Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 9, 2016, 8:24 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Raffle or Not?

Topic closed. 24 replies. Last post 10 years ago by Coin Toss.

Page 2 of 2
PrintE-mailLink

Would you like to see more raffles?

Yes, with the same general odds [ 7 ]  [17.95%]
Yes, with different odds [ 4 ]  [10.26%]
Yes, maybe, once every four months [ 8 ]  [20.51%]
Yes, twice a year [ 4 ]  [10.26%]
Yes, once a year [ 3 ]  [7.69%]
Yes, the odds are better than PB and MM [ 3 ]  [7.69%]
No, the odds are not better than MM or PB [ 2 ]  [5.13%]
No, state lotteries have better odds [ 0 ]  [0.00%]
No [ 4 ]  [10.26%]
Not Sure [ 4 ]  [10.26%]
Total Valid Votes [ 39 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 1 ]  
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7314 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 7, 2007, 9:20 am - IP Logged

justxploring: Also, since a limited number of tickets are sold, I wish more people were able to just purchase one. I believe there were 1,250,000 sold in FL but I doubt if even a million people got a chance to play. 

It took 6 weeks for Ohio to sell 500,000 $20 raffle tickets so I don't know how anybody could claim they "didn't have a chance to buy a ticket". Because Pick-3s put limits on the number of tickets they can sell, on certain dates like Valentines day, St. Patrick day, September 11, and on June 6 last year, many people are shut out. The Raffle tickets are non-refundable but the Pick-3 tickets can be voided before the drawing so some agents might print out extra tickets to sell to the regular customers. I doubt anybody complained because they couldn't buy a ticket when 214, 317, 911, or 666 didn't come out.

justxploring: I realize I am going to get criticized for this comment, but when the tickets cost $20 each and you see people buying 10 or more at a time, the gap between those who can afford $200 to blow on gambling and those who need the money but want an equal shot at the prize becomes much wider. 

I suppose a case could be made by the people opposing state lotteries that anybody buying a $20 is blowing their money. Would the Raffle be fair if they made sure people needing the money had a chance to buy a ticket or maybe fixed it so they could win?

Are you sure the people that blow $200 on gambling are the ones that can really afford it?

    Avatar
    New Member

    United States
    Member #48553
    January 1, 2007
    8 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 7, 2007, 10:12 am - IP Logged

    does anyone no if florida is going to have any more raffles. and if so when and how many.

    for the record i like the limit of tickets.

      justxploring's avatar - villiarna
      Wandering Aimlessly
      United States
      Member #25360
      November 5, 2005
      4461 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 7, 2007, 12:47 pm - IP Logged

      does anyone no if florida is going to have any more raffles. and if so when and how many.

      for the record i like the limit of tickets.

      I was going to start another topic, but this relates directly to the Raffle. Has anyone read the Florida press releases for the Raffle?  There is currently a list of all the people who have claimed their prize.  2 of them are $1 million winners and then they list the $100,000 and $10,000 winners by name and city. 

      We've had numerous posts about anonymity, and I realize that if I won a jackpot my name would be in the news since it's considered to be a public record in Florida.  However, if I won $10,000 and collected $7,500 (they deduct 25%) I wouldn't want my name printed. I'm not saying I wouldn't be happy winning $10,000 but it's not such a big deal that it should be posted.

      Joe, I agree with you about the limited amount of tickets. My comment above was saying that I'd rather the price be lower and more people get a chance to play until they're sold out. I suppose there is no way of controlling how many a person buys without collecting personal information about the player and registering him in the system, the last thing I'd want. 

        Avatar
        Coastal Georgia
        United States
        Member #2653
        October 30, 2003
        1866 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 7, 2007, 1:03 pm - IP Logged

        I agree about keeping winners out of the spotlight, but the state lotteries are going to plaster the faces , names, and hometowns of the jackpot winners all over the newspaper and internet- this is their way of getting free advertising....

        When I won my little $1000 last week and had to go to the office to get it, I saw picture after picture plastered on the wall- big winners and small.
        I said to myself that I am not submitting to a picture if they ask. They didn't, thank goodness...
        I am just a private person and would like to keep it that way...

         

                                       

                      

         

         

          justxploring's avatar - villiarna
          Wandering Aimlessly
          United States
          Member #25360
          November 5, 2005
          4461 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 7, 2007, 9:39 pm - IP Logged

          I agree about keeping winners out of the spotlight, but the state lotteries are going to plaster the faces , names, and hometowns of the jackpot winners all over the newspaper and internet- this is their way of getting free advertising....

          When I won my little $1000 last week and had to go to the office to get it, I saw picture after picture plastered on the wall- big winners and small.
          I said to myself that I am not submitting to a picture if they ask. They didn't, thank goodness...
          I am just a private person and would like to keep it that way...

          Congrats!  I didn't know you won anything.  I agree about staying private.

            justxploring's avatar - villiarna
            Wandering Aimlessly
            United States
            Member #25360
            November 5, 2005
            4461 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 7, 2007, 9:47 pm - IP Logged

            justxploring: Also, since a limited number of tickets are sold, I wish more people were able to just purchase one. I believe there were 1,250,000 sold in FL but I doubt if even a million people got a chance to play. 

            It took 6 weeks for Ohio to sell 500,000 $20 raffle tickets so I don't know how anybody could claim they "didn't have a chance to buy a ticket". Because Pick-3s put limits on the number of tickets they can sell, on certain dates like Valentines day, St. Patrick day, September 11, and on June 6 last year, many people are shut out. The Raffle tickets are non-refundable but the Pick-3 tickets can be voided before the drawing so some agents might print out extra tickets to sell to the regular customers. I doubt anybody complained because they couldn't buy a ticket when 214, 317, 911, or 666 didn't come out.

            justxploring: I realize I am going to get criticized for this comment, but when the tickets cost $20 each and you see people buying 10 or more at a time, the gap between those who can afford $200 to blow on gambling and those who need the money but want an equal shot at the prize becomes much wider. 

            I suppose a case could be made by the people opposing state lotteries that anybody buying a $20 is blowing their money. Would the Raffle be fair if they made sure people needing the money had a chance to buy a ticket or maybe fixed it so they could win?

            Are you sure the people that blow $200 on gambling are the ones that can really afford it?

            First of all, I know nothing about the Ohio raffle, but the 1,250,000 Florida tickets sold out in a couple of weeks or less. Also, when I wrote "a chance to play" I was talking about affording to buy a ticket and competing, not getting to the store on time.  If you snooze, you lose as the saying goes. You also refer to pick-3 tickets.  Spending a dollar (and you can even bet 50 cents) isn't the same as $20 so I don't see your point. Also, with pick-3 a player can bet again the next day. This is a once a year raffle..not the same to me.

            No, I am not sure that someone who spends $200 or even $40,000 can afford it. But they obviously have it to spend.  I think $20 is too high for a raffle ticket.  At least when there are $20 scratch tickets, there are also $1, $2, $5 and $10 tickets.  I was just giving an opinion of what a true raffle means to me.  I'm very happy for the people who won.  I just don't think the odds and the payouts justify the cost of the ticket.

              Avatar

              United States
              Member #1826
              July 11, 2003
              2645 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 7, 2007, 10:18 pm - IP Logged

              I agree about keeping winners out of the spotlight, but the state lotteries are going to plaster the faces , names, and hometowns of the jackpot winners all over the newspaper and internet- this is their way of getting free advertising....

              When I won my little $1000 last week and had to go to the office to get it, I saw picture after picture plastered on the wall- big winners and small.
              I said to myself that I am not submitting to a picture if they ask. They didn't, thank goodness...
              I am just a private person and would like to keep it that way...

              Wow, I didn't think anyone here was going to win anything in the raffles.

              (insert signature here)

                Avatar
                NY
                United States
                Member #23835
                October 16, 2005
                3474 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 8, 2007, 1:30 am - IP Logged

                I agree with KY Floyd about the odds.  The only reason I checked "yes" is because there wasn't a choice about the price, just the odds.  If raffle tickets were $5, I would probably buy a ticket. I'd like to see a couple of smaller tier prizes added.  (maybe $5,000 or $1,000)  The overall odds of winning were much less than some games, especially the scratch tickets.  It was the ad that said "10 people will have the best odds ever of becoming millionaires on January 1" that got everyone's attention. Also, since a limited number of tickets are sold, I wish more people were able to just purchase one. I believe there were 1,250,000 sold in FL but I doubt if even a million people got a chance to play. As you know, scalpers were trying to sell tickets on eBay until they got caught. Do you think someone would be auctioning Lotto or PB tickets online for $1,000 (or was it $10,000?)  Obviously they knew that people were being brainwashed to believe these tickets had a much better shot at hitting a jackpot than your weekly tickets.

                What I was trying to say above is, if there are 1 million tickets sold and 5 or 10 people are guaranteed to win a top prize, then it would be nice if a million people could buy them. I realize I am going to get criticized for this comment, but when the tickets cost $20 each and you see people buying 10 or more at a time, the gap between those who can afford $200 to blow on gambling and those who need the money but want an equal shot at the prize becomes much wider.  Of course this is "gambling" so I could say this about any game. However, I always think of a raffle as something the community pitches in for to buy school uniforms or to help raise money for a good cause. Instead the lottery used a good marketing tool to convince people they have a heck of a better shot at winning something, when it isn't really true.  It was very smart and they made a lot of money quickly.  I hope they really use that 50% for scholarships. Maybe they should have another one for the hurricane victims who are still living with blue tarps on their roofs.

                As far as scalpers selling the tickest for more than $20 I think it's more than just the better odds. With almost anything you might want to sell  there will be a few people that will pay more than  the item is reasonably worth, a lot that will pay a reasonable price and some that won't buy at any price. By limiting sales to a smallish number a lot of people who want the tickets won't be able to get them. Many of those who miss out would probably be willing to pay a modest premium and afew are in the group that will overpay by a large amount. Because the tickets are limited a lot of people will feel that they're missing their only chance (how many of us have made a last minute trip to buy a MM or PB ticket a few hours before sales end even though the odds are ridiculously high, and you can get aticket later for the next draw, which will probably be abigger jackpot anyway?), and that can easily make them do things they wouldn't do under other circumstances. All thos epeople who paid $1500 or $200 for playstation 3's on ebay didn't do it because it's so much better. They did it because they could afford it and didn't want to wait for their next chance. I don't see much difference between that and the lottery. As far as people paying 5, 10 or 20 times what the tickets were originally priced at I don't see that as making any sense because the  tickets are a gamble. I wouldn't pay $1000 for a gaming console, but I at least understand why  people with money to burn would do it. FWIW, $1400 is about the point at which you could have the same odds of winning a MM jackpot as the raffles that were 1 in 125,000.

                While it would be nice if everybody who wanted a ticket got a chance to get one,  don't see any practical way to do it. It would be easy enough to  limit them to one ticket per person, but the people who wanted to buy 5 or10 tickets would just go to another store and buy another ticket. The people who can't or don't shop early will always miss out whent he supply doesn't meet the demand, and there's really no way around it. Look on the bright side, though. Most of the people who bought 10 tickets lost $200, and you almost certainly came out $20 ahead by not buying one.

                As far as using the money for scholarships, don't be surprised if that turms out to be misleading.  I'm not sure how other states do it, but in NY the lottery proceeds that go to education don't actually increase the funding for education. The state  sets a budget for education and  for every dollar that comes from the lottery they reduce the amount that comes from the general fund by $1.

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7314 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 21, 2007, 2:11 pm - IP Logged

                  First of all, I know nothing about the Ohio raffle, but the 1,250,000 Florida tickets sold out in a couple of weeks or less. Also, when I wrote "a chance to play" I was talking about affording to buy a ticket and competing, not getting to the store on time.  If you snooze, you lose as the saying goes. You also refer to pick-3 tickets.  Spending a dollar (and you can even bet 50 cents) isn't the same as $20 so I don't see your point. Also, with pick-3 a player can bet again the next day. This is a once a year raffle..not the same to me.

                  No, I am not sure that someone who spends $200 or even $40,000 can afford it. But they obviously have it to spend.  I think $20 is too high for a raffle ticket.  At least when there are $20 scratch tickets, there are also $1, $2, $5 and $10 tickets.  I was just giving an opinion of what a true raffle means to me.  I'm very happy for the people who won.  I just don't think the odds and the payouts justify the cost of the ticket.

                  Sorry it took me so long to answer; I didn't see this thread again until yesterday.

                  It boils down to gaming preference and when a game like the Florida raffle sells out that quickly, the lottery commission know they have a game people like. This is an all-or-nothing type of game because over 1.249 million tickets will be losers. Each state will probably add their own twist to the prize pool and maybe a state will reduce the number of million dollar winners and add 10,000 $100 winners.

                  My best guess would be that less then a half million people actually bought tickets in the Florida raffle because many people probably bought multiple tickets. Ohio was one of the first states offering a raffle and maybe that's why it took over 6 weeks to sell out. But that also gave extra time so the lower lottery budget players could decide if it was worthwhile. I think the real test will be how long it takes to sell out the next raffle.

                  Each individual determines what they feel is the best way to spend their $20 worth of lottery bucks. The lottery commissons only start asking the players when they are not playing their games.

                    Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
                    Zeta Reticuli Star System
                    United States
                    Member #30470
                    January 17, 2006
                    10353 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 19, 2007, 10:13 am - IP Logged

                    Since this thread is still going, I'll add this;

                    Despite the fact that it's proven over and over that 70- 80% of ticket sales for jackpot games are quick picks, and 70 to 80% of winning tickets are quick picks,  there are still people that refuse to play quick picks. OK, that's fine. But then here comes a raffle, which, in essence is a $20 quick pick and nothing but a quick pick, and with that comes "raffle fever", even among some of those people who insist quick picks are a waste. 

                    Go figure.  

                    Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

                    Lep

                    There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.