Aye, I asked the question because investors are constantly being told if a money manager can have a return on his investment portfolio that exceeds the return on the Standard and Poors' 500 index, he's doing a good job. If the S & P index is up 10% and a money manager is achieving a 15% return for his clients, he's doing a really great job. And keep in mind that these managers have many tools at their command...including inside info,,,that helps them show a healthy return on tehir investments. But how about the challengers? In the face of a random selection of jackpot numbers, players like Chief and Maddog on a fair number of occasions have exceeded the mathematical expectancy of spotting one white ball which you said was what the average should be if the player selected ten numbers as the challengers do. And the challengers don't have charts, indices, support staffs, schooled analysts, inside info, etc. such as the portfolio managers do, they have to rely on their ingenuity. And if the challengers could average 2 selections out of 10...which would far surpass the achievements of money managers, what do they get? As they say in the westerns, they don't get diddly squat. The payoffs on the PB is ridiculous. I'm thinking of writing the multi-lottery commission and suggesting that they award prizes for annual performance that exceeds the mathematical expectancy. If you play the PB lottery 100 times during the year and can hit one or more numbers 50 or more times, they should at least return the money the player put out during the year. If you could identify a winning number 2/3rds of the time, you should get a really nice prize, say something like the state of Arkansas. They put loan sharks in jail for charging 35% interest and then I see that if a player can pick2 WBs and the Red PB, the payoff is $7 when the odds are 697 to 1. If one can perform better than the mathematical expectancy and still come up with nothing while some folks supposedly get #s from a fortune cookie..yes, I said supposedly...or buy a QP and win big money, something is wrong with the game. I guess the question is, "are the challengers entitled to more than mere performance satisfaction for exceeding the mathematical expectancy over a period of time?