To lottery players, $100 million ain't what it used to be.
A seven-month streak of jackpots that were big, but not gigantic, has sent traditional lottery sales plummeting in many states.
In the past six months, Mega Millions sales are down 30% in Texas compared with a year earlier and 38% in Massachusetts. Powerball sales are off 6% in Wisconsin.
The USA is suffering from "jackpot fatigue," lottery officials say.
"There was a time when $50 million created a stir. Then we needed $100 million," says Bobby Heith of the Texas Lottery. "Now even that's not good enough."
The two big multistate lottery games, Mega Millions and Powerball, are in a run of low jackpots. An exception: James Wilson, 84, a retired St. Louis electrician, and his wife, Shirley, 79, won a $254 million Powerball jackpot Jan. 24.
Mega Millions had five jackpots above $200 million in the 12 months that ended June 30, including one for $315 million. The result: record sales of $1.5 billion.
I believe the reality of the long odds of winning are hitting home. Once upon a time I played $5.00 a draw, now I play $1.00 a draws. I live in NY state, as far as I know their has never been a MM Jackpot winner outside of New York City. The majority of second place winners, are also in NYC. The why bother factor has kicked in for me. I really see myself this time next year not participating at all in the lotteries.
I think that people are so desensitized to money as a result of media exposure to celebrity life, that 100 million just isn't as appealing as 300, or better yet, 400. Would I like to win 100 million dollars, you bet, but I would spend more on playing if the jackpot was over 300 million. And it doesn't seem to be helping that the Mega Millions and Powerball Lotteries have rarely seen large "mega" jackpots in the last year. I think people aren't playing because people are winning when jackpots are too low. Part of playing lotto is the dream, and it's always funner to dream bigger. I think that Mega Millions and Powerball should add a number or two to the pools to decrease the odds of winning even more. What's the worst thing that can happen, a 400 or 500 million dollar lottery that someone would eventually win, and you better believe more people would play with the media exposure a jackpot like that would create. People buy scratch off tickets or play their local lotteries for average jackpots, but I believe people want their multi-state lotteries to give them the mega jackpots they once promised. They haven't been delivering, so people haven't been playing.
Rest assured, $50 million is plenty enough for me, I just get sick and tired of never winning most of the low tier prizes; let alone the jackpot. I have been suffering from "lottery fatigue" for years now. The media hype only comes in now if someone wins hundreds of millions, so it makes anything less than that seem like not as big of a deal. Until you win it.
There's alot of truth to this story, I still play but no more than 4-5$$ a draw $4.00 if it's under 100 million and $5.00 if it's over. I used to play 20-25 a week but the best I ever did was the $3.00 prizes I mean I never won a grand or more. so after all these years I just decided to cut back to 4-5 dollars a draw.
Agreed, the lotteries have brought this on themselves by ever increasing the odds. Once upon a time 80million to 1 was the Powerball odds, now we are expected to buy in to 145million to 1 odds. People just aren't as dumb as they would like. My suggestion is to drop the odds on the regular powerball to 100million to 1 and add a Mini-Powerball game with something like 30million to 1 odds. This way players can choose from a long shot to a very long shot depending on their personality. Right now I only have the option to play 145million to 1 Powerball or my state lottery's 500,000 to 1 Pick 5 which leaves me out in the cold as far as having an option that suites my personal preferrence.
We don't have a Mega Millions but I couldn't imagine buying a ticket with 175million to 1 odds and having an ounce of faith that I could get anything out of it. Before Powerball went to 145m:1 odds I would start buying at $50 million dollar pots, now I wait for $100 million and I am definitely buying less tickets, mainly because I believe I am throwing my money away at these odds and I need an exponentially greater incentive to play the jacked-up version.
The mistake lottery officials make is thinking that simply increasing the odds will create larger jackpots which will increase buzz, but that's not how most players think. Jacked-up odds means a much greater expectation of huge pots which creates a loss of buzz during these long build-up periods. It takes about a month for Powerball to get up to a $100 million. Also, with the increased odds PB has fewer winners to annouce each year which hurts them with players. Buzz is not only created by large jackpots, it seems to be created when the jackpot nears or exceeds the odds of winning. I see this in every lottery I play. When our little Pick 5 reaches $500,000 sales start to go through the roof. Same with Florida's Lotto which doesn't have to reach $30 million before players are ready to jump in. I think the Mega Millions and Powerball officials have gone in the wrong direction, but I doubt the high paid executives will ever admit their mistakes, more likely they will have to be thrown out for lagging sales before we see a positive change. I wonder if the officials thought they would raise the odds and people would only notice higher jackpot, but not consider the diminishing chance of a win.
I think this is completely wrong and is the misconception that is killing the lotterys. Very few people are saying, I am not playing because $100 million simply isnt enough money. People aren't playing because they don't believe they can win. The year before they raised the PB odds, the lottery went to $200 million three times and somehow that wasn't good enough? When I wrote to officials I actually got a reply that the PB only went to $200 million once, because he didn't acknowledge the times it went to $190+ million.
You say add a number or two and I say that if they do that then very few will play until the pot gets to $300 million which means people will be sitting out for months waiting on the pot to build and I would probably never play such a game. Are you seriously suggesting raising the odds to 200million to 1 to encourage people to play?
As for people hitting the pots early, you CAN'T stop people from hitting the Jackpot at all ranges of the spectrum, that's what randomness is all about. People need to be realistic.
I agree. The big jackpot lotteries have such ridiculously long odds that more than a buck or two on them isn't worth it, no matter what the jackpot amount is.....besides, I don't need a hundred million dollars to retire and live confortably. A couple of million pre-tax would be plenty. I don't have a desire to be that extravagant.
Here is a LIST of the reasons for the "cool down":
-There have been so many jackpots over 100 million. When 50 million was noteworthy it was because it was unusual.
-There is an inflation effect. If you want to buy a house for cash you need to win about 1 million (advertised annuity) or more!
-There are always stories (and TV series) about people who won big but were even more miserable after.
-People are tired of buying loads of tickets and then having hardly any matching numbers let alone 2 or 3 on one line, and then find out that 2+bonus pays only 4 dollars.
-People don't buy 100 at a time, they maybe get 5 dollars on a whim. The last several winners played only 5 or 10 dollars.
-After taxes and cash option the jackpot is 1/3 of the advertised amount and people are wising up to this.
-I dispute that it's harder to see large jackpot amounts. They do come around often enough - look at MM right now. If the jackpots don't get quite as high it's because MORE STATES ARE PLAYING and PEOPLE ARE WINNING JACKPOTS MORE OFTEN. But they also keep adding more balls so that it's that much harder to win a SMALLER prize.
-I dispute a lack of interest in the Lottery in general. I still often have to wait a long time for someone to recite 100 different Pickit numbers because they don't want to fill out betslips.
-Remember when not only you had to wait 3 hours on line for Powerball, and you could only get Quick Picks? Do you want to go back to that?
I play be expectation value, the ratio of the prize to the odds. The long odds have decreased my playing.
But for the lotteries, it comes down to luck, as it does for the players. Long odds do not assure rollovers.
They do make rollovers more probable, but not necessarily large jackpots.
I would try better odds if I wanted to increase sales, but it's hardly my call.
I don't think that raising the odds will encourage people to play, I think that larger jackpots will. Yeah there will be a waiting period, but it is also likely that the jackpot will remain larger longer, and despite the odds, if there is a 400 or 500 million dollar jackpot out there, people will be more likely to at least buy 1 ticket. My point is that for better odds and smaller jackpots, I play my local lottery, but I'll only fork over the money for the megamillions when their are "mega" jackpots. I guess you can say it's the odds that will keep me from playing when the pot is small, but when it grows, the odds don't really mean a whole lot, at least to me.
Will someone please tell me, what is wrong with our American society that some people don't feel the lottery is worth their time or their money unless it's $200 million or more?
I would be grateful (and the operative word is grateful) to win $15 million. People need to get off their pompous, high horses because...most people don't make $100,000 or more a year!
Now, it seems that some people lust for more and more -- they have become greedy to the extent that even the word greedy is vulgar, distasteful, disdainful, and sinful. Let's be thankful for what we receive because there are many people who would damn near give their right arm for a $15 million win -- let alone -- a $200 million lottery hit!
Because playing a game that has odds of 140 million to one for a 15 million jackpot that is watered down through cash value and taxes to about 4.5 million is hardly a good investment. If you would be happy with 100k why dont you play games that will give you a better chance at winning that than pissing your money down the toliet trying to chase down totally astronomical odds.
For clarification, my reference to the $100,000 a year was based on salary, not a particular game or games. People get out of their beds, day-after-day, making less: $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, etc. Yes, there are executives making 6 figures -- and some are not playing the lottery. It seems as if they are content with what they are making. That was my original point!
In GA the jackpot got big for Mega Millions, over 200 millions. I wouldn't think twice about complaining about 5 million, but maybe I'm old school there. The thing to remember about Holywood is that the Paris Hiltons of the world have no concept of money because it was always handed to them.
What I meant to say is I wouldn't think about complaining.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy winning 10k, all I'm saying is that for the Mega millions or Powerball to entice me over a local lottery, it would have to be a big one, and the bigger the better, sometimes it's just fun to dream big. What was big 5 years ago doesn't seem to get the same attention, so I think they should go a bit bigger if they want that same attention they've had in the past.
There are things a lottery can do to overcome so-called "jackpot fatigue", some are pretty, some aren't. The first remedy is simple patience. Unfortunately, most states have seemed to put all their eggs into one basket, that being either PB or MM, so waiting may not be much of an option when most of your ad budget is going to a "lost cause". There are lot's of things these games can do to get people back, such as add more prizes, increase lower tier prizes, raise the price and lower the odds (both have to be done in order for it to work). Other than raising the prices, however, none of this will happen. Lottery directors have a tendency to think low of their players, they think players will buy anything no matter how bad it is.
They've made the matrix too high, odds too long where you spend, spend, spend and get no return.
Mega Millions and Powerball both are no fun any longer due to this. Have covered it ad nauseam in my previous posts.
Do a visual of someone sitting on a donkey, spurs buried in its ribs dangling a carrot on a stick, whomping its rear with another stick. That's exactly how MM and PB are treating players and the only winners have been them to this point.
Now they're feeling self inflicted pain. Good it's about time!! Hope they continue to feel it deeply in thier pockets, suffering results of their own greed .... by discounting intelligence of players and their willingness to toss money down a rat hole.
Bring the matrix down .... make playing the games FUN again and players might $$$pend more.
"If the jackpots don't get quite as high it's because MORE STATES ARE PLAYING and PEOPLE ARE WINNING JACKPOTS MORE OFTEN."
That isn't how it works. How often the jackpots are won is and always will be a function of the odds, but probability is only a trend and there will be variations on both sides of the norm. The more people play the more money goes into the prize pool and the higher the jackpots get. More people playing means more winners, but it also means more money for prizes at the same time, and the jackpots grow faster when more people play.
The article says that sales are down, but it also says that the previous year had record sales as a result of unusually large jackpots. Some people would look at the record year and see a glass that's more than half full, but it looks like now that sales have dropped back to what is probably typical they're crying that their very big glass is half empty.
It also looks to me like the numbers in the article are wrong. The annuity jackpots offered from June 2005 through June 2006 totaled about $1.5 billion. Figuring that the cash was about 60% of the annuity value there would have been about $900 million in the jackpot pool. With 30% of sales going to the jackpot that means they would have sold $3 billion dollars worth of tickets, or twice what the article lists as the record sales.
By comparison the total annuity jackpots offered for the previous year totaled just over $1 billion. Interest rates were lower, so the total cash may have been about 65% or about 680 million. That would be a bit shy of $2.3 billion in sales.
If those numbers are close to accurate the record year saw sales that were about 30% higher than the previous year. That would make current sales that are down by 30% fairly close to the sales for the year before the record sales.
Do people really have "jackpot fatigue"? Maybe, but the sky isn't falling. At least not yet.
i agree.it quit being fun for me when the matrix changed.i mainly have fun with pick 5 now.i'll take 200,000 dollars just as soon as i would 200 million dollars.
This is absolutely correct!
The issue is NOT that the jackpots are too low.
The problem is that the odds are so high that many people rationalize that they are not going to win.
The "magic level" where people start coming out in droves to buy tickets is a perception level that kicks in when the jackpot is so high that it overcomes their rational thoughts about not being able to win.
That's all it is. It is NOT that people think $100 million is a small amount. No way! It's that they have such a strong belief that they will not win that it seems pointless -- even wasteful -- to plunk down a dollar (or $5 or $10). Buying a pack of gum with that dollar would bring more joy.
What if they created an anti-mutli-state game? One that focused on generating as many millionaires as possible (given the constraints of the prize payout percentages, etc.). If they generated 20 or 30 millionaires every drawing (I'm talking $1 million in cash, not some "cash value" that chops it down to $200,000 after taxes), does anyone think people wouldn't play because $1 million isn't enough?
You guys are right on the money and that is evident with the interest that people
have with the raffle drawings as of late. I mean these tickets are $20 most of the time
and people have no problem buying 1 or more of those. They do think the players
are ignorant to the odds and just see the money, but we are not. Most of us anyway
If they would toss out the pencil necked number crunchers who sold them an "80's all for me none for you" mindset with current matrices and have a whole new campaign bringing back classic Powerball and Big Game ~ NOT Mega Millions ~ then my bet is people would get off their wallets.
Texas rolled back their regular lotto matrix but didn't roll it back to original so are still suffering their folly.
A prime example of ruining a perfectly good game was our previous greedy lottery director ending Lotto Georgia 6-46 in favor of the now defunct Lotto South 6-49. Odds up, people quit playing, end of story.
They just don't seem to get it, must be they're living in too much smog downtown to realize what players want and keep showing with their wallets. Or maybe it's too many 'perks' from companies selling lame concepts so they can provide supplies for games.
Lowering the matrix back to original is a win/win for everyone .... it's a slam dunk, it's a winner in the biggest way.
As Todd eloquently put people have to BELIEVE they can win in order to spend money on fun/joy of trying to achieve their dream.
It sounds like we are getting a pretty good consensus here on the odds being too long. I was very frustrated when I posted a protest thread here before PB raised the odds and some people insisted raising the odds would be good for the game. Apparently, I have been completely vindicated. The odds went up and sales went down.
I keep a spreadsheet of what I would do with the money if I won and when the jackpot starts to get over $100 million I already have every dream fulfilled. When it gets over $200 million, I almost stop caring because there are only so many yachts, houses and cars I can make reasonable use of. I know some players want to buy a country or start an airline, but the vast majority don't need or even want all of that. I just want an option to play lower odds and have a little better chance of winning. Give us two games, a 50million:1 and a 100million:1, I will play whichever suites me at the moment.
Lastly, I wanted to comment on the guy who listed "more states entering the PB or MM" is a reason the pots get hit at the low end. I have said it in the past that the number of players has nothing to do with the average winning pot size, it is the odds that determine this. I almost think that this misconception is put out by the lottery association to justify the raising the odds, if not, then I am not sure why people would not know this.
I agree!
I agree!
I agree!
I think that people will become desensitized to any jackpot amount, over time. The odds are just about right for a multistate game. Let people play state games if they want an easier target.
I do agree that it's too tough to win a prize. I say, reconstruct the matrix with fewer bonus balls. Increase lower tier payouts a bit. Maybe a 5/69 + 1/15? Or 5/55 + 2/10. They have 168m and 156m combinations, respectively.
Give out $1, $2, $3, prizes for matching a bonus ball or two. If people won on every 10 or 15 lines, they would come back, and feel that they were so close! That will drive interest, fun and sales.
People are not getting desensitized to large pots. I contend a threshold has been met and whether the pot is $100, $200, or even $300 million the WOW factor is extremely high for most people. However, people are paying more attention to the deminishing chance of winning anything. Raising the odds has a negative psychological effect on the buyer which cannot be overcome by a slightly higher jackpot amount. This is excerbated by the fact that with higher odds people wait longer to get into the game which makes the pot grow slower which kills sales.
I live in TN and there is no state game that meets my need for something between 20million:1 and 80million:1 odds. Since they killed Lotto South, there isn't even a state I can drive to that will meet my desire to play something like I have described and Lotto South was only 12million:1 which I consider a little too low.
There is another option, but I am afraid people may hate it. I know there has been a lot of resistance to this idea. They could increase the price to $2 a ticket and cut the odds in half for all prizes. The Buy-In to Payout ratio would remain the same but people would win twice as often. Also, the pot would grow faster because people would no longer be able to buy a single $1 ticket which is, in my opinion, too cheap at this point anyway. So, you could have 70million:1 odds and the pot could still reach $300+ million. I still favor creating a Mini-Powerball in addition to the Regular Powerball.
I haven't read all of the comments, and this might duplicate what's been said.
I play one, two, sometimes three different lotteries everyday. I have friends who also play regularly.
Just about everytime we talk about the lotteries we play, our success and failures, one complaint always rises to the top - the lottery is run buy a bunch of greedy folks who are trying to increases profits. These folks really believe that us dumb players will continue to play, no matter what they do. They are generally right.
Maybe one day, a not so greedy person will take over a lottery and decide that while bigger and bigger jackpots will squeeze money out of the non-regular players, higher second-level prizes will most likely have the most success.
If Powerball and MegaMillions, even the state lotteries, would pay a minimum prize of $10, I believe a large segment of non-regulars would invest more often.
$10 for the Powerball and Mega Balls, $15 for PB+1/MB+1, and larger prizes for the other prize levels, may slow the rate in which the jackpot grows, but a large percentage of those prizes will be reinvested.
I think the lottery folks need realize that the the so-called 'jackpot fatigue' is a phony claim. There might be a few players who will abstain until the jackpot reaches some obscene level, but I think most regular players would be happy to win smaller jackpots. I know I would.
Bobby
I wouldn't necessarily say that people will win twice as often, because a lot of people would stop as many tickets with a price increase. But there would be more winners overall for sure, especially if they added more prizes.
And there already is a mini-Powerball, it's called Hot Lotto. Not really the kind of odds you're looking for, but it is played exactly the same way as Powerball.
Doubling the price of tickets is paying lotteries for their skewed analysis which solves no problem, only buries spurs deeper in our sides figuratively speaking.
Lotteries like governments and politicians need to be put on fiscal diets until they can begin thinking like people who live in the real world like the rest of us.
I agree! If you want better odds, play another game, there's certainly plenty out there. I also think it would be a good idea to increase smaller prize amounts as well as odds, but I think the larger odds for the jackpot should remain the same. Maybe increase the number of bonus balls and decrease the general pool of balls? I know I get excited when the jackpots grow, I never really think I'll win and typically play $5 a draw when the pot grows to 100 mil and $10 when it gets to 200. I always remember that some people have won playing $5-10, cause it only takes $1 and a dream. I don't think any winner really ever believed they'd win, but that's part of the fun. (Except for this young girl from CA who won the California Super Lotto last year, I saw the story on E!) My point is that no lottery shouldn't be rationalized, it's a game about dreams for dreamers.
the only fever i'm going to have is if i win the jackpot!
Well, what I meant is that relative to tickets sold, twice as many would be winners which if the complaint is that people never see a winning ticket then this would help that perseption. It's probably a bad idea, because raising the price would meet sooo much resistance and I do think a lot of people would be pissed off and possibly stop playing.
Hot Lotto has something like 10million:1 odds, this doesn't come close to 30million:1 or 50million:1 which I am suggesting as an optional game. Also, it should be available in every Powerball state which it is not. We have PB but not Hot Lotto here and I can't drive to buy Hot Lotto tickets because it would cost me $40 bucks in gas and 7 hours time to drive all the way to W. Virginia. If Hot Lotto picks up Tennessee and triples its odds then I will be a happy camper, but I doubt that will happen.
IMO Hot Lotto will continue to add states. By the time it comes to Tennessee (if it does) it probably would have longer jackpot odds.
I agree one reason Lotto South was replaced by GA-KY-VA Lose for Life was that the jackpot odds were too low. In fact, Lotto VA was replaced by Lotto South; both games had the SAME 6/49 matrix.
Are you suggesting that people are smart enough to know their chances of winning are extremely slim with odds of 1 in 150 million, but will think they've got a realistic chance with odds of 1 in 75 million? Even with smaller games the odds are high enough that the only rational thought is that you won't win. With 1 in 20 million odds spending $1000 a year means you should expect to win once every 20,000 years.
For the most part, the lottery pays out 50 cents for every dollar they collect, and the only rational thought is that you'll lose half of what you bet. The only question is whether or not you risk that loss aginst the possibility of being among the minority who win. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective, but I don't think sales for huge jackpots have anything to do with overcoming rational thoughts about winning. I think it's a mixture of regular players concentrating their efforts on the huge jackpots and people who rarely play figuring there's no more risk in spending a buck or two on lottery tickets than buying that pack of gum that will also be gone in a day or two. Buying a ticket and expecting to win is irrational, but figuring you can afford to lose the $1 for the very slim chance of winning isn't, and the odds don't have anything to do with that.
Whether it's lottery sales or anything else, plenty of people are always ready to jump up and down and point to a single cause for whatever they happen to be concerned about, but life is almost never that simple. There are dozens of possible reasons why lottery sales change. Perception of the odds is only one of them, and probably a minor one for most people. It's no more or less rational to spend $20 for a 1 in 125,000 chance of winning $1 million than to spend $1 for a 1 in 175 million chance of winning $10 or 100 million. The rational people know they'll probably lose the money and play withj money they can afford to lose. As many posters here have pointed out, a lot of people stop for gas, cigarettes or a newspaper and decide to buy a ticket or two while they're at it. Most people have a limited amount of money to play around with (and most of the rest aren't buying a lot of lottery tickets anyway) so they have to decide what to buy and what not to buy. It makes perfect sense to me that lottery sales would be lower when filling your car with gas costs $50 than when it costs $25, so why is everybody so sure the odds are the most important reason to most players?
Just what would this "anti-multi state game" be, and how would it work? To pay $20 or 30 million in prizes for each drawing would require collecting well over $20 or 30 million, assuming the lottery still intends to make a profit and that there won't be any prizes other than the $1 million. $50 million in PB sales means an advertised jackpot of about $60 million, which which generally comes after the 2nd roll. If it takes PB a week and a half to sell enough tickets to put $25 million in the prize pool how can you have a game that isn't multi state or that has drawings more than a couple of times a year?
"They could increase the price to $2 a ticket and cut the odds in half for all prizes. The Buy-In to Payout ratio would remain the same but people would win twice as often."
The buy-in to payout ratio will remain exactly the same, while people will have to spend twice as much to win twice as often. Any player with a lick of sense will know that's not any different than buying tickets two at a time with the current setup. The only difference is that people won't have the option of buying a single ticket. Doubling the price of tickets while keeping the same payout ratio is nothing more than a good way to get rid of all the players who only buy one ticket.
The only thing I like about the astronomical odds, is that I take home a hefty prize; and will most likely enjoy it as the sole winner. I would rather that than splitting a $100,000 with 5 people. Low tier prizes do nothing for me, except lower the cost of playing. But I don't wait until the jackpot is $100 million before I play. Honestly I would not mind the $5 million in cash, or whatever it is; as it is about as anonymous as I will get. Especially after a record jackpot winner.
People see $300 million they just lose it, and more people play. But then you also may have mutiple winners, which also is not going to sting as bad with the jackpot that high. The lottery wins everytime we lose, I would love to be in their situation. Then when we win so does the IRS. One thing I cannot stand about the lotties, the false jackpot claims, and how much the greedy hand of the IRS wants. They win everytime someone else does.
I don't think it is as simple as "jackpot fatigue" - everyone I know thinks $2 million is a huge amount of money, let alone $50 or $100 million. They have to consider the downturn began after they raised the odds and lengthened the annuity length so they could advertise higher jackpots without actually having more money in the pot. People catch on to things like that, people know the advertised amount is pretty much a con and the cash option is far lower and even lower after taxes. Yes, you can say they had to raise odds so that they could expand the games to more states, and maybe that's true. But that does nothing to address the burnout people feel week after week of not winning.
These are also brutal economic times, with foreclosures going way up, health costs and gas prices way up, people not getting raises, a brutal and expensive war on, talk of apocalyptic global warming, and people feel besieged on all sides. It might be harder to spend that $1 you really need on something with 176 million to 1 odds.
The fatigue comes from the odds of winning and the state of the world, not the amount of money in the jackpot.
when I worked at 7-11 few years ago I told regular lotttery players that when they came into the store, they could give me 100 bucks and I would guarante they left the store with 50 in their pocket. Thats what masslottery does, it takes money from people and gives back nothing. thats why sales are off 38%
well im not going for the jackpot......i wanna get 2nd prize on either game.
The odds are long either way, but yes people are smart enough to know that 75million:1 odds are much better than 150million:1. Whether it's rational to play at all is another question altogether. If your suggesting the odds don't matter then why not just up them to 500million:1? You think people would still play? The fact is that odds do matter, but more importantly odds changes matter more. People know when they increase the odds 25 percent that what is really happening is that players are being asked to spend more to get the same chance they had before. For me and apparently many others here it was the increase in the odds that has discouraged us from playing as much as I we before the change.
are we gonna have a roll or a hit tonight?
People get tired of being either ripped off , cheated , or odds that are totally ridulas
The "fever" starts when the jackpot gets a lot of media coverage. The media coverage starts either because the jackpot is a record or because other news is quiet. Record jackpots are hard to come by because there are more players and thus more often winners before it gets there. The jackpots on multi state games still seem to go up at the same rate so I think this "lull" at the multi-state level is at least partly an illusion. The slowdown is really in State Lotto sales because States that joined PB or MM have players that abandoned the State Lotto for the Multi State game with the bigger jackpots. For the average casual player 10 million or 100 million to 1 is the same thing but $100 million is much more exciting than anything under $10 million. Another factor is that if a record Powerball jackpot is reached they start using the rolldown rule which slows the jackpot itself.
The solution might be for PB or MM states to abandon their local Pick-6 games to get even more players into PB/MM and also the two should be combined but not to add more balls!
Again, I still usually have to wait in line behind the person buying dozens of scratch-offs and reading a list of 50 Pickits. No fever reduction here!
In many cases, the "in-state" jackpot game is very inferior to MM/PB (a number of PB states don't have a "classic lotto" game.) MM/PB are better than NY Blotto (terrible payout), MA Megabucks/GA-KY-VA Lose for Life/OR Lose for Life (no cash option except for the El Cheapo in VA), and several games (ie Ohio Classic Lotto) where the cash value is fixed at a percentage of the annuity, instead of a (higher) floating percentage.
Now I am starting to get aggravated because this has already been stated twice. The average lottery jackpot amount is a function of the odds, not how many people play. The laws of mathematics do not allow the jackpot to break a record every other turn. Geez, please go back to high school if you dont understand this.
Our state lotto has never paid out more than a million dollars and averages about $300,000.
I agree with Konane, tg636 and many others. Lower the matrix. I mean, even a state game with 1:22 million odds is tough to win. Sometimes I wish I wasn't "addicted" to my 4 Lotto cards that I play twice a week. Right now any more would be way too much for me to spend, and I'd rather play a game with better odds. If I won $100,000 or even $10,000 I'd be thrilled.
I also would like to see higher second & third prizes. A few weeks ago I got 3 numbers and "won" $5.50 and in over 12 years I've gotten 4 out of 5 numbers 3 times. The highest payout was $75.
Regarding the jackpot size, I agree with the members who wrote that anyone who doesn't think winning a million or 2 is a big deal is unrealistic (and greedy.) Sure, the lifestyle change wouldn't be close to that of a multi-millionaire, but for most people it would mean starting fresh with a paid-off mortgage, paid-off credit cards, paid-off automobiles and money in the bank for emergencies. I've looked at the real estate prices throughout the country many times, so I know there are lots of homes selling for much more than a million dollars. But there are also plenty of nice places where you can get a beautiful home for $250,000 or less.
There are plenty of low matrix games for those people who want them. Slot machines are proof that people don't really pay attention to actual odds.
I'm assuming that they are talking about US games since Euromillions had record sales last year. It also had two jackpots over $200 million in cash. If US lottery operators would finally raise the price instead of raising the odds then powerball/mega could really take off.
Considering that the actual winnings in the US is only 33-25% of the posted jackpot people would need a large prize.
The biggest looser is Mega millions with it's low jackpots and corresponding low sales. Since most of the Megamillion states are selling their lotteries they may want to actually fix Mega to attract buyers. Declining sales are never a turn on for investors.
The good news for lottery players is that most states aren't business savy enough to change anything so it will just be more of the status quo. Investors won't bite at a business that is declining and so they will stay state run but with a "for sale" sign in the window.
People play online lotteries because it's cheaper per bet to cover the same odds.
Lowering the matrix while maintaining $1 per bet for Mega Millions (and Powerball ) would effectively be lowering price per bet.
Sales of any sort always draw people, and lower "prices" keep them coming back again and again ..... it's human nature .... which lotteries are exceedingly slow to figure out.
Let them take a gamble on us players instead of dictating what to do and how to do it.
After all lotteries are a business and we're the consumer.
Those posts are a large part of my reasoning on how well the typical player understands the relationship between odds and the prizes. A large percentage of players have almost no clue about what the odds are and what they really mean. It's simple math, but the numbers are too big to be really meaningful. You say that 1 in 75 milion is "much better" than 1 in 150 million, but your chances of winning with either is hardly different than if you don't even buy a ticket.
On one level I do believe that the odds are largely meaningless. There isnt any lottery anywhere that has a substantial payout and odds that give you a practical chance of winning. Giving away $5 million dollars simply can't be done without collecting far more than $5 million. All you can do is spend the dollar and hope you beat the odds, whatever they are. Raising the odds from 1 in 175 milion to 1 in 500 million would also raise the average jackpot to about 3 times it's current level. The jackpot fever that we've seen when lotteries advertise a jackpot of $300 to 350 million will look meaningless if they advertise a jackpot of $1 billion despite the steeper odds.
What I see from posters here isn't that they understand how unlikely they are to win based on the odds. I see posters saying they've been playing for years and seldom win more than a few bucks. That doesn't suggest a real grasp of the actual odds. It shows that people figure out that what's been happening for the last few years is probably a good indicator of what will continue to happen for as long as they play the lottery. For any lottery that pays out 20 to 30 cents on the dollar in small prizes and 20 to 30 as a jackpot, the typical player's results are going to be the same regardless of the odds. They'll occasionally win a modest prize while losing most of their money, and continue to hope that lightning strikes.I would like to see a joint game offered by Mega Millions and Powerball that would sell in each participating states jurisdiction. Keeping the ticket price at $1 and seeing what kind of jackpot all those states could create. For me I would like to have another big jackpot game like Powerball available to me here in Oregon. I do not like to travel the over 4 hour round trip to the state of Washington each time I want to play Mega Millions.-weshar75
If people really want lower odds then they had better get used to the idea of $2 tickets. Lowering the odds and having a $1 price would only result in much lower jackpots and lower sales. Sales are already in a slump for Megamillions. With these states trying to sell their lotteries telling them that what you want is even lower sales isn't going to fly.
If you wanted a $2 price and lower odds that could work. Euromillions has odds 100 million less then Mega but with larger pots.
Odds are already bad enough and another raise in odds might result in larger pots but much longer to get there. I'd rather pay more per ticket for a game with lower odds and better prizes.
Then you should ask the OR Lottery to join MUSL Hot Lotto. (Since New Hampshire has Tri-State Megabucks and Hot Lotto, and it has a smaller population than OR, it certainly should be considered where you live. HL also needs a larger double matrix since there are now nine states plus DC; it started in six states.
While I am not a big fan of OR Megabucks (lump-sum winners do not get the true cash value of the annuity more so than that it's computerized,) the game that needs to be replaced is OR Lose for Life.
Ultimately HL needs a name change as well, as I don't expect Idaho to be interested with its current name. Idaho once had a pick-5 called Hot Lotto.
I did ask the Oregon lottery about future games being available like the game Hot Lotto and they said why would we offer Hot Lotto when we have an in-state game like Oregon Megabucks. Oregon Megabucks gets bigger than Hot Lotto and it's only in Oregon. My comment was directed at the possibility of having a large jackpot game offered through Mega Millions and Powerball in a joint effort. I emailed MUSL last night about having the two lotteries merge and the response I got was their would be a joint game offered between the two lotteries before a merger would ever happen. I hardly ever play Win for Life but I do play some of the games offered by the Oregon lottery on a regular basis. The lottery has never asked my opinion on which games should be available to it's players. I will be the first to invite you to email or contact the Oregon lottery at www.oregonlottery.org and look under the contact us section. You will find the phone number for the Oregon Lottery and its email response address. So you can express your opinions on games such as Win for life, Megabucks, and any other game you do not agree with. Have a nice day!-weshar75
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that halving the odds while doubling the price of a ticket doesn't actually change anything? If you're willing to pay $2 for a ticket if the odds are half of what they are now, you don't need the lottery to change the game.Just buy 2 $1 tickets and you'll get exactly the same results.
Average jackpots are a function of the odds and how much money goes into the prize pool for each ticket sold. If the odds of winning are 1 in 100 million, the long term average will be one winning ticket for every 100 million tickets that are sold. If selling 100 million tickets puts $30 million in the prize pool, then the average jackpot will tend to be $30 million (cash). If you change the odds to 1 in 50 million there will be 1 winning ticket for every 50 million tickets. At $2 per ticket that will still be $100 million in sales and it will still mean a $30 million jackpot. Either way, it will be $100 million out of players' pockets for the same jackpot. Anybody who sees a difference doesn't understand how it works.
Lotteries need to try proven concepts of creating volume sales to bring in revenue.
Prime examples are Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, Sam's Club and BJ's wholesale mammoth daily sales, continuing to expand locations by offering discounts ... make their money through volume sales of excellent very desirable goods. Stores which don't go belly up.
Lowering odds (hopefully back to original game matrices) effectively creates a fire sale on tickets which will multiply sales exponentially and hold them there.
Value for $$$$$ spent rules in today's market. Current odds on PB and MM come nowhere near that .... no matter how much they spend on ad campaigns telling us otherwise.
Double the ticket price and cut the odds in half and you may accelerate jackpot growth. What will change is people who spend 1 dollar will be forced to spend 2 dollars in order to play and this would speed things up quite a bit. However, what kind of backlash would occur is the big question. If people accept the higher ticket price then the game would be faster paced, if not then the game could remain slow of even be hurt.
Just because someone here doesn't understand the odds doesn't mean that most players don't understand. I think more than half of the players have a good idea want the odds mean, but almost everyone knows that when they hear that the odds are going to be raised that it means they are going to have less of a chance of winning. I know my wife doesn't consider the odds, but I am the one that buys the tickets. I think that maybe 25% of the regular players don't care about the odds, another 25% don't really understand them, and 50% have a good idea of what they mean. We have seen the odds climb and participation drop which is why I believe people would rather play a game with $50-$100 million dollar jackpots with much better odds than $200 million dollar jackpots that hardly ever get hit. You can blame economics, but I doubt that has much to do with it. Right now, gas prices are low, unemployment is at an all time low, and the stock market is at an all time high.