Will an injuction stop Mega in CaliforniaPrev TopicNext Topic

• dvdiva

  

  United States
  Member #2,338
  September 17, 2003
  2,063 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 3, 2005, 2:03 pm

  ▲▼

  Just wondering how people feel about some of the nonsence happing in CA regarding the possible injuction to stop Mega from being played in CA.
  
• Tx_Mega_Player

  

  BIG D Texas
  United States
  Member #2,539
  October 16, 2003
  148 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 3, 2005, 2:20 pm

  ▲▼

  I think that MM sales will be allowed to continue until the case is heard. I also think that the eventual outcome, after all the appeals, will be that CA has a legal right to participate in MM. So the final outcome will be that a bunch of lawyers (from both sides) will take home more money than they would had they won a MM jackpot.
• LOTTOMIKE

  

  Tennessee
  United States
  Member #7,853
  October 15, 2004
  11,352 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 4, 2005, 7:06 am

  ▲▼

  you got that right.
• Just6ntlc

  United States
  Member #16,611
  June 2, 2005
  3,493 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 11, 2005, 8:52 pm

  ▲▼

  I hope the injuction forces CA to not play Mega Millions!
  
• danisiri

  

  United States
  Member #13,684
  April 11, 2005
  77 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 11, 2005, 9:17 pm

  ▲▼
  Quote: Originally posted by Just6ntlc on July 11, 2005

  I hope the injuction forces CA to not play Mega Millions!
  

  I live in CA and am grateful to have the chance to participate in MM.  I am sure those who win future MM jackpots will be glad that Californians are feeding the pot too.
• ryanm

  

  Morrison, IL
  United States
  Member #4,657
  May 13, 2004
  1,885 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 12, 2005, 12:22 am

  ▲▼

    Instead of trying to prohibit California from playing, they should force California to bend their stupid "pari-mutuel prize law" and offer the same prize amounts as the other states.  Their pari-mutuel MM payouts are unfair to the other states.
• ryanm

  

  Morrison, IL
  United States
  Member #4,657
  May 13, 2004
  1,885 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 12, 2005, 12:33 am

  ▲▼

    Okay, I probably should have read the article on lottoreport.com before making my last post.  Judging from that article, I highly doubt the gambling opponents would try to force CA to adopt the same fixed prize structure as the other 11 states.  That would probably make them even more angry.
• dvdiva

  

  United States
  Member #2,338
  September 17, 2003
  2,063 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 13, 2005, 1:51 am

  ▲▼

  I think all states have a pari-mutuel prize structure for the second and third prizes as an out if sales don't cover them.
  
• twisted

  

  New Jersey
  United States
  Member #2,376
  September 25, 2003
  582 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 13, 2005, 1:57 am

  ▲▼
  Quote: Originally posted by dvdiva on July 13, 2005     

  I think all states have a pari-mutuel prize structure for the second and third prizes as an out if sales don't cover them.
  

  They have a reserve they use if the second and third prize winnings are higher than justified by sales(except in California). But if the winnings are in excess of the reserve, they change the prize structure to pari-mutuel.
  
• CASH Only

  United States
  Member #379
  June 5, 2002
  11,296 Posts
  Offline
  Jul 13, 2005, 3:33 pm

  ▲▼

  4th and 5th prizes ($150) also can be pari-mutuel.