A group of 13 Missouri state employees, who work for the Department of Social Services Family Support Division/Child Support Enforcement in Florissant, claimed the $224.2 million Powerball jackpot from the April 12 drawing.
The jackpot is the largest prize ever won in the Missouri Lottery's 20-year history and the seventh largest Powerball jackpot ever awarded in the nation.
The winners are: Cornelia Aversa, 61, of Ballwin; Juanita Miller, 57, of Black Jack; Madeleine Knox, 68, James Wydrzynski, 53, and Sandra Hayes, 46, all of Florissant; Kathey Tidwell, 54, of Highland, Ill.; Kathy Bowman, 48, of Roxana, Ill.; Marjorie Orcutt, 56,; Donna Paige, 44, Georgia Griffin, 57, Alice Williams, 58, and Robin Carlton, 36, all of St. Louis; and Michael Lang, 55, of St. Peters.
According to Jim Wydrzynski, the office manager, 11 of the members put $5 into the pool and two members — Alice Williams and Georgia Griffin — contributed $2.50. The jackpot prize will be split 12 ways, and William and Griffin will share 1/12 of the prize.
All of the members plan to take the cash amount, which works out to be approximately $8.5 million each before taxes for the 11 members who contributed $5 and approximately $4.2 million before taxes for the two members who contributed $2.50.
Well that's a good way to start off the weekend! lol
Congrats to the winners! And good luck to everyone on the MM tonight! And PB tomorrow night!! And if one of our dear friends here on lottery post hits it, Don't forget to remember SASSARI!!!! lol
Kiss Kiss!
Congrats Winners!! I can only imagine the feelings that your all feeling right now and hope that someday I will know that "shock" I just hope that the local town has a back up plan for your positions! ITs not just packaging meat ya know. There are children and familys that are depending on them for their next meal! So I guess if anyone is looking for a state job with state benefits they know where to go LOL. But tonight there is another oppertunity for yet another Lotto Pool Group to endure the wonderful shock, pleasure and wealth that these lucky 13 winners have and may the ladies of my pool be the next up to the plate to win!! They never mentioned how long they had been playing their pool if any one hears please let me know I would like to know! And you know that is the second pool group with the count of 13 players that has won a big jackpot Maybe there is LUCK in the number 13 after all!!!! Well anyhow GO LUCKY G's 6 This week We got another player!!!!!!! The more the players the more the chances I dont mind just a PEICE of the Pie!!!!!!
A Quick pick yet again......
Dam those "systems": full speed ahead with the computer picks !
BTW, anyone want to bet how long it will take before someone steps up and says that they were in the pool but were absent the day of the ticket purchase ?
Yep that will happen!!!!!
With all the group wins I'm wondering how many just by tickets for themselves anymore.
Another group win. I'm with Diva on this one. Given the way the game is structured and all the groups buying tickets I have to wonder if an individual player can win.
Jim
With all the group wins I'm wondering how many just by tickets for themselves anymore.
I post these news stories, so I have a good feel for what kind of winners are out there. Most of the winners, by far, are solo players/winners. (A "couple" claiming a prize is still a solo winner.) You see an increase in pool winners for these big jackpots because the number of pools greatly increases when the jackpots get big. But they are still the minority of winners.
Congrats to them. MO is a great state. Tonight's my Night i Feel it in ma' timbers.
A Quick pick yet again......
Dam those "systems": full speed ahead with the computer picks !
BTW, anyone want to bet how long it will take before someone steps up and says that they were in the pool but were absent the day of the ticket purchase ?
That is why I do the Lotto Agreement and With each of my pool's I give new ones each day of the drawing and they are dated and stated onlu good for that days drawing and I list each player in the pool and they get copies of the numbers and I state in the pool agreement that PAST PARTICIPATION DOES NOT ALLOW TO ANY WINNINGS. IF YOU DID NOT ENTER THE DRAWING OF THE WINNING LOTTO YOU ARENT ENTITLED. And I tell them in every agreement the days that the drawings are on and the amount that we play and the deadline to have the money to me to be able to participate in the pool, NO WAY NO HOW is there anyone that didnt play there money in the pool of the day can come back on us. I seen to many horror stories about it so I made it VERY CLEAR!
A Quick pick yet again......
Dam those "systems": full speed ahead with the computer picks !
BTW, anyone want to bet how long it will take before someone steps up and says that they were in the pool but were absent the day of the ticket purchase ?
That is why I do the Lotto Agreement and With each of my pool's I give new ones each day of the drawing and they are dated and stated onlu good for that days drawing and I list each player in the pool and they get copies of the numbers and I state in the pool agreement that PAST PARTICIPATION DOES NOT ALLOW TO ANY WINNINGS. IF YOU DID NOT ENTER THE DRAWING OF THE WINNING LOTTO YOU ARENT ENTITLED. And I tell them in every agreement the days that the drawings are on and the amount that we play and the deadline to have the money to me to be able to participate in the pool, NO WAY NO HOW is there anyone that didnt play there money in the pool of the day can come back on us. I seen to many horror stories about it so I made it VERY CLEAR!
Very savvy..sounds like you got it together, Sassy.
Most pools are done at the spur of the moment when the jackpots are large, so having your ducks in a row is not the top priority.
I hope they don't encounter any difficulties, and judging by most of their ages, this is certainly a blessing for them at a good time in their lives.
Congrats to them !
DD
hopefully another lawsuit doesn't arise because someone got left out...
Congratulations to the group. Another smart group of people who know how to overcome the overwhelming odds and still end up with a life-changing amount of money.
Sincere Congratulations ...to the employees who won
Pools are nice and we've witnessed several pools pay off, but overall, I'd rather buy my tickets alone. Eleven contributing a total of $55 plus two adding another $5; the other recent pool win played $40 at the record jackpot level.
So at that unique moment when the jackpot reaches a specific level, such as a record level, any one of us can adequately 'compete' individually with the typical pool.
As mentioned previously, and looking back over the MUSL archives, pools certainly aren't the most common way jackpots have been hit. Many jackpots have been won playing five number sets or less.
Lottery pools are a way for players who want more chances to win than they are willing to pay for or can afford and they work fine until a large sum of money is won and those players who want to share the winnings but weren't willing or couldn't afford to pay before the drawing come forward. They are the players who only want to be in the pool when it wins.
well, there was a prayer answered for the children. who am I to question GOD'S way of working? I just hope some of these workers have seen enough to help some of the kids thrown out by their parents and left to fend for themselves.
I just look at it this way..... I am not a greedy person and as I said before my agreement is AIR TIGHT and CLEAR of the rules and each players oppertunities and what they must to to be a part of the CASH. Before I started my pool I was spending 40.00 a draw and with the pool we get 30 numbers compared to 40.00 and only 5.00 out of my pocket still getting the extra 10 numbers I am stil saving over 50% of what I was spending and As back to I am not greedy in any way. The people that I play with our my ONLY friends that I associate with and want them to be in on the winnings with me and lets say we were to hit the numbers tonight that would be apprx 13 mill a peice HEY I am HAPPY AS HELL with that
saving money getting plenty and seeing my friends just as well off
I just look at it this way..... I am not a greedy person and as I said before my agreement is AIR TIGHT and CLEAR of the rules and each players oppertunities and what they must to to be a part of the CASH. Before I started my pool I was spending 40.00 a draw and with the pool we get 30 numbers compared to 40.00 and only 5.00 out of my pocket still getting the extra 10 numbers I am stil saving over 50% of what I was spending and As back to I am not greedy in any way. The people that I play with our my ONLY friends that I associate with and want them to be in on the winnings with me and lets say we were to hit the numbers tonight that would be apprx 13 mill a peice HEY I am HAPPY AS HELL with that
saving money getting plenty and seeing my friends just as well off
Nobody in my group is either, thank goodness. We all agreed ahead of time that we'd split everything evenly. We have won a couple of small prizes, which we simply put towards the next payment in the pool. I think my pool is a bargain. For $4/payday(every other Friday), we each get 3 chances at both Powerball and Lotto for 4 drawings, with winnings to be split 6 ways. If another person joins, we'll simply add another ticket to the mix.
PrisonerSix
@Todd:
I read what you post about winners and I appreciate your efforts very much. But with regard to Powerball jackpot winners I'm wondering if there is a new trend developing. If I read the infomation on the Powerball site correctly...since the matrix change 3 of the last 5 winners have been pools. (I think the West/Cheney family can be considered a pool because they were 2 families playing together. According to press reports they spent $40 which from my experience is an amount that is usually beyond what many [most?] individuals can afford to play on a regular or even semi-regular basis.)
Last year Powerball had 14 winners only one of which was a pool. This year there have been 2 winners and both of them have been pools. Granted there's not a lot of history there but I do have to wonder.
Jim
Last year lots of the jackpots that were hit were very small. You remember that phenomena? People were scratching their heads wondering if Powerball had finally hit the wall, because it seemed to get hit so often.
As I described above, when the jackpots get really big, the number of pool players grows exponentionally. And the jackpots have been getting huge as of late. In fact, I ran a news story stating how this was the first back-to-back $200+ million jackpot.
People play Powerball the same as they always have, and my advice has not changed: if you can avoid playing in a pool, do so. Pools do not greatly increase your chances of winning, and all it means is you're ending up giving away most of the prize if you win.
A Quick pick yet again......
Dam those "systems": full speed ahead with the computer picks !
BTW, anyone want to bet how long it will take before someone steps up and says that they were in the pool but were absent the day of the ticket purchase ?
That is why I do the Lotto Agreement and With each of my pool's I give new ones each day of the drawing and they are dated and stated onlu good for that days drawing and I list each player in the pool and they get copies of the numbers and I state in the pool agreement that PAST PARTICIPATION DOES NOT ALLOW TO ANY WINNINGS. IF YOU DID NOT ENTER THE DRAWING OF THE WINNING LOTTO YOU ARENT ENTITLED. And I tell them in every agreement the days that the drawings are on and the amount that we play and the deadline to have the money to me to be able to participate in the pool, NO WAY NO HOW is there anyone that didnt play there money in the pool of the day can come back on us. I seen to many horror stories about it so I made it VERY CLEAR!
It is good piece of foresight on your behalf to draw up a Lotto Agreement, however my concern is how legally binding your agreement is. Unless you had a lawyer draft the "document" for you ensuring all the legal "I's were dotted" and those who signed this document had legal counsel before signing the "document", a disgruntled past-particpant with a savvy lawyer could very possibly render your Lotto Agreement non-binding.
Large sums of money make otherwise rational people do unrational things.
Nobody wants to win over $100 million and take annuity. The record for the largest US jackpot paid as an annuity was just over $110 million, set in 1993, more than four years before the Powerball cash option began.
Todd,
I really have to take exception with you characterizing what happened last year with Powerball as a phenomena. I looked at the Powerball website and the reality is this:
In the calandar year of 2005 the jackpot was hit 14 times. (NOTE: That is calandar year and not Powerball fiscal year.)
In the calandar year of 2004 the jackpot was hit 11 times.
In the calandar year of 2003 the jackpot was hit 12 times.
(And please note that due to split jackpots the actual number of winners was almost the same...14 in 2005...13 in 2004 and 16 in 2003.)
OK...whoopee sh*t! It seems they had a couple (A COUPLE) more winners. That is hardly a phenomena.
Now it does seem to be true that the average jackpot amount was significantly lower. If I did the calculations correctly:
In the calandar year of 2005 the average jackpot was approximately $41 million.
In the calandar year of 2004 the average jackpot was approximately $59 million.
In the calandar year of 2003 the average jackpot was approximately $51 million.
I have a real hard time believing that the jackpots were so much less because of the phenomena of more winners when the actual numbers don't seem to bear that out.
(I'm well aware that I'm comparing calandar year to fiscal year so that might change the calculations a bit.) But the bottom line is there was no phenomena. Just a lot of hype (along with whining and bovine scatology) from Powerball execs) that gave Powerball the opportunity to change the matrix...extend and backload the annuity...and eliminate a 5X's Powerplay multiplier.
They did this because they wanted to increase sales. The only way they could come up with to do this was by increasing the odds and advertising bigger (read: bogusly inflated) jackpots. Increased odds means more rollovers...which means more sales...which means more money for the states...which means bigger bonuses for Powerball execs and state lottery directors and all of it at the expense of having fewer winners among the players.
Jim
Gee, I'd certainly call it a "phenomina" when it has the entire industry talking about whether Powerball has jumped the shark. You might not think it's a big deal, because it's not your job to make sure the lottery brings in more profits this year. You can say "whoopee sh*t" all you want, but that doesn't make you an expert on these things.
Todd,
I grant and I freely concede that I'm not an expert in these things. If the entire industry thinks that a grand total of 3 more jackpots being hit in one year (and 2 more jackpots than the year before that) spelled the end for Powerball and justified the changes then all I can do is quote Lyndon Johnson who said:
I may not know much but I know the difference between chicken salad and chicken sh*t.
Jim
Well, if you re-read what I actually said, and not put words in my mouth, you'd see that I never said it "spelled the end of Powerball".
Is it a debating technique of yours to try and make my statements seem stupid by inserting your own meaning into my argument?
I'm trying to give you some insight into the ways things work, and you seem intent on keeping those blinders on.
WHATEVER!
OK...it's not a debating tactic of mine and I certainly don't think your remarks are stupid. I had a little trouble with your use of the phrase "...whether Powerball has jumped the shark." I don't know what the phrase "jumped the shark" means. Would you please explain it to me so that we can clear up any misunderstanding I may have.
So let's start over. Simply put my position is:
There were only 3 more jackpots won in 2005 than in 2004. There were only 2 more jackpots won in 2005 than in 2003. There are 104 drawings conducted in a calandar year. Three more winners means an increase of 2.89% in the number of jackpots won. Two more winners means an increase of 1.92% in the amount of jackpots won. A less than 3% increase and a less than 2% increase in the number of jackpots won does not...IMHO...mean a significant increase in the number of jackpot winners and does not...again IMHO...constitute a phenomena. What it constitutes...again IMHO is an excuse for Powerball to increase the odds and make it more difficult for any player to win.
Now I conceded that the average amount of the jackpots won in 2005 was significantly lower than it was in 2004 or 2003. And I will further conceed that Powerball sells more tickets and therefore the states makes more money when the jackpots are larger. But (and as you so correctly pointed out I'm not an expert in financial matters and I don't have to answer to the states) I find it almost impossible to believe that 3 more jackpot winners in one year and 2 more than the year before that was the sole reason for the lower jackpots and the lower sales figures. It probably was A factor but...again IMHO...it was NOT the ONLY factor.
You say you want to give me some insight into how things work. Good! I need all the insight I can get. I'm a regular Powerbal player. I buy tickets for every draw regardless of the size. And I always play Powerplay. I understand that lotteries exist to make money for the states and I have no problem with that. I am an advocate and a proponent of lotteries. But as a player I would like someone to explain to me how increasing the odds...extending and backloading the annuity...reducing the cash value...and reducing the chances of getting a 5X's multiplier is good for me.
Furthermore I have a real problem with Powerball execs and lottery directors getting bonuses for increasing sales when they do this AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PLAYERS.
I realize that my chances of ever winning a Powerball jackpot are beyond remote. I accept that and I'm still willing to play. But I am a loyal Powerball player and I feel like I've been completely screwed by the powers that be. They made it harder for me and for everyone else to win not only the jackpot but to win anything of any significance. They made changes to the game that ARE NOT in any players best interest. And they continously feed us a line of bull about how the number of winners last year hurt them and how these changes are well received by the public. As KY Floyd pointed out in another thread they are absolutely shameless in their propaganda and if this was any other business they absolutely would not be allowed to operate this way.
Putting aside my anger and deferring to your greater insight...(which is not a sarcastic remark...you clearly have more knowledge in these matters than I do)...please explain to me why the changes made are a positive for any player.
Jim
The powerball results for 2005 are a phenomenon in the same sense that the sun coming up in the morning is a phenomenon. The only thing special about a bunch of lottery officials getting their panties in a twist is that it gives us some insight into how they think (or don't think). As near as I can tell what we learned was that they don't understand the probability that their game is based on, and/or that their interest in what gets paid out is strictly a function of their interest in what comes in.
The payouts in 2005 were about $557 million (including the funding of two prizes taken as annuities). The year started with about $10 million in the jackpot prize pool and finished with about $20 million. With 30 cents of each ticket going to the jackpot prize pool there should have been about 1.89 billion tickets sold, of which 14 matched 5+1. For the first 8 months of the year the odds of matching 5+1 were 1 in 120.5 million, and for the last 4 months they increased to 1 in 146.1 million. Just to simplify things, I'll call it a average of 1 in 129 million for the year. If we expect 1 out of every 129 million tickets to match 5+1 (and we should), selling 1.89 billion tickets would be expected to result in 14.65 winning tickets. Since we can't have part of a winner the result suggested by probability is 14 or 15 winners, which means we saw the results we should have been expecting.
If you flip a coin 100 times you're going to get a bnch of heads one after the other now and then, but you'll also get a bunch of tails one after the other sometimes, and only the idiots are surprised. The lottery isn't any different. If lotter officials want the big jackpots that generate big sales they have no choice but to accept the small jackpots that balance them.The year started out with a a string of smaller jackpots, and in October we saw the 2nd biggest payout PB had produced up until that time. To anyone who understands probability there's nothing noteworthy about it.
Jim, look here for the meaning of "jump the shark" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
The way that the new rules are good for the players is that if you happen to be the 1 in 146 million who wins a jackpot, the odds are that you'll win about 20% more than with the old odds. You can balance that against the lower chance of winning, but as high as the odds are I don't think there's much point in worrying about them. Either you get (really) lucky, or you don't. The most important statistic in the lottery is that the house skims 50% off the top. The best you can expect over time is that you'll win back half of what you bet.
While I'm at it, here's my 2 cents about powerplay. For twice as much money you get the same odds of winning. If you're among the 1 in 36 who win you'll win more, but there's a 25% chance that double the money only gets you double the prize, and there's zero chance you'll get a bigger jackpot. If you spend that same dollar on an extra ticket you'll double your chances of winning, including your chances of winning the jackpot. For the $365 million jackpot in February 42 people matched 5+0. With 42 choices for the powerball, if all of them had spent the extra buck on a second ticket with a different powerball, we would expect that one of them would have won nearly $90 million. The rest would have gotten twice as much, and since the 2nd place bonus was in effect they'd have gotten more than what powerplay paid. If I'm going to spend another dollar I'm going to use it to improve my odds. It's kind of subjective, so YMMV.
A Quick pick yet again......
Dam those "systems": full speed ahead with the computer picks !
BTW, anyone want to bet how long it will take before someone steps up and says that they were in the pool but were absent the day of the ticket purchase ?
WHAT you TONKIN BOUT...........DoubleDown???????????
"Them State worker's know ....how.....to work, don't THEY?????
"ANJOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.......the........."MONEYY!
LOL......................................QUICK>>>>TRICK$$$
PSYKOMO
Lottery pools are a way for players who want more chances to win than they are willing to pay for or can afford and they work fine until a large sum of money is won and those players who want to share the winnings but weren't willing or couldn't afford to pay before the drawing come forward. They are the players who only want to be in the pool when it wins.
CONGRATTS to these workers.................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They know "HOW" to stay in the fast lane.................
"LOTTO POOL"...........fool & retire toomorrow
remember.....it's your $$$ @@@WK
LOL
PSYKOMO
Hi Floyd,
Thanks for the input. It seems our thinking is similar on this matter. I would very much like to hear what Todd has to say on this subject.
Other than that just a few comments:
I never watched Happy Days but DAMN...I must lead a culturly deprived life because I never heard the phrase jump the shark before. From reading the wikipedia info I gather that Todd meant people were wondering if Powerball had strayed from it's original intent which was to raise as much money for the states as possible. But he can comment as to whether my understanding is correct.
(Interesting metaphor because the article also talks about something losing it's credibility. One might infer that Powerball had some winners and because of that lost it's credibility in "the industry." That's a novel concept! But I'll wait for Todd's explanation in case I misunderstood.)
With regard to whether Powerball officials understand the probability their game is based on...I think they understand it all too well. Which leads to your second remark about them having to accept the samller jackpots. They do have a choice in accepting them and they don't accept them. That's why they tried to fix the game so that nobody will ever win a smaller jackpot. They want the jckpot to roll over constantly. Put another way...they want the regular players to play so they can fund their minimum jackpots but they don't (under any circumstances) want them to win and they'll take whatever steps necessary to insure that they don't win.
And that leads us to your third remark about their interest in what gets paid out being strictly a function of what comes in. At the lower levels...aside from a few nitwits like me...they don't take in a lot of money. So they fixed it so they don't have to pay out a lot of money. And therein lies my problem with what they did. It amounts to a policy of:
Get them to buy tickets but make sure they don't win anything.
Which IMHO is tantamount to rigging the game.
With regard to Powerplay...my thinking is this...the odds of winning the jackpot are over 1 in 145 million. The odds of winning second prize are about 1 in 3.5 million...significantly better. I don't think that buying 2 tickets significantly improves your chances of winnning the jackpot. But given the better odds of winning a second place prize...buying Powerplay does improve your chances of winning a significant amount of money on the second place prize and of winning more money overall. (Of course it also improves your chances of losing more money.) It's still a long shot but it seems to make sense. Or rather it seemed to make sense.
I'll reserve further comment until I hear from Todd.
Jim
There are lots of unresolved anger issues here against the lottery. Maybe someone was abused by the lottery as a child?
Actually, two or three jackpot hits a year can make a tremendous different in revenue. Also important - even more so - is how the jackpots occured (lots of little ones or a couple of big ones?). Last year Powerball slipped under $2 billion in sales. This year, after the change, they will approach $3 billion in sales. People vote with their dollars. One can argue that those who lead the lotteries are maroons, but a 30% bump in sales ain't bad.
Whether the changes were "good" for the player will always be subjective, but the changes were not just about the jackpot odds. Other prize tiers were doubled, the overall odds were kept the same, an occasional 10X PowerPlay was added, and there were two money-sharing Match 5 BONUS prizes paid out.
The PowerPlay idea is also a personal choice, but it does give the players a chance to redesign the prize structure of the game. Not many lotteries do that. If you want to move more money to the lower prizes, you can. The prize pool for the extra buck all goes to the low-tier prizes.
Lotteries can only offer two prize options - cash and annuity. These choices are at the opposite ends of the spectrum; take the money now, pay half in taxes and invest it until you lose it all or go for the long haul with a graduated income that will keep you even with inflation and is fully guaranteed so you can "fooorget about it." And what is the point of being rich if you have to worry about investments all the time. Nearly everyone takes the cash when nearly everyone should take the annuity. Someday, maybe, the IRS will allow the lotteries to offer the best choice and let the winner decide exactly how to set up payments (some part in cash some part in some kind of annuity).
You have to face the fact that the lotteries have a calling - they exisit to raise revenue and they will develop and offer games that raise the most revenue. Like any business, a lottery cares about developing buying customers. Selling a game that the angry folks online here are happy with, but that doesn't sell tickets, does no one any good.
And maybe someone got their bonus check from MUSL today.
Jim
Ha! No extra money coming my way. It just strikes me as odd that many people hold lotteries to a different standard. I guess it is because they are owned by the states and we are all owners of the state. But kind of like yellling "I pay your salary" at the police officer who writes you a ticket.
I see comments like "If they were not the lottery, the AG would be on them for fraud (or whatever)." What? I just saw a Best Buy TV add selling a 42" inch plasma screen that is "sure to keep your family happy." Lotteries have be run wide open and have tough limits on what they can and cannot say. Only those crazy drug ads come close ["LIVE A HAPPY LIFE WITH MAGIPAN . . . maycauserepeateddeathsblahblahblah"]
Lotteries are as open as can be. If someone suggests that a lottery is hiding the odds, you just have to ask "How do you know the odds?" and the answer is that they saw it on the back of the ticket or on the brochure, etc.
Just some thoughts. I don't want to dam things up here.
There are lots of unresolved anger issues here against the lottery. Maybe someone was abused by the lottery as a child?
Actually, two or three jackpot hits a year can make a tremendous different in revenue. Also important - even more so - is how the jackpots occured (lots of little ones or a couple of big ones?). Last year Powerball slipped under $2 billion in sales. This year, after the change, they will approach $3 billion in sales. People vote with their dollars. One can argue that those who lead the lotteries are maroons, but a 30% bump in sales ain't bad.
Whether the changes were "good" for the player will always be subjective, but the changes were not just about the jackpot odds. Other prize tiers were doubled, the overall odds were kept the same, an occasional 10X PowerPlay was added, and there were two money-sharing Match 5 BONUS prizes paid out.
The PowerPlay idea is also a personal choice, but it does give the players a chance to redesign the prize structure of the game. Not many lotteries do that. If you want to move more money to the lower prizes, you can. The prize pool for the extra buck all goes to the low-tier prizes.
Lotteries can only offer two prize options - cash and annuity. These choices are at the opposite ends of the spectrum; take the money now, pay half in taxes and invest it until you lose it all or go for the long haul with a graduated income that will keep you even with inflation and is fully guaranteed so you can "fooorget about it." And what is the point of being rich if you have to worry about investments all the time. Nearly everyone takes the cash when nearly everyone should take the annuity. Someday, maybe, the IRS will allow the lotteries to offer the best choice and let the winner decide exactly how to set up payments (some part in cash some part in some kind of annuity).
You have to face the fact that the lotteries have a calling - they exisit to raise revenue and they will develop and offer games that raise the most revenue. Like any business, a lottery cares about developing buying customers. Selling a game that the angry folks online here are happy with, but that doesn't sell tickets, does no one any good.
chuck:
I will NEVER take annuity. There's no guarantee I will live long enough to collect in full.
You can still die before spending the cash. You must be planning one great day after leaving the lottery office.
OK Chuck...so you're not high enough up the MUSL foodchain to get a bonus. Bummer! You deserve one.
Just a couple of points:
I don't want to hold the lottery to a different standard. I want to hold them to the same standard any other business is held to. Most notably truth in advertising.
The bottom line with me is this...It's clear Powerball doesn't want winners at the lower level. They want to advertise a great minimum prize but they also want to make sure nobody wins it. As the kids say today...That's just wrong.
And to dovetail that point with your point about developing new customers...I believe that Powerball has a duty and an obligation to the old customers...those of us who play regularly and fund their minimum jackpots. If we stop buying tickets at the lower levels and wait for the jackpot to grow they won't be able to gurantee a minimum jackpot.
As for the odds remaining the same...once again..that's just wrong. When they added new mumbers to the matrix all the odds changed...even for those prizes at the lower levels.
As for the guranteed increases for inflation...that's just nonsense. Powerball did not take the gross value of the annuity and then divide by the total number of years and then increase by 4% for inflation. Instead they reduced the amount a winner should get and then added for inflation.
If you went to your boss at MUSL and asked for an increase in your salary to cover the rate of inflation and he said:
OK Chuck...we can do that. You make $100,000 a year. We'll now pay you 40,000 a year and gurantee you a 4% increase every year and that way you can keep pace with inflation.
The bottom line is you'd be livid.
I could say more but what's the point. I might feel differently when I hear a Powerball radio commercial that says at the end:
Oddsofwinningthejackpotare1:146,107,962.EstimatedAdvertisedJackpotisanuuityvaluepaidover30years.Anuityisbackloadedandnotpaidinequalinstallemnts.Cashvalueisapproximately47%oftheadvertisedannuityvalue.
Jim
Oops..I forgot:
Winingssubjecttoallapplicablestatelocalandfederaltaxes.Thenamesandpicturesofallwinnerswillbereleasedtothepressatthetimetheycollecttheirprize.Prizemoneytakes10daysto6weekstocollect.Winnersareadvisedtomoveandchangetheirphonenumberbeforecollectingtheirprize.
Jim
Jim: I think Chuck is high enough on the ladder to get whatever bonus exists. And he knows what he's talking about. (He better, or we're all in trouble!)
Ha! No extra money coming my way. It just strikes me as odd that many people hold lotteries to a different standard. I guess it is because they are owned by the states and we are all owners of the state. But kind of like yellling "I pay your salary" at the police officer who writes you a ticket.
I see comments like "If they were not the lottery, the AG would be on them for fraud (or whatever)." What? I just saw a Best Buy TV add selling a 42" inch plasma screen that is "sure to keep your family happy." Lotteries have be run wide open and have tough limits on what they can and cannot say. Only those crazy drug ads come close ["LIVE A HAPPY LIFE WITH MAGIPAN . . . maycauserepeateddeathsblahblahblah"]
Lotteries are as open as can be. If someone suggests that a lottery is hiding the odds, you just have to ask "How do you know the odds?" and the answer is that they saw it on the back of the ticket or on the brochure, etc.
Just some thoughts. I don't want to dam things up here.
Chuck, you go on damming things up here. We all appreciate your input.
Damn! I assumed I was talking to a MUSL employee but I didn't know I was talking to THE MAN!
Oops!
Jim
PS We do appreciate your input Chuck. Even if we strongly disagree with the actions taken we want to hear your point of view.
Jim: "We" don't disagree with actions taken, "you" do. I'm not convinced that Powerball's increasing annuity is necessarily a bad thing, as many people have voiced. And as I've said before, an increase in number of jackpots was an actual phenomina, not just a perceived one, and the states felt they had to do something in order to protect their #1 most important game.
OK Chuck...so you're not high enough up the MUSL foodchain to get a bonus. Bummer! You deserve one.
Just a couple of points:
I don't want to hold the lottery to a different standard. I want to hold them to the same standard any other business is held to. Most notably truth in advertising.
The bottom line with me is this...It's clear Powerball doesn't want winners at the lower level. They want to advertise a great minimum prize but they also want to make sure nobody wins it. As the kids say today...That's just wrong.
And to dovetail that point with your point about developing new customers...I believe that Powerball has a duty and an obligation to the old customers...those of us who play regularly and fund their minimum jackpots. If we stop buying tickets at the lower levels and wait for the jackpot to grow they won't be able to gurantee a minimum jackpot.
As for the odds remaining the same...once again..that's just wrong. When they added new mumbers to the matrix all the odds changed...even for those prizes at the lower levels.
As for the guranteed increases for inflation...that's just nonsense. Powerball did not take the gross value of the annuity and then divide by the total number of years and then increase by 4% for inflation. Instead they reduced the amount a winner should get and then added for inflation.
If you went to your boss at MUSL and asked for an increase in your salary to cover the rate of inflation and he said:
OK Chuck...we can do that. You make $100,000 a year. We'll now pay you 40,000 a year and gurantee you a 4% increase every year and that way you can keep pace with inflation.
The bottom line is you'd be livid.
I could say more but what's the point. I might feel differently when I hear a Powerball radio commercial that says at the end:
Oddsofwinningthejackpotare1:146,107,962.EstimatedAdvertisedJackpotisanuuityvaluepaidover30years.Anuityisbackloadedandnotpaidinequalinstallemnts.Cashvalueisapproximately47%oftheadvertisedannuityvalue.
Jim
Oh, where to start.
1. Truth in Advertising? I can't imagine there is any other business that offers more truth in advertising than a lottery. We all become numb to ads in general but sit down and watch some TV ads. A lottery doesn't get special exemptions from truth in advertising laws; in fact, lotteries often have even stricter advertising laws and rules to follow. Most lotteries just barely pass through legislatures and only when a lot of restrictions get tacked on - like WI's law that does not allow any advertising that might enourage someone to play.
2. Powerball doesn't want winners at the lower level? Powerball is two games in one - a big jackpot game and a cash 5 game (with a $200,000 prize and up to $1 million with PowerPlay) but even a big jackpot game has have to have winners at the lower level to keep people interested in the game. Our first multi-state game had overall odds of 1 in 750. That was a game with very few lower winners and it had to be put down after a year. Players like chasing the big jackpots but having to buy 750 tickets (on average) before any kind of win was just too little going on in the game. Since then, our game designs have been bar-belled, with most of the prize money going to the jackpot and to the lowest prizes.
In just re-reading your question, I may have misunderstood this one. Perhaps you mean a the lower Jackpot level. It is certainly true that a lot of hits at low jackpots would kill the game, but the big culprit is that when you design a big jackpot game (higher coverage needed for a hit), you are going to get less hits at the lowest end. Powerball might sell 12 million tickets for a starting jackopt and 200 million tickets for a record jackpot. The lower coverage at the low end means less chance of a hit (though it does happen). If a lottery could control when the hits occur, it would probably be a mix of low hits (to keep player interest high and to help reduce jackopt fatigue) and really big hits (for the sales). Game design limitations just do not allow you to have large jackpots AND lots of hits at the starting jackpot levels - at least not one that I can figure out yet. The closest that anyone can come to such a design is the two-drum concept. The cash 5 part of Powerball does get hit a lot and pays out lots of cash at that level. If a player wants a game with frequesntly hit smaller jackpots, those kinds of games exist. Powerball is not that kind of game. You just can't have both in one.
3. Duty to old customers? Of course lotteries care about old customers. That is the player base for the game and saying that we want to encourage new customers is NOT to say that a lottery would want to trash old customers. A lottery always has to work for both. A lottery doesn't want to just keep going back to your core player for more and more money. The ultimate key to success is to keep the core and to reach out to new customes.
4. Odds remaining the same is just wrong? A change to the game does mean that the odds won't be EXACTLY the same, but the overall odds of winning a cash prize in the old game was 1 in 36.064. In the new game, the overall odds are 1 in 36.06. I call that pretty close to the same (a difference of six one-hundreths? tho my math has never been very good). The odds of hitting the $3 prize in the old game was 1 in 70.38. In the new game the $3 odds are 1 in 68.96. Winning a $3 prize in the new game is not the same; it is even easier than before.
5. Guaranteed increase for inflaction is nonsense? If you take a bunch of cash to a reputable financial advisor and want to set up an income stream for life or some long period of time, you will get a graduated annuity. It is not nonsense, it is the only reasonable way to go and to do otherwise would be irresponsible. Lotteries that pay out equal payments are really not giving the annuity winner what they want - a life free of investment worries. A prize of say $1 million a year sounds great now, but in five years that $1 million is starting to cramp your stye. In 15 years, you might be looking for part-time work to try to trade for a new yacht (with its price that keeps going up every year). Your description of the graduated annuity is correct, but I guess I don't understand how else you would do it. No one can do it as you suggest. If you take cash to an adviser and ask them to figure out equal payments and then ask them to increase each payment by 4% a year, you will get an odd glance. The money has to come from somewhere. In that case, as in Powerball, the money comes from moving some of the money from the early years back to the later years to get a start on earning more interest. The extra interest that is earned from investing some of the money longer is what makes the Powerball annuity amount bigger when compared to the cash amount. The difference is the interest earnings from investing some of the money longer.
The very best option would be if a winner could come in and design their own annuity stream - setting up how much they want to be paid immediately in cash and how much to set as an annuity over their preferred period. Unfortunately, a lottery can only give the player two choices and so they are at the opposite ends of the spectrum - a cash lump sum or a long-term graduated annuity. It will take a change in IRS rules to allow more.
6. Go ahead and feel differently. Even better than radio, the information you state is printed on the back of the tickets, in the brochures, in the official published rules, and on the lottery web sites.
@Todd:
My appologies to you and all other Lottery Post members for my very poor choice of the the word "we." That was a major gaff on my part as it clearly implied I was speaking for other people including the staff at Lottery Post...which I am not. I am speaking strictly for myself. I absolutely believe that there are other members here who share my point of view. (But perhaps not because no one else has joined in this opportunity to speak directly to one of the "Powers that be.") Regardless, it was arrogant on my part to use the word "we" and imply that I was speaking for them and/or others.
Once again my appologies to all.
@Chuck:
Thank you for taking the time to give such a thoughtful response. I appreciate it very much. I would like to respond to a couple of the points you made.
1. With regard to the odds...perhaps I misunderstood your statement; "Other prize tiers were doubled, the overall odds were kept the same." I took that remark to mean that while prizes were doubled the odds were kept the same. In the case of the second place prize it went from $100,000 with odds of approximately 1:3 million to $200,000 with odds of approximately 1:3.5 million. That's a fairly significant increase. The odds of winning anything without the Powerball also increased due to the matrix change...although I will concede the odds of just getting just the Powerball remained the same.
2. With regard to my remarks about Powerball not wanting winners at lower levels...your re-reading of my statement is correct. I was referring to Powerball not wanting jackpot winners at the lower levels. I must say that it sounds to me like you concede that point when you say; "...a lot of hits at low levels would kill the game..." Obviously you don't want the game to be killed so it is logical to infer that you don't want the jackpot hit at lower levels. Hence my point about the matrix being changed so that it is much harder to win the jackpot at the lower level and the players getting a (for lack of a better phrase) a raw deal.
Given that I play for every draw (or at least almost every draw...I missed 2 last year) I may be in the minority of players...but I have to be absolutely honest with you and say that when I play I hope to win and would be thrilled to win a jackpot at any level. And I think that point holds true for everyone who buys a Powerball ticket when the jackpot is at the minimum or lower levels. So in essence it seems to me that I want to buy a ticket and I hope to win...while you want me to buy a ticket and you hope I don't win.
3. With regard to your point about keeping the base. I work for a retailer that sells lottery tickets. While the customers I see are admittedly a very minute sample of your customer base I can assure you that there are many people who used to play Powerball who no will longer play. And it isn't because they haven't won the jackpot. Over and over again I hear disgruntled players say they don't play anymore because they never win anything. Not that they don't win the jackpot..but that they don't win anything.
As an aside let me tell you my own experience this year. As I said I have played for every draw this year. I have bought a minimum of 5 lines with Powerplay for a total of $10 per draw. (And yes when the jackpot was higher I bought a few more. The most I spent was 15 lines with Powerplay for a total of $30 on one draw.) Wednesday's draw produced my second win of the year. I got 2 numbers plus the Powerball ($7) for a total of $28. (In all the years I've played Powerball $28 is the most I've ever won.) My only other win this year was 1 number plus the Powerball ($4) with a 5X's multiplier for a total of $20.
Powerball's paybacks are the lower levels are terrible. And simply put it is no fun to play when you lose and lose consistantly. Not winning anything...alienates base players. Conversely, my experience at work shows that people who win smaller amounts as prizes almost always roll them over for the next draw.
4. With regard to the information about the game being printed...let me say this...I just looked at the Powerball ticket I purchased from the Hoosier Lottery today and there is no prize information (along the lines of what we were discussing) or add information printed on the back of my ticket. It is printed on the playsip. But I feel compelled to remind you that your own website says that 70% to 80% of the tickets purchased are quickpicks. Given this it is clear that 70% to 80% of the people who play Powerball never see the information we are discussing. Furthermore, not everyone is connected to the internet and can visit a lottery website.
Yes the information is out there for those who want to find it and take the time to look for it. But the fact remains the public is woefully ignorant of the odds and the game structure. Many players I speak to don't know there is now a 30 year annuity or that the structure of the annuity (for better or for worse) has been changed. Many players don't know that there is actually a cash value that is less than the advertised value. Worse than that some players think the cash value is after taxes. Even worse that that some players actually think that the cash value is the amount you win after the lottery takes out the so-called "lottery tax". ..and then you pay income tax on what's left.
Granted this all may not entirely be Powerball's fault. But it doesn't seem to me like Powerball and the affilated lotteries go out of their way to educate the players. The flashing sign we have at work (from the Hoosier Lottery) only shows the advertised annuity value. But it makes no mention of it as an annuity. It simply says Powerball Jackpot. There is no doubt in my mind that this is done intentionally so that the larger jackpot amount gets the attention of the players.
5. I understand what you are saying about the graduated annuity. I don't like it but I don't think there is much point in discussing it further except to say...that IMHO...to advertise this as an increase for inflation is clearly misleading for all the reasons I stated in my previous post.
6. Finally...with regard to truth in advertising...you need look no further than your own website to see a graphic demonstration of what I'm referring to. On the Powerball website is a picture of the most recent jackpot winners holding the big ceremoninal check for $220,200,000!
Press reports and indeed the text of that article indicate that the winners have opted for the cash value of (a combined total of approximately) $102,000,00. Once again the text clearly states they will receive about $8.5 million each but there is no mention of a $102 million dollar prize. It's up the reader to do the math...assuming they get beyond the image of that $220,000,000 check. And let's face it...we all know a picture is worth a thousand words.
So let me ask you...why is Powerball advertising that these people won over $220 million dollars when the fact is they did not win and will not receive $220 million? Even better why doesn't Powerball show them with a ceremonial $102,000,000 check? Even better than that whay doesn't Powerball show each winner with a ceremonial $8.5 million check?
We all know the answer...BIG JACKPOTS GENERATE BIG SALES. So even though these people di not win $220,000,000...every effort must be made to convince the public that they did.
If the general public saw a picture of a $102 million dollar check...instead of the advertised $220 million check might they start asking questions? Would such a picture shatter what some people refer to as the Powerball illusion? Would that be worse for the game than people winning little jackpots of $15...oops...$6.9 million dollars?
Chuck, I understand much of what you're saying. But I don't like the changes to Powerball. (And I'd be willing to bet if the general public was better informed they wouldn't like them either.) But more than that I don't like what I perceive to be the spin that justifies those changes. To be fair I'm sure it's not easy running a game like Powerball. And to be fair to me please don't write off why I say as the ravings of a disgruntled loser. I consider myself both a proponent and advocate of lotteries...even if I am a cynic and a critic of the same.
I hope the next time you make changes to the game you consider the perspective of the everyday, regular player who supports your game with is/her hard earned money and hopes beyond hope that they might...for just one time in their life...be very, very lucky.
Despite the harsh and confrontational tone of what I've written please be assured that I send you my warmest regards,
Jim
JIM:
Every lottery in the USA shows the winners holding a check with the annuity payout amount listed, not the cash value. Why are you picking on Powerball? If every lottery does it, then it is not a valid point to be used in your attempt to rip Powerball a new one.
You may not like that they do it, but it is certainly not "deceptive advertising". You should be more judicious in your use of that term. There are some real scam artists out there ripping people off, and to lump Powerball in with them, just because you don't like a big annuity payout check, is wrong and unfair.
Todd,
When someone wins $102 million and the lottery takes, uses and advertises a photo of them holding a check for $220 million it most certainly is Decptive Advertising. And it is indeed a sad day in America and a triumph for Clintonesque values when the only defense offered for a deliberate mischaracterization is to say, everyone does it.
I am not picking on Powerball nor am I as you so eloquently characterize it attempting to rip Powerball a new one. I am expressing my opposition to some of Powerball's practices, the changes made to Powerball and the reasons they give for those practices and said changes. I think I have some legitimate concerns. And the fact that someone from Powerball took the time to respond to what I said tells me that they are sensitive to what I had to say and took what I had to say seriously.
Contrary to what you said I did not use the word scam. I did not refer to Powerball or anyone at Powerball as scam artists and I did not lump them them in with scam artists. You may have inferred that from what I did say but the truth is I did not say that. To say that I did is (once again in your own words) wrong and unfair. Furthermore, it is (IMHO) an attempt to discredit me and what I did say. It takes away from the issues and the seriousness of this debate by mischaracterizing what I said.
I have stated my complaints as clearly and consisely as I know how to do. I have used facts and figures when appropriate and tried to use reason and logic to support my point of view and temper my emotions. I concede that I may be wrong in how I see some of this. The fact is I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. But your attempts to mischaracterize what I said and over simplify the issues I've raised do not constitute a valid counter argument and do not in any way shape or form convince me that I am wrong nor allay my concerns.
JimI will state something clearly and consisely as well: holding a check with the annuity payout amount is not deceptive advertising.
I have provided the reasons in prior posts, so there's no need to muddy my clear and concise message with that!
I definitely think if someone is posed for a photograph with a $220 million check, they should be able to take that to the bank and get $220 million!
Of course it is deceptive if they can't do that!
I will state something clearly and consisely as well: holding a check with the annuity payout amount is not deceptive advertising.
I have provided the reasons in prior posts, so there's no need to muddy my clear and concise message with that!
I'll also state something clearly and concisely: Pigs can fly.
There! That obviously makes it true. If anything, the big fake checks are more deceptive than advertising the annuity value. Everybody knows that a check for n dollars means that when you cash it you actually get n dollars.
"I can't imagine there is any other business that offers more truth in advertising than a lottery." Chuck can come here and spin it all he wants, but if lotteries are truly interested in truthful advertising then at the very least all advertising that includes a jackpot value should include the cash value, and the big ceremonial checks should be for the same amount as the real check. Suggesting, in any way, that somebody is getting $220 million dolalrs when they're really getting less than half of that is clearly misleading, and if done by a private company it would probably be deemed fraudulent.
Sure, all of the other lotteries do it. That doesn't mean it's right, or not deceptive. I guess your mom is grateful that all the other kids weren't jumping off of bridges whe you were growing up.