Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 6, 2016, 11:05 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Lotto South v Lose for Life

Topic closed. 25 replies. Last post 11 years ago by tony95.

Page 2 of 2
PrintE-mailLink

Which is the better game?

Lotto South [ 6 ]  [46.15%]
Lose for Life [ 3 ]  [23.08%]
Don't know [ 4 ]  [30.77%]
Total Valid Votes [ 13 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 3 ]  
Avatar
Knoxville
United States
Member #13510
April 7, 2005
89 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 28, 2006, 9:38 am - IP Logged

You should change your username to "lose for life" being that is all you say in EVERY post you ever post. When I win "lucky for life" the only thing I will be losing is many of my financial worries.

The Win for Life payout is only 52K a year, just a little more than what I make now.  After taxes, that's only about 36K.  Enough to buy a Ford Explorer or a low-end Lexus like the ES, not anything better.  And in about 10 years, 36K wont even buy you that.  In 20 years, you'll be lucky to pay your rent with such a pittance.  Lotto South was a much better deal for the Players.


    United States
    Member #379
    June 5, 2002
    11296 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 28, 2006, 9:53 am - IP Logged

    Isn't the NY Lotto only 50 cents per line though? I think when I was there and bought tickets last year when it was around 40 Mil, I spent 5 bucks and got 10 lines.

    NY Rotto actually is the WORST deal for a lottery game. You are playing for a maximum 40 cents on the dollar, when almost all lottery games pay back at least 50 cents.

    It's not how many games you get for $1, it's the payout %.

      Avatar
      Knoxville
      United States
      Member #13510
      April 7, 2005
      89 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 28, 2006, 9:58 am - IP Logged

      Let's say the average player lives 30 years.  Thats a average payout of 1.5 million for Lose for Life.  The average payout on Lotto South was about 8 million.  The odds for Lose for Life are 1 in 5 million and Lotto South 1 in 14 million.  If we standardize that it comes to...

      1.5m dollars payed out for 5m tickets sold equals 30% payout

      8m dollars payed out for 14m tickets sold equals a 57% payout (wow, that's better!)

      To put it in different terms Lose for Life (30 cents payback on the dollar) and Lotto South (57 cents payback on the dollar).  Write your congressman, it shouldn't be legal for them to set up a game this way.

      Well how about that!  Lose for Life pays out about half of Lotto South.  No wonder the lottery wanted to go to this format, they are paying less money and over a longer period of time.  They can sell half the tickets for the same profit.  Don't play this game, it's a horrible deal for players... and if you are over 30 years old, you definately dont want to play it.

        Avatar
        Knoxville
        United States
        Member #13510
        April 7, 2005
        89 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 28, 2006, 10:12 am - IP Logged

        One more bash on Lose for Life.  Static games like this are boring.  I live in Tennessee and when Lotto South reached about 10 million I would starting driving to Kentucky to buy tickets.  The higher it went, the more I bought.  This gives the player some control over how they play the game.  Lose for Life is static and boring, this might as well be a scratch off game with the worst odds ever.  Lotto South reached $28 million on it's last run, how exciting was that.  I miss Lotto South, but there's no way its coming back unless it does super poorly, because the Lotto official are keeping so much more of the pot with Lose for Life.

          Avatar
          Knoxville
          United States
          Member #13510
          April 7, 2005
          89 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 28, 2006, 10:15 am - IP Logged

          Actually, in Tennessee we had a Win for Life scratch off that i think payed out $1 million dollars over 20 years and I don't think the odds where anywhere near the 5 million to 1 that this goose egg has layed.  Oh well, this is my final rant on the subject.

            sirbrad's avatar - Lottery-062.jpg
            PA
            United States
            Member #22983
            October 6, 2005
            2226 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 28, 2006, 11:37 am - IP Logged

            I said I would lose "many" financial worries, not all of them.  I don't care how much 36k is to you, to me I could utilize that extra money along with my business savvy to generate even more income, and have the free time to relax - as opposed to working all the time in a job I am not happy with. I have no problem living a frugal lifestyle to make money last, especially money that is automatically deposited into my account for "LIFE." Some are greedy, and some are grateful for what they get, regrdless of the amount.

            The point is, it is going to be 36k more than I have now a year and would make great insurance or a decent nest egg. But that said, I do play the bigger games more often, or have been lately. But if I win LFL I am not going to be complaining about it. If anything it would be more money for powerball plays, and a chance at a record breaking double jackpot win.

              Avatar
              Knoxville
              United States
              Member #13510
              April 7, 2005
              89 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 28, 2006, 12:09 pm - IP Logged

              I said I would lose "many" financial worries, not all of them.  I don't care how much 36k is to you, to me I could utilize that extra money along with my business savvy to generate even more income, and have the free time to relax - as opposed to working all the time in a job I am not happy with. I have no problem living a frugal lifestyle to make money last, especially money that is automatically deposited into my account for "LIFE." Some are greedy, and some are grateful for what they get, regrdless of the amount.

              The point is, it is going to be 36k more than I have now a year and would make great insurance or a decent nest egg. But that said, I do play the bigger games more often, or have been lately. But if I win LFL I am not going to be complaining about it. If anything it would be more money for powerball plays, and a chance at a record breaking double jackpot win.

              And my point was that if your going to spend a dollar on a lottery ticket there are better options out there.  But hey, if you wanna play Lose for Life that is your choice.  Just dont think 1000/wk is going to solve you financial woes, because it is a not a very large amount of money and won't go very far.  In fact in 20 years living on 52k a year may put you at or below the poverty line.  I wouldn't mind having an extra 36k, but the odds in Lose for Life suck for such a small amount of money.  One last example, my states Lotto 5 has gone over $1,000,000 dollars payed in a lump sum and the odds are only 500,000 to 1.  That kind of payout would take you 20 years to collect in Lose for Life which doesn't give you any opportunity to invest.  So I ask myself, do I wanna wait for a big pot and get odds of 500,000 to 1 or do I want to play 5,000,000 to 1 odds which is exactly 10 times worse.  Even if play Lotto 5 at $500,000 it's still a much better deal.  Would I walk into a store and throw a dollar or two at something like Lose for Life, yeah maybe, but that doesn't make it a good game to play.

                RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                mid-Ohio
                United States
                Member #9
                March 24, 2001
                19825 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 28, 2006, 12:13 pm - IP Logged

                In the real world, the only good lottery game is one that you can play.  It's a no-brainier, "Lose for Life" may not be a great game, but it better than one that doesn't exists.  Now if you just dreaming about playing the lotteries, than that's a different world.

                 * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                   
                             Evil Looking       

                  DoctorEw220's avatar - alien helmet.jpg
                  Yinzer Country, PA
                  United States
                  Member #4067
                  March 18, 2004
                  2741 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 28, 2006, 12:27 pm - IP Logged

                  Isn't the NY Lotto only 50 cents per line though? I think when I was there and bought tickets last year when it was around 40 Mil, I spent 5 bucks and got 10 lines.

                  NY Rotto actually is the WORST deal for a lottery game. You are playing for a maximum 40 cents on the dollar, when almost all lottery games pay back at least 50 cents.

                  It's not how many games you get for $1, it's the payout %.

                  You aren't playing for a maximum of 40 cents on the dollar with NY Lotto.  You're playing to win the jackpot.

                  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.


                    United States
                    Member #379
                    June 5, 2002
                    11296 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 28, 2006, 1:31 pm - IP Logged

                    Isn't the NY Lotto only 50 cents per line though? I think when I was there and bought tickets last year when it was around 40 Mil, I spent 5 bucks and got 10 lines.

                    NY Rotto actually is the WORST deal for a lottery game. You are playing for a maximum 40 cents on the dollar, when almost all lottery games pay back at least 50 cents.

                    It's not how many games you get for $1, it's the payout %.

                    You aren't playing for a maximum of 40 cents on the dollar with NY Lotto.  You're playing to win the jackpot.

                    NY Rotto players are so stupid. They don't know, or don't care, that they are getting RIPPED OFF.

                      Avatar
                      Knoxville
                      United States
                      Member #13510
                      April 7, 2005
                      89 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 28, 2006, 4:39 pm - IP Logged

                      In the real world, the only good lottery game is one that you can play.  It's a no-brainier, "Lose for Life" may not be a great game, but it better than one that doesn't exists.  Now if you just dreaming about playing the lotteries, than that's a different world.

                      As far as being better than one that doesn't exist, there comes a point where your better off just trying your luck at a blackjack table.  Assuming you know how to play blackjack correctly, your odds of winning a hand should be 50/50.  The odds of winning 14 in a row would be 1 in 16,000.  If you start with a $100 bet and double up on every win (1st bet = $100, 2nd = $200, 3rd = $400, etc..) you could take home 1.6 million.  Still very long odds, but I would have to stop after winning the first 100 grand for fear of a heart attack, haha... but you get my point.  The states that run lotto games are obligated to make them fun, fair and reasonable.  It's up to you to realize when a game is bad and chose to play something better.