Powerball- Why it isn't always good.Prev TopicNext Topic

• DoctorEw220

  

  Yinzer Country, PA
  United States
  Member #4,067
  March 18, 2004
  2,741 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 5, 2004, 2:31 am

  ▲▼

  Ok. Before I say anything, I know there are probably quite a few people here who will disagree, and about one or two who will agree with me on this. Anyway, here goes.
  
  
  
  I've noticed in the past few years that there are states that will only carry one or two online games, and some of those states' in-state games are pick 3, or another game that does not offer a rolling jackpot. Now with North Dakota starting a lottery that ONLY offers MUSL games, states are really missing out on the point of starting a lottery. The point of starting a lottery is to generate funding for the state, NOT so people in the state can buy Powerball tickets. Granted the huge jackpots do bring in sales, a pick 3 or pick 4 game would also bring in sales. If the state is worried about cost for the draw, do what IA and IL, as well as NH, ME, and VT, have done and go in with other states on it and split the drawing cost. Anyway, the problem is that too many states are dependant on Powerball to bring in sales, and are not even trying a pick 3 or pick 4 game to generate additional revenue. The main point here is that states need in-state games as well as multi-state games. Look at it this way. I'll use North Dakota since it has the fewest in-state games with zero. North Dakota has sold a few $100,000 Powerball winners, but no jackpot winners. In fact, nobody from North Dakota has won any jackpot yet. If I were a player, I'd start to get suspiscious of how nobody from your state had become a millionaire, or even won the Wild Card 2 jackpot. But wait! If states had their own in-state games, especially those with rolling jackpots, players from those states can no longer complain about how nobody from their state has ever won a top prize in a game. I know this is not the first time I've brought up this topic, but with more states expressing their interest in starting a lottery simply so they can sell multi-state games, in-state games are going to be obsolete soon, and only the players can do something about that.
  
  
  
  There is only one easy solution that I can think of, and that is to have the MUSL require lotteries to operate at least two (2) in-state games. That way, players know someone in their state is winning the top prize in an online game.

  I've redone my website.  Go to www.dr-ew.com.  I kept a lot of the old stuff, and I've added some new stuff.  Look for more new stuff in the coming weeks.
• DoctorEw220

  

  Yinzer Country, PA
  United States
  Member #4,067
  March 18, 2004
  2,741 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 5, 2004, 2:31 am

  ▲▼

  Any comments?

  I've redone my website.  Go to www.dr-ew.com.  I kept a lot of the old stuff, and I've added some new stuff.  Look for more new stuff in the coming weeks.
• LOTTOMIKE

  

  Tennessee
  United States
  Member #7,853
  October 15, 2004
  11,352 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 5, 2004, 3:05 am

  ▲▼

  tennessee has yet to win either.....
• RJOh

  

  100

  mid-Ohio
  United States
  Member #9
  March 24, 2001
  20,272 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 5, 2004, 11:28 am

  ▲▼

  Ohio has had PowerBall jackpot winners and the game isn't played in the state.  It also has its share of MegaMillions jackpot winners and that game is played in the state.  Ohio added the MegaMillions game to stop the constant money-drain to states that had PowerBall and the BigGame.  That still happens occasionally when ever the PB jackpots gets close to $200M as it is this week. 

  I think if a large group of people from any area play any game, they are going to have winners among them no matter where the game is played.  The next PB jackpot winner could be from a state that doesn't offer the game.  North Dakota will have a winner when one of their players pick the winning numbers.

  RJOh

   * you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones * 

         
  
• CASH Only

  United States
  Member #379
  June 5, 2002
  11,296 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 6, 2004, 4:19 pm

  ▲▼

  North Dakota still is prohibited from selling an in-state game.
• DoctorEw220

  

  Yinzer Country, PA
  United States
  Member #4,067
  March 18, 2004
  2,741 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 6, 2004, 7:57 pm

  ▲▼

  Yes, and that is not a good thing. Lotteries cannot be too dependent on multi-state games.

  I've redone my website.  Go to www.dr-ew.com.  I kept a lot of the old stuff, and I've added some new stuff.  Look for more new stuff in the coming weeks.
• ryanm

  

  Morrison, IL
  United States
  Member #4,657
  May 13, 2004
  1,885 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 6, 2004, 10:13 pm

  ▲▼

    My state, Iowa, does not have its own rolling jackpot game simply because it doesn't have a large enough population to support it.  Many states do not, and that is why they join up with Powerball or Mega Millions (although many Mega Millions states are large enough to have their own rolling jackpot games -- for instance, Illinois has two: Lotto and Little Lotto).
• DoctorEw220

  

  Yinzer Country, PA
  United States
  Member #4,067
  March 18, 2004
  2,741 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 7, 2004, 7:13 am

  ▲▼

  that's fine. the main thing i'm focusing on are states that only have one or two in-state games, yet have 2 or 3 multi-state games.

  I've redone my website.  Go to www.dr-ew.com.  I kept a lot of the old stuff, and I've added some new stuff.  Look for more new stuff in the coming weeks.
• CASH Only

  United States
  Member #379
  June 5, 2002
  11,296 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 7, 2004, 4:15 pm

  ▲▼

  There are several (not just North Dakota) without any in-state games.
• DoctorEw220

  

  Yinzer Country, PA
  United States
  Member #4,067
  March 18, 2004
  2,741 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 7, 2004, 5:05 pm

  ▲▼

  as far as i know, north dakota is the only one that relies completely on multi-state games. every other state has another option.

  I've redone my website.  Go to www.dr-ew.com.  I kept a lot of the old stuff, and I've added some new stuff.  Look for more new stuff in the coming weeks.
• CASH Only

  United States
  Member #379
  June 5, 2002
  11,296 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 7, 2004, 5:09 pm

  ▲▼

  ME-NH-VT do not have any in-state online games.
• DoctorEw220

  

  Yinzer Country, PA
  United States
  Member #4,067
  March 18, 2004
  2,741 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 7, 2004, 8:17 pm

  ▲▼

  they partnered up, and offer several tri-state games, and those games are exclusive to those states.

  I've redone my website.  Go to www.dr-ew.com.  I kept a lot of the old stuff, and I've added some new stuff.  Look for more new stuff in the coming weeks.
• dvdiva

  

  United States
  Member #2,338
  September 17, 2003
  2,063 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 8, 2004, 2:28 am

  ▲▼

  I don't care if my state has a winner I only care if I win or not. If I loose I really don't care where the winner is from. If anything it would be more interesting if someone here won.
• CASH Only

  United States
  Member #379
  June 5, 2002
  11,296 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 8, 2004, 4:09 pm

  ▲▼

  NH and VT each had an in-state cash lotto game.
• DoctorEw220

  

  Yinzer Country, PA
  United States
  Member #4,067
  March 18, 2004
  2,741 Posts
  Offline
  Dec 8, 2004, 5:23 pm

  ▲▼

  ok. the main point of the original post was that states need more alternatives to multi-state games.

  I've redone my website.  Go to www.dr-ew.com.  I kept a lot of the old stuff, and I've added some new stuff.  Look for more new stuff in the coming weeks.