have a lottery.

News of the Weird has a category called Not Quite Clear On the Concept, perhaps you should contact them.

Reply #27

bigbear29 — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 03:56:53 GMT

You sound like a spoiled brat! I should have done my research before putting my proposal on lottery post. That's funny.

Reply #26

Coin Toss — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 03:36:05 GMT

Nice try, most tickets don't win.

But the 5 of 6 in the Cal. lottery when I loved in Nevada was a sweet $2002 for a $1 ticket, et vous?

You should really research things a little more before you propose stuff. Incredible that you're going to try and twist things and rag on me because you came up with such a ridiculous idea.

Maybe next time you'll arm yourself with some information before sharing your fantasy - or was it a hallucination

Reply #25

bigbear29 — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 03:05:56 GMT

I guess I'm not into the lottery like you are. How's that lottery win treating you, oh wait, you didn't win a lottery.

Reply #24

Coin Toss — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 03:03:14 GMT

So you're proposing a national lottery not knowing that not all states have lotteries?

YEESH

Reply #23

bigbear29 — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 02:27:31 GMT

It would have been real easy just to state that they don't have a lottery

Reply #22

Coin Toss — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 02:04:10 GMT

Where, oh where, do you think people in states that don't have a lottery are going to buy a ticket for your proposed lottery

Reply #21

rcbbuckeye — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:03:53 GMT

Reply #20

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:55:45 GMT

The ticket could be 2.00, and 1.00 could go to the state and 1.00 could go to the national game. Yes, each state would have their own drawing to get 1 winner in each state. Than the national drawing which hopefully will happen a lot more often than mm and pb, may-be right after all 50 states have their winners. The dollar for the state game can be broken down into smaller amounts for second and third tier prizes. But the big dollars would be the amount from the nation.

I think that every... [ More ]

Reply #19

Teddi — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:34:52 GMT

Not sure if I interpreted it correctly, but seems like a great idea, definitely much better idea than the monopoly game. As I understand it, if a ticket is $2, $1 would go towards the state lottery and $1 towards the national lottery. Each state would hold the exact same drawing on the same day. Then after every state has their drawings and winners are announced, there is a second drawing, but nationally this time and every state's winner has a 1 in 50 chance of winning this second jackpot.... [ More ]

Reply #18

savagegoose — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:38:03 GMT

http://bfy.tw/1lQU

Reply #17

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:29:11 GMT

I don't know, you tell me , if states have their own lottery games.

Reply #16

savagegoose — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:24:57 GMT

im guessing they dont have state lotteries

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/17/news/economy/states-without-lotteries

Reply #15

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:01:41 GMT

Again, why would it be a trick, explain.

Reply #14

haymaker — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:55:16 GMT

Yo CT

you forgot Utah.

Reply #13

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:41:40 GMT

Why would it be a real trick if they are in the game

Reply #12

Coin Toss — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:37:00 GMT

Be a real trick if Alabama, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii or Mississippi won.

Reply #11

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:32:14 GMT

First draw, 50 winners, 50 states, maybe they could get some type of prize.

Second drawing , will pick 1 of the 50 states, = 1 of the 50 people that won in their state.

Reply #10

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 19:58:09 GMT

Yes they should have the name of the states on all the balls.

Reply #9

pickone4me — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 19:55:48 GMT

That sounds real interesting. Will these balls have the name of the states on? It would definitely put a stop to the influence the bigger populated states have on the lottery outcomes.

Reply #8

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 19:31:16 GMT

I get that there is more players in California.

Reply #7

Murgatroyd — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 19:27:56 GMT

I have more lottery players in California because there are a lot more people in California. The city of Los Angeles alone (just LA proper, not including the rest of the metro area) has more than six times the population of the entire state of Wyoming.

Reply #6

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 19:20:21 GMT

I think I what you are saying. You have more lottery players in Ca.. I'm trying to get more people to play the lottery every where.

Reply #5

Murgatroyd — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 19:13:51 GMT

If I'm understanding it correctly, California would hold its drawing, where each ticket has a 1 in 4,000,000 chance of winning, and Wyoming would hold its drawing, where each ticket has a 1 in 60,000 chance of winning. Then there's the national drawing, where California and Wyoming each have a 1 in 50 chance of having the big winner.

So a California ticket's chance of being the big winner is 1 in 4,000,000*50=200,000,000. A Wyoming ticket's chance is 1 in 60,000*50=3,000,000.... [ More ]

Reply #4

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 19:05:18 GMT

Read my beginning post again. there's two drawings the state that you live in that will pick a winner. then you have the National drawing that picks the winning state, which will have the person that wins the state drawing, which is the person who colects the national pot. So, it does not matter how many people that live in Ca..

Reply #3

Murgatroyd — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:52:45 GMT

Suppose that California (population 38.8 million) sells 4 million tickets, and that Wyoming (population 584,000) sells 60 thousand tickets. Someone who bought a California ticket has a 1 in 200,000,000 chance of winning the jackpot, while someone with a Wyoming ticket has a 1 in 3,000,000 chance.

Reply #2

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:47:41 GMT

But at least the wealth would be spread around the 50 states. And not just a handful of states.

Reply #1

Murgatroyd — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:42:42 GMT

This would be problematic, as the odds would be much better for inhabitants of low-population states.

New national lottery with a twist

bigbear29 — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 17:39:40 GMT

I wonder how this would work to share the wealth:

You have two drawings:

Your state drawing, to see who in your state won the lottery. You pay 1 or 2.00 dollar for a ticket and the money goes to a national pot.

Next, a national drawing that picks the state that wins the money ( 50 balls ). Ex. Alabama wins, so, the winner of that state gets the national jackpot money. The state gets the tax money and and everybody is happy.

And of course the ODDS would be a lot lower.