'All or Nothing' gamePrev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

Would you play this?

Sure, why not

[ 5 ]

[ 17.2% ]

I'll play anything

[ 0 ]

[ 0.0% ]

No way, need a bone once in a while

[ 6 ]

[ 20.7% ]

It would flop

[ 3 ]

[ 10.3% ]

Only if they kept it at $1

[ 6 ]

[ 20.7% ]

Only if it was multi-state

[ 1 ]

[ 3.5% ]

The jackpot has to start at $25 million

[ 4 ]

[ 13.8% ]

*Losing tickets have to have a shot at something

[ 1 ]

[ 3.5% ]

Only with winnings from another game

[ 2 ]

[ 6.9% ]

Other, explain please.

[ 1 ]

[ 3.5% ]

Total valid votes

[ 29 ]

Discarded votes

[ 3 ]

Coin Toss

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30,469
January 17, 2006
11,788 Posts
Offline

Apr 18, 2007, 7:49 pm

Would you play a game- more than likely a Pick 5 + 1, or maybe a Pick 6 - with a grid no larger than any current grids, where the jackpot builds and there are no winners other than the jackpot?
Explain your answer if you will, please.
Where would the jackpot have to start for you to play it?
What would the jackpot have to build to for you to play it?
Are you playing to 'win it all' already, anyway?
*For option 8 above, I mean some kind of second chance drawing. One of those where you send a certain dollar amount worht of thickets in and there's a drawing for prizes.

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any. So many systems, so many theories, so few jackpot winners.

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.
LckyLary

United States
Member #10,720
January 23, 2005
935 Posts
Offline

Apr 18, 2007, 10:37 pm

I think the opposite, I would rather get more for the lower prizes. I'd be as happy with 20 MILL as with 200 MILL, and the reason a lot of people stop playing is when they get something like 4+0 and find it pays $100 and not $1000 or so, or that 2+1 pays only 10 dollars. I don't like games where you have to mail in losing tickets, it would be ok if it could be entered online simply entering a code and hitting the button and if it wins THEN you mail it in. An all or nothing might be OK starting at 50 MILL in that case.
JimmySand9

United States
Member #1,826
July 11, 2003
2,645 Posts
Offline

Apr 18, 2007, 11:12 pm

Quote: Originally posted by LckyLary on Apr 18, 2007
I think the opposite, I would rather get more for the lower prizes. I'd be as happy with 20 MILL as with 200 MILL, and the reason a lot of people stop playing is when they get something like 4+0 and find it pays $100 and not $1000 or so, or that 2+1 pays only 10 dollars. I don't like games where you have to mail in losing tickets, it would be ok if it could be entered online simply entering a code and hitting the button and if it wins THEN you mail it in. An all or nothing might be OK starting at 50 MILL in that case.

I agree whole-heartedly. That's why I don't play Pick 3 and 4, at least straight. I would never play a game with no lower tiers, and no one with a brain would either.

(insert signature here)
MegaWinner

New Jersey
United States
Member #50,271
March 3, 2007
348 Posts
Offline

Apr 18, 2007, 11:54 pm

Only if were no more than a dollar per ticket. It would have to start at with at least a $20 million annuity jackpot and be held once a week to keep it going.

I got my fingers crossed ready to win!!!
KY Floyd

NY
United States
Member #23,834
October 16, 2005
4,772 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2007, 1:51 am

Quote: Originally posted by LckyLary on Apr 18, 2007
I think the opposite, I would rather get more for the lower prizes. I'd be as happy with 20 MILL as with 200 MILL, and the reason a lot of people stop playing is when they get something like 4+0 and find it pays $100 and not $1000 or so, or that 2+1 pays only 10 dollars. I don't like games where you have to mail in losing tickets, it would be ok if it could be entered online simply entering a code and hitting the button and if it wins THEN you mail it in. An all or nothing might be OK starting at 50 MILL in that case.

The states already offer plenty of games with low level prizes for those who prefer them to the structure of the jackpot games. Statistically you should expect to lose at least half of your money over the long term, and if winning 10 grand over the course of 20 years makes a significant difference in your life you shouldn't be playing the lottery anyway. Even a modest jackpot will change your life. An all or nothing game should appeal to all players with sense.
With jackpot games typically putting about 30% into the jackpot and 20% into lower tier prizes, eliminating the lower tier prizes would increase the jackpot by about 67%. Assuming no change in ticket sales that would mean that PB and MM would start at 25 and 20 million. The recent MM record jackpot would have been about $650 million, or nearly $385 million cash. Based on the huge increase in ticket sales for large jackpots it's a safe bet that a jackpot of that size would have boosted ticket sales substantially even with no low level prizes available.
DoubleDown

Coastal Georgia
United States
Member #2,653
October 30, 2003
1,866 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2007, 11:05 am

The games I play seem to already be all or nothing..
I usually get nothing and someone else gets the "all ".
OldSchoolPa

Gurnee, Illinois
United States
Member #49,729
February 12, 2007
951 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2007, 1:14 pm

Quote: Originally posted by JimmySand9 on Apr 18, 2007
I agree whole-heartedly. That's why I don't play Pick 3 and 4, at least straight. I would never play a game with no lower tiers, and no one with a brain would either.

I like the idea of an all or nothing game...must start at no less than $30 million with the CVO being 60% of the annuitized jackpot amount. Twice a week draws with a 5 + 1 matrix of 1 - 53 and 1 - 40 bonus ball. $1 per play (this would be the only game that wouldn't need a multiplier feature since it's all or nothing!!!).
Now the only few times I have ever played pick 4 was straight...I don't play pick 3 because $500 is chump change and I don't play pick 4 because like DoubleDown I have as much luck winning it as I have in the mega jackpot games...so I figure that when the day comes that my lucky stars line up and I possess a valid lottery slip that has all the winning numbers on the same line, it might as well be for whatever millions the jackpot is rather than $5,000...don't get me wrong, $5 Grand is nice, but millions is much better...$5 grand I pay a few bills and maybe do some small nice gesture...$10 + million I can do a whole lot of fun stuff! So my brain is focused on beating the multimillion odds to be that one winning the PB/MM jackpot...by buying a QP of all things!

Get MONEY!!! Winning a JACKPOT lottery is one MIRACLE I desire for 2019!!! NOW come to my subconscious mind you 6 winning numbers!
rdc137

Delaware
United States
Member #30,272
January 14, 2006
494 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2007, 7:56 pm

I proposed something similar to this in the Pick 5 forum a few months ago. It was a Pick 5/25 with whoever matches 5/5 gets or splits the pot. If no one, those matching 4/5 get it, etc. It received a big thumbs down.
Coin Toss

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30,469
January 17, 2006
11,788 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2007, 11:42 pm

Pick 5 games just don't get to that level of jackpots. In Illinois ours is now a 5/ 39 with a prgoressive jackpot that has gone over $1,000,000 a few times, but that's rare.
I've posted before about a 'wider' winner base, which is something I'd like to see.... say three $50 million dollar winners when a jackpot is $150 million, but put this poll up for fun.
Nothing else creates a frenzy like a huge jackpot - just watch the board, and the TV news the next time PB or MM is up.
Also, most of the lower tier prizes usually go towards buying more tickets, so what the heck. Let the lottery put that money back into the jackpot to build it up instead of letting the players handle it for a few moments between draws and then give it back.
Actually, I'd like to see both kind of games come into being, one with a wider winner base, and one that's all or nothing.
We'relong overdue for a nationwide lottery anyway.

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any. So many systems, so many theories, so few jackpot winners.

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.
justxploring

Wandering Aimlessly
United States
Member #25,359
November 5, 2005
4,461 Posts
Offline

Apr 19, 2007, 11:54 pm

Quote: Originally posted by DoubleDown on Apr 19, 2007
The games I play seem to already be all or nothing..
I usually get nothing and someone else gets the "all ".

You took the words right out of my mouth.
tnlotto1

nashville
United States
Member #49,894
February 18, 2007
1,181 Posts
Offline

Apr 20, 2007, 11:57 am

Quote: Originally posted by DoubleDown on Apr 19, 2007
The games I play seem to already be all or nothing..
I usually get nothing and someone else gets the "all ".

i know what you mean especially this month because i have only hit the powerball number once all month and i have had powerplays because of the 10x multiplier so i keep hitting the "nothing" part but it will be worth it when i hit the "all"...
Just6ntlc

United States
Member #16,611
June 2, 2005
3,493 Posts
Offline

Apr 20, 2007, 12:38 pm

If it's only $1 per game, that's my vote.
justxploring

Wandering Aimlessly
United States
Member #25,359
November 5, 2005
4,461 Posts
Offline

May 5, 2007, 1:18 pm

Although I usually don't even get "a bone" it's nice to get those little $5 prizes or even win a free ticket. I'm not sure I would want to play a game where there is only a jackpot prize. I mainly play the Florida Lotto which is a 6/53 game and the 5/6 prize is usually around $5,000. I think it stinks that the 4/6 prize is only about $70 (4 numbers is the most I've gotten) but unless the odds of winning the jackpot were increased by lowering the matrix, I vote "No." If they changed it back to a 6/49 game maybe I'd vote "Yes" instead. As long as the jackpot is over $3M, increasing the jackpot amount isn't as important to me as increasing the possibility of winning.
GASMETERGUY

NASHVILLE, TENN
United States
Member #33,371
February 20, 2006
1,044 Posts
Offline

May 5, 2007, 9:06 pm

In my august opinion an "all or nothing game" is the only way the lottory should be played.
Those who like lower tier prizes are hoping to reap a profit over time. I do not believe this is possible. So why not have one huge jackpot for the winner
$500 for winning the P3 is not worth the effort. $5000 for the P4 might be better but agan, not enough of a jackpot to be worthwhile. So roll those P5, PB, and MM games and let those who like $10 to $50 every now and then have at the P3/P4 games.

New Topic New Poll

Subscribe to this topic

'All or Nothing' gamePrev TopicNext Topic

'All or Nothing' gamePrev Topic Next Topic