No surprises here!

This is one of the major reason I won't join lottery pools. It seems like you have to go through so much hassel if your group wins. I rather just play by myself.

Oh boy! Here comes one of the reasons that agreements should be made in writing.

I'm with you TSC,

I sometimes think that if I joined a pool with "naturally Lucky people," I'd be okay,  but I have never done it.  Now I'm glad I didn't.  This  lawsuit is enough proof for me.  There will be enough issues with family and friends that will call out of the cracks.  The one sister I speak to, doesn't believe in the lottery even though she knows I play religiously and my few friends don't know I play.  I still never say that I will help family and friends, so if I didn WHEN I win, it will be a surprise to all.

Wrong! Not should be! All Agreements are to be Mandatory for any POOL of any size! The Agreement is to be signed each time you pay/join in the pool! You Pay and then you sign the Mandatory Agreement!

No Pay, No Sign, No Play! End of Story!

Lottery pools suck for a variety of reasons.Being sued by jealous people that didn't kick in any money to the pool is just one of the reasons.Having to share a jackpot is another reason.

The four further claim they joined with the others in a pool for the Dec. 9 Mega Millions drawing from which some cash winnings allegedly were then used to purchase tickets for the Dec. 12 drawing. The co-workers had the winning numbers for the $207 million Dec. 12 drawing.

The four said they were out of the office and unavailable to contribute to the office pool for the Dec. 12 drawing.

Because they participated in the previous draw, I would have included them, to avoid any hassle in obtaining my jackpot winnings.  It was such a large jackpot,  in fact more money than they would have ever earned in their entire lives.   They would have been all set,  now they all have to wait for a judge to determine who gets what.   

Let this be a lesson to all who play in a lottery pool!!!! Always have an agreement and always have the names of the people in the pool and the amount paid BEFORE the drawing. I think most people that play in pools never actually think they are going to win.

I had a good working pool going at my last job. Now that I switched jobs I no longer do it, not because of sharing the prize but because of all the work involved. Before each drawing I would photo copy all the tickets bought by the group, there was twenty of us. I did narrow it down to just six sets of copies. One of the rules was that all small prizes get banked towards a large jackpot such as the one that just played (As it appears they did). Because of that rule there was always money in case one or more of the players was out for some reason. It wouldn't have been fair to lose out because you were sick or on vacation we thought. And that person made up for it the following week. I'm not sure if theirs was one time thing or not, though according to the article, the money to purchase the tickets were from the prevouis winning (NOV 9th) of which they did contribute. Sooooo... It sounds like a weekly pool to me.

     This is the reason I've never been in a lottery pool.   I feel for the winners.  They have to pay the legal

fees.

Whenever I played in a pool, when I was off, I made sure that my money was in BEFORE I left.

And when I ran a pool, I made sure that all regular players got asked.

Often when I knew that they were regular players, I often kicked in for them. I never had a problem collecting.

MarkP

From my perspective,i think the four are solely entitle to their shares of winning

for the fact,they stuck it in when they did not win anything.Why cant the money be share evenly amongst them

when whoever the head of their pool never thoght this life changing event was going to occur?

With this economy,their lawyers are going to fight to get 40%

of that pie.

GREED IS A HORRIBLE THING.

Don't let this happen to you! If you're going to run a pool put the rules in writing covering all the bases. Also, don't roll small winners into future draws.

Honestly, I don't think the plaintiffs have a case. The way I see it, you're only included in on a pool if you put in the money for the drawing in question. They didn't for that drawing.

In this case, I think the plaintiffs may have a good case (which is different than an easily provable case) for partial shares. If they participated in the 12/9 drawing and winnings from that drawing were used to buy tickets for the 12/12 drawing, then they were de facto participants in the 12/12 drawing.  The only question would be how much they participated, and how the winnings should be divided.

If all 19 people (the original 15, and the 4 plaintiffs) normally played, each one would own 1/19th of any winnings from a drawing in which they participated. If the 15 put in $1 each  and also used $10 in winnings from the previous drawing, they would have bought 25 tickets for the drawing that got them the jackpot. In that case the defendants should each be entitled to a 1/19th share of the 40% that could be attributed to the extra $10 in tickets.

Proving an oral contract to share in all winnings, even if they weren't around to chip in before the drawing is obviously difficult. Proving that money from a previous win was used could be much easier.  As always, this is another good demonstration of why pools should have a written agreement that spells out all of the details, and in this case the details seem to include winning with  tickets funded from a previous win. IMHO, settling on a set of numbers ahead of time is the only sensible way to run a pool, so that it will be clear whether or not any of wining tickets belong to the pool. Making photocopies of tickets is all well and good, but may not count for much if a QP wins a modest amount that then contributes to a bigger win that some people  are left out of. OTOH, not requiring  people to play for every drawing, and pay well ahead of time, is really stupid and begs for a lawsuit if a big prize is won.

Sparky, have you though about switching to de-caf?  There's nothing mandatory about pool agreements. They're certainly a really good idea, but they're not mandatory. Players are free to risk losing a big chunk to lawyers because they weren't clever enough to thoink thisg through. The poster you quoted had if exactly right: the lawsuit is another example of the reason that  the agreements *should* be in writing.

I have to agree with KY on this...If at any time money from winnings was used for future tickets then a claim can be made.  If at any time a collection of money was made after the actual drawing, then you have set the rules, and that makes sense to a "reasonable person"!  The original winners should meet discuss if these claims have ever happened in past drawings and decide whether to fight or add the 4 in,  at least some fees will be saved if they choose to settle,  If not, and the above claims happened at anytime with any type of consistancey then I would say that there odds of winning are going to be less than 50%... 

Hey Quick Draw Mc Graw,

1) Have you ever thought to sit down and think before opening mouth?

2) I said Agreements are to be Mandatory (and of course in writing) if you wish to be apart of that Pool! Any agreement better be in writing, but any layman would automatically think it would be if so many people are to sign it after paying their money!

I think the kettle calling the pot black is the one who really needs the de-caf before shooting off the mouth uncontrollable! 

I always play by myself. I never promise to take care of anyone. That does not mean that I won't help some people in my life. Always be careful what you say to anyone. I do know someone that would probably try to be entitled to my winnings if I were to win Powerball. This is an excellent reason that everyone should have the oppourtunity to be anonymous.

Sound familiar?  https://www.lotterypost.com/news/135957

Did anybody not see this coming?

I agree,you don't have to go through all the problems,i 'm using a system to beat the odds hopefully i will win very soon.

I saw it coming and I knew a few others did as well. I think most of them better keep working because by the time this possibly gets worked out they might have even less of the JP winnings left.

Here's a New Year resolution for all Mega-Millions pools, count the number of draws for the year 2009, multiply that by the amount to be played for each drawing, from each player. Elect one or two from the group to be in charge. get the total amount from each player up front before the first drawing. Cash and retain any small prizes. If no jackpot was won everyone's payment for 2010 will be reduced equally by the winnings. Put it in writing, Everyone agrees to the rules or don't join, also if someone wants out midway pay him/her off. Alas if there are groups out there that can't trust each other then you shouldn't be in the pool in the first place.

Another office pool, another lawsuit.

It seems a bit unlikely that the people in the pool would refuse them their share if this was a legit case.

The pool even had no problem with 1 person getting two shares, because he put an extra dollar in for his mom.

That would make it seem clear that the pool required you to actually put in 1 dollar per share for a given drawing. Also, since these people each put in a dollar for this pool, any winnings that did roll over would give the other 4 a smaller share of the pie, not a full share. Bad day to miss work, move on with life.

Regardless of how this case turns out, it is just another black mark against office pools.

Whenever I run an office pool, I write up an explicit legal contract that all who play have to sign. It says that the pool is only for that drawing, that only those who have signed the agreement are entitled to any prizes, that any prizes won will be paid out, not rolled over, and that I will have the sole decision on whether the money will be taken up front or paid out as an annuity.

I don't buy personal tickets on a day I do an office pool, and I keep all of these contracts in a locked file cabinet in case we win someday and someone that played a year ago tries to pull this crap.

I think 41 million still leaves over $ 160 million ,  they are all co-workers who frequently contributed to the pool, but were unavailable that day.  However, even in their absence, pool money was available with which to purchase the winning ticket.

My opinion is:  quit making me sick and share.  To be honest they should also quit their job and make openings for alot of their fellow unemployed people.

I agree with the idea of sharing and with the 'winnings' from the prior play coming into account I think they will receive something. 

I also agree that in todays economy they should leave there jobs so others who are either unemployed or not making much can get access to those jobs.  The winner’s new job should be how to live the rest of their lives on the money they won.

i 'm using a system to beat the odds hopefully i will win very soon.

You, me and about 50 other LP members are thinking they've got a system to beat the odds.

The cash option was around 146M. Quit making you sick? Are you one of the people suing? After everything is said and done many of them probably won't be able to quit anything once they finish with taxes and now paying lawyers. If you think that their quitting is just going to bring openings for someone else then you're kidding yourself, I'd bet most of those jobs won't be replaced. Not to mention the problems that could cause for the city to have 14-18 employees quit at once.  If these people win then after taxes everyone but one player would end up with about 4.5M, that is if it's divided up equally, which these people bringing the suit clearly don't want to do if that amount is in reference to the cash option which has already been chosen. 41M divided between the four bringing this suit would equal around 6M, so who's the greedy ones?

the 41 million lawsuit is probably based on the original 200+ million prize

I don't know.  The article did not elaborate. 

Given the facts available, yes, I find it sickening that a lawsuit has to be filed.  As previously stated, the pool did have money available during that day's absence of the entire pool with which to purchase the winning ticket.  And they are all frequent pool participants. 

I do not necessarily mean they should quit their job at once, but rather with proper notice and re-hiring.  If the group of workers has a restraining order on other workers which originally was caused over their temporary absence, they should not belong in the workplace, in my opinion.   

That's right.

Lottery Pools are a bad idea this stuff happens quite a bit I would never participate in one!!!

This group of city employees which made themselves public is now getting sued by jealous co-workers who played in previous drawings. 

Lessons to be learned:

#1.  Buy lottery tickets alone

#2.  Play the lottery in a state where you can be anonymous

Seems like the perfect plan to me.  Where am I wrong?

quit making me sick and share

If the winners weren't planning on paying out these other 4 "members" it was probably because the 4 were lazy for the week and thought they'd save a few bucks since the pool would most likely not win anyway.  If they truely were out of the office when money was collected, they could have easily sent an email or called to say they would gladly make up the money next time they were in, and any group would be more than willing to consider them 'in' for the drawing in that case. 

You think you should pay out anyone who thinks they belong in the pool when they didn't even pay up for the week?  You would be paying out A LOT more than 4 people if it was that easy to get money from a group that won.

It's simple, you want to collect for the week, you pay for the week. 

"Lottery Pools are a bad idea this stuff happens quite a bit I would never participate in one!!!"

Yeah, I'll bet they're really sorry they ever formed that pool.

"Regardless of how this case turns out, it is just another black mark against office pools."

They formed an office pool and they won about $145 million. If they have to share it 19 ways instead of 15, and they lose a few million to legal fees they'll still pocket more money that they would have earned during their entire lives. What this is, is another black mark against stupid people. People that should have shared in the prize missing out on at least a part of what  they should have gotten. People who shouldn't have to share losing money to lawyers. Maybe a bit of both. Writing out an agreement that covers most of the details isn't that difficult, but if you're not smart enough to do it, you're probably going to lose out when you win. Regardless of how it turns out, they'll still be way ahead of where they would have been without a pool.

I wouldn't mind being in an office pool.  The more tickets, the better chances of winning.  But I'd be darn sure I contributed to the pot every week and had a receipt. 

As far as splitting the jackpot 19 ways instead of 15, I agree with KY Floyd. They'll still be a lot better off than they were before!

They should have had a written agreement, so I believe the 4 coworkers have a valid lawsuit.  There is power in numbers and 4 people are making the same claim, so it's possible they're telling the truth.  After all, if one person goes to court and says "that's the guy who grabbed by wallet" you might give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.  But when 4 different people accuse the same thief of pickpocketing, then a jury begins to wonder if perhaps he's really guilty of some wrongdoing.

BTW whoever writes that walking away with over $9.6M (before tax) isn't a lot money must be very wealthy or lives in a fantasy world. Chances are that the interest alone is more than the winners would ever make in a lifetime.

This is why i really don't like lottery pools, i did it maybe once or twice over the years.

I find it unlikely that a verbal agreement was made in light of one man putting in two dollars and getting two shares worth of money from the pot.

MegaMillions only pays out in amounts of 2, 3, 7, 10, 150, 10k, 250k.  So I would consider anything under 150 to be a insignificant winning ticket.  Since the number of people playing is more than the amount being paid....would you really want to be paid in change?  So it only makes sense to play it forward to help the next pot stand better odds, or packrat it away and pay it out after enough has been made to pay people a reasonable sum.  Or give people a "free play", soon as they got 15 or 19 or whatever dollars won, they spend it and everyone plays for free on one pot.

But, the thing that just doesn't sit right with me is that if they had an "established" lottery pool...you're going to have people who only play when the pot gets big...like 100 mil or more.  So let's say all 19 people played on Dec 9th, and someone else hit the lottery not their group...but they won something let's say 10 bucks.  Then the "established" players play on the 12th, the 15 that are being sued...and they won another 10 bucks.  So they play that forward on top of their 15 dollars they put in each pot to make 25 tickets.  Does that mean the people who played two pots ago are still entitled to the winnings?  And if it does, then the "contribution" should be taken into account.

Which these people bringing suit feel they deserve a share equal to the rest of the people who put in a full dollars worth of buying power toward the pot.  When in reality, they put in something less than a dollar and if everyone else played both pots, they put in more than a dollar.

I think if they were really serious about this agreement, the sought monetary value would reflect that kind of thinking instead of digging into the other pool members contributions.

You could say, the people who played both pots put in two dollars toward the winning pot.  While the people who only played Dec 9th only put in one dollar.  Which if they were constant players I don't think anyone else in the group would have a problem, but I suspect they weren't.

I am curious about how the courts handle this though.  Because let's say you did win, and someone falsely tried to claim you made a verbal agreement with them.  Say you win 200 mil, and the guy wants half.  So 100 mil before taxes, the court would probably put that money into some sort of holding account until it was resolved.  And money battles usually take forever, but there's just no way I'd let someone try to sue me to get a out of court settlement especially when it's baseless.  So, that kind of money earns quite a bit of interest daily and if this guy is found undeserving of the money by the courts.  Do the courts take into account that this guy just cost you months and months of interest on money that was rightfully yours?

I have to wonder because if people can just tie up your money until you get so sick of waiting you pay them off...what's to stop them from doing it?  I have to wonder if a nice counter-claim would be loss of interest on the money they caused to go into holding, because ....couple grand a day in interest having to be paid in return would financially ruin most people.

Hi carnifex, welcome to Lottery Post!

I'll say it again, gambling should always be a solo endeavor.

Nothing wrong with an office pool. Just put everything in writing.  Be clear about the rules.

If they decide to buy tickets with any small amount won, put it in writing.

"Any proceeds from winning tickets totaling $50.00 or less from a drawing are used to purchase tickets for the next drawing the pool participates in.  Use of winning ticket proceeds from a previoius drawing does not make the participants from the previous drawing that had proceeds from winning tickets eligible for any prize in any future drawing.  Only individuals who contribute new money (new money is defined as money not won from a previous drawing) to a drawing are eligible for any prize winnings. "

It is not that f*cking difficult people.  It took me less han 5 minutes to write that.

It's a bit more f-ing difficult than you thought, and it took you less than 5 minutes to get it wrong. If you let me play in the pool for tonight's drawing and we win, some of that money is mine. Period. If that money is spent on tickets for the next drawing, I now own a portion of any winnings from that drawing. Period. Contracts are held to be invalid, in whole or in part, every day, and you've written one that would never hold up in court.

Allowing  people to choose to be in or out of individual draws in a "regular" pool  is begging for trouble almost as much as if you hadn't bothered with a written agreement in the first place. If the pool for the next drawing has different people than the pool for the previous drawing it *needs* to be treated as a completely new pool. The effect of that is that you've got to create a new pool for every drawing, which is pretty ridiculous. The sensible solution is to have a standing pool with the same memebrs for every drawing. You also need to collect the money far enough in advance that there is time to notify somebody that they have been dropped from the pool if they don't pay by the deadline. The proper way to notify them is by certified mail, along with a copy sent by certified mail to the pool administrator *before* any tickets are purchased. The copy to the administrator should be kept unopened in case  you find yourself in court with the ex-member who claims they  are entitled to a share.

Hello there.  Yeah long post to start with but, I live pretty close to Piqua and all of this just bugs me.  Not involved with it anyway besides hearing about it on the news and people talking about it.  Really don't think it's a fair shake for the winners to have people who don't contributed steadily to have their winnings withheld until it's over.  On the other hand, if there is an agreement, what they are suing for just doesn't make sense in a reasonable context.  Because their lack of contribution to it....the dollar that might have bought the winning ticket could have come from the guy who put in two dollars or anyone of the people who put in a dollar.  And treating as though they are entitled to a full share of it just doesn't sit right with me.

Plus I was hoping someone here would have some knowledge of how the withheld money is handled.  Knowing that money can be tied up for years having seen my parents have to deal with my aunt over my grandmother's estate.  I figured a wrongful case brought against them might result in the chance for countersuit or perhaps the courts take action with the money and try to have it earning interest while it's decided.  Was curious.

You are probably right about that contract not being valid.  The mistake was using winnings from the previous drawing.

What KY Floyd said and so did i It doesn't matter what is written on paper if someone wants to contest it they can period. Where big money is concerned in a lottery pool members of the pool can be disputed by anyone who has or think they have a claim in said pool. If they were in a previous pool and for some reason were left out of a future pool they might be bitter if the members of a pool won a jackpot and file a claim... it has happened many times before and it will happen many times again.

isnt it the losers of the court case have to pay legal fees?

Well from my limited knowledge of the court tv shows, which are just minor sums of money in comparison.  The judge usually only awards court costs if the people have a real reason to sue.  Like, they don't bear any of the burden at all.  Most recent example was a woman who was hit by a car that backed up to try to get to a gas station when it ran out of gas, but she was crossing in the middle of the street instead of at a cross walk so she was found 30% at fault.  Could be wrong, but the judge doesn't always award court costs or at least doesn't say so when they rule.  Plus court costs are..usually under 100 bucks in most of those cases.

And legal fees in terms of lawyers, I think it's similar.  Where the people probably should have been able to settle it by themselves, they don't get the fees.  But say some big mega-corp does something that causes ongoing harm to people and fights it making absorbent legal fees, they will usually increase the damages to reflect lawyer costs.

Im curious though, if the 15 people were to countersue for monetary damages in terms of interest lost while the money is tied up.  And/or legal fees for bringing a false suit against them.  Just wondering because you have to figure there's people out there in states that don't allow anonymity who don't think to take their winnings in a blind trust to hide their identity that probably get frivolous lawsuits on them all the time.  Like "They borrowed 5 bucks from me and bought those tickets!"  Or "I gave them money to buy tickets for me, that should have been my ticket!"  I mean people can sue for everything, but doing so causes the money to be withheld from the winnings until the cases is decided.  There should be some action to be taken.

I remember a story about a lady who said she lost her ticket, and that the lady who claimed the money was lieing.  So when they finally looked at the tapes they found that the lady who claimed the money was infact the person there at the time the ticket was purchased...and they were going to charge the other with some sort of felony.

After seeing my grandmother's estate go on for a year with lawyers and threats of lawsuit my aunt to my parents.  They could do virtually nothing back to her even though she was making false claim after false claim.  That kind of stress can kill, and even if you are 100% in the right...it still doesn't stop them from making your life a living hell for no other reason than to get paid off to stop...which is legal extortion.

I Agree with you on that one.  If you do any type of gambling, definitely do it alone!  Sometimes, the only way people ever learn is if something like this directly happens to them.

Experience is the ability to  recognize a mistake, the second time you make it.

This story illustrates to all lottery winners the importance remaining anonymous. Don't get mixed-up in syndicates, play as an individual or buy a subscription.

I am surprised by the number of people who say never join a pool whenever they see news of a lottery pool related lawsuit. Reminds me of a friend that never drove a car because he once read about a car accident.

Attention, Elicia B.! Put your boxing gloves on and come to Piqua!!!

When I play in such a pool.. there are days when due to whatever reason I don't get to put in. I would hope if they won they'd share even if I missed it that drawing but I'd not sue them if they didn't.. it is their decision. Never promise anything about if you win; if you do they may hold you to it! Then ask, where were you when I was poor?

Then ask, where were you when I was poor?

I don't know why they just didn't claim this prize through a blind trust . You can do that here in Ohio.  I thought it was pretty weird (read as "not smart") that they were so open with their new found finances. The news even said they were consulting a lawyer before officially claiming their prize, so I was really excited for them.

Oh well...

It wouldn't have matter if they did or not, they still probably would have been sued and exposed. Their co-workers would have certainly known, besides that's just too many people to keep something a secret.

I agree with you, Barista, an agreement should be signed by each contributor every single time they play. I used to be in charge of a small lottery pool (4 people) at my old job. I used to make copies of the tickets purchased and a copy of the signed agreement every single time, and gave each one a copy of those. The actual tickets were securely locked up until after the draw. If there was a win, no matter how small it was, it was never rolled over into the next game. It was always evenly distributed among the four. We used to contribute $10.50 each for a total of $42.00 and were using Gail Howard's 18-number wheel. Every new play was independent of the last one. When we hit the lotto, second prize, we also distributed it evenly. We did this for about 5 months and would wait for the jackpot to be over $65,000 to place our bets. The pool ended when a couple of us decided to quit the job. We never had any problems.

Not as a rule, in America. The defendants would have to countersue for that.

Yep, I agree. There is no way they would have been able to hide their win from the people they work with. Gossip spreads and people talk. They would have found out.

I agree with you Mario 38.  I'm starting a pool here in my office and everyone will sign an agreement of understanding that will state who's eligible to collect winnings, etc. etc.  I still drive daily even though car wrecks continue to happen.  You do what you can to mitigate the risks and then move forward with your chosen course of action.

Oh and yes I'm a new member.  Hello to all from Tennessee.

Hi, and welcome to LP DavidTn

That's how is done, when I was managing my club, I used do everything, no matter what happened. From picking the numbers (they wanted me to), collecting the money, filling out the cards, purchasing the tickets, preparing the agreement (which was signed by everyone), and making and distributing the copies of both tickets and agreement. Oh, there was one thing that one of the guys used to help me with, and that was to proof the tickets against the software list of numbers. There were a couple of times that one ticket was wrong by one digit. So, I would then add the extra line of numbers to the agreement, collect the extra dollar (.25 cents a piece) and purchase the missing ticket. I would follow the same rules all the way through. Actually when we won the 5 numbers they all were mad at me because I hadn't made a mistake that day when filling out the cards.  The digit that came out was 1 and we had 2. Otherwise we would have won the jackpot that day.

well said,

i wouldn't even bother bringing up anything like this if i were involved.

they weren't there, they didn't pay they lost out. Basically in pools all you are doing is adding the tickets you buy  to the other tickets that are bought.

i'm sure if the numbers didn't come out they wouldn't have paid any money to the pool and probably didn't do so when they were out in the past. all they had to do was call that day of the drawing and tell someone to add their share of the money and they would repay them, if any of them did that then they should be entitled, if not then they shouldn't be.

Carnifex: "I have to wonder because if people can just tie up your money until you get so sick of waiting you pay them off...what's to stop them from doing it?"

Nothing, just the cost of their lawyer, but there are some lawyers who might take the case for no upfront costs.

If you are missing out on 4%/year of $25,000,000, that is $1,000,000 per year you lose, and financial battles might take a few years. You can counter sue them for cost's, but chances are they don't have the money to pay you anything close to how much is being lost by having the money tied up. You are often better off settling out of court, if they will take a small settlement to make their lies go away.

If you have a good lawyer, you should be able to unfreeze all of the money, other than the portion that is being contested. So, if someone claims they are entitled to 25% of your money, you should be able to have only 25% frozen.

Yeah just the point is, there's a crime being committed there.  People trying to take what isn't theirs. Now this isn't to say there are legitimate claims to be made as to winning tickets being shared ventures between people, but there's just too much room to allow for someone to extort you under a watercooler discussion of "if you won" or a he said/she said type deal.  There should be a real threat of criminal charges if you try to pull this on someone and it comes to light that you really had no legs to stand on and it should be brought against those people by the State's who don't allow for anonymous claims and not have to be pressed by the winners themselves.

The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property fromanother, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual orthreatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).

AmuzingP3s......Happy New Year

......My only question is why did you stop managing your office pool.......considering how organized you were, better than some accountants.....;....) Why did you stop?

Hi, Libra926

Happy New Year to you too! I am almost sure I posted the reason why we stopped the pool, but to my surprise, I now see it isn't there. The company I used to work decided to downsize and offered a package to those who wanted it. Two of us in the pool took that offer, so we took our money bags and left and the pool dissolved. I wasn't really that specific on my original post, I just said two of us had decided to quit our jobs.

I now Lotto on my own, but only every now and then. I don't like the 54 numbers set of balls, as opposed to the 50 we had then.

I've never been in a lottery pool before, so I'm not sure how it runs.

If a office pool is say...10 people....is each drawing $10 always?  What I mean by that is if the 10 people pitch in $1.00 each for a $10.00 ticket..and it turns out NOT to be a winner..then the next drawing is $1 ea. for $10. ticket again.

If their $10.00 ticket turns out to win say $7.00, do they still collect $1.00 from everyone for $10...and ADD the $7 previous win for a total of $17.00 worth of tickets?

I could understand if some of the previous winnings belonged to the ones sueing.  The winning pool members used someone elses winning share from a previous game to help win that draw.  Is that what happened?

I guess it really is best to have some kind of written agreement, and do the asking way before the next drawing.  The could..............

After the drawing..."We won $7, who is playing next drawing?  Your not?  And your not?  Okay then, heres your winning share of the $7 and everyone else who is playing put in your dollar and we will use whats left of the $7 win to add to the $10."

That way, they would not have a claim on the jackpot if the next drawing wins.

Or do pools play a certain amount everytime?  10 people $10 dollars no matter what?  I was just thinking that because what do you do if you play $10 and you win say $3 on that try so your short $7 to make a $10 ticket next drawing.  Do you ask who's playing...pay those who are not their share..and ask the remaining pool members who will play to pay their portion to make it $10.

10 people pool...only 8 will play the next game...pay those not playing their .30 cents to pay them out of the next game...ask the remaining 8 to give $1.25 to make it $10. Sometimes you pay a little over $1, and sometimes you pay just some pocket change.

IF that ticket gets lucky and say they win $14...and the next drawing EVERYONE is playing again..then no one has to pay their $1.00 because the money box has $14.  They simply take out $10, and still have the $4 in the box for the next drawing where they will have to pitch in their portion to make it $10.

I guess I thought of that so sometimes you pay, sometimes you don't.  And if the money box has enough funds for $10, then those that are not at work that day don't have to worry about pitching in because the money box did it for them?

Okay, so I confused myself now.......most likely because I didn't finish my coffee this morning.  So I'm gonna shut up for now..but please tell me how your office pool runs.

OH....AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!

I sure hope 2009 treats me better then 2008 did...YUCK!!!!!

Hi, LottoLove

The way we did ours: we always played the same 18-number wheel and the same amount of draws, 42. We always contributed $10.50 per draw to make up the $42.00. We were only 4 and the same group of people. We didn't play every draw, just after the jackpot hit a certain amount.

As an example, and to answer your question, if we had won $7.00 as you mention, we would divide the $7.00 among the 4 members for a payout of $1.75 a piece. When the next opportunity to play arises, we would then contribute $10.50 each again.

We never did this, but I knew someone who managed a pool. They used to purchase quick picks, like 100. They used to play once a week, I believe. Their membership were always different people and the amount contributed was also different, depending on how much every person wanted to play. If they won something, they had a choice of getting the prize or leaving it on the pool for the next time. The lady who managed the pool also made copies of the tickets for everyone and she had an agreement signed by everyone involved.  I think that comprised  more work and it was more complicated than what I did. Each one would get their prize based on their percentage of contribution.

You've got two choices. You can require that people have absolute proof before bringing a legal action, or you can allow them to bring that action when they may not be able to prove their case. If you choose the former, you'll be SOL if you're on a deserted sidewalk and get hit by a drunk driver who claims you stepped into the road. If you choose the latter, innocent people will sometimes be sued or arrested.

Unless the people suing beleieve that they don't have a legitimate claim this is no different than any other situation where there is a legitimate difference of opinion, except fo the amount of money involved, and there definitely isn't acrime being comitted on the part of the plaintiffs. OTOH, if their claims are true, the defendants may be commiting a crime by trying to cheat them out of a share that they are entitled to. Most likely, it is just a legitimate difference of opinion.  I haven't seen much about the defendants' claims, but it seems like there was no written agreement that clearly spelled out the rules. If that's the case, the winners whould have been expecting this. If they reaally did use money from a previous win that the plaintiffs  participated in,  then they deserve it.

Well I don't know how it is from state to state exactly, but pretty much if you're driving drunk you're guilty of driving under the influence no matter what happened.  Pulled over for speeding, drunk?  DUI.  No seatbelt, drunk?  DUI.  Got hit by another drunk, while you were drunk?  DUI for two.

So, whether or not I can absolutely prove I didn't step out on the road or not, the guy who hit me is still charged with a DUI which he will have to defend against seperately.  And based on his winning or losing that case, my case against him will change.

Now back to extortion.  This case is grey to me, and yes the people have a justifiable reason for bringing the case forward.  There's a chance that they contributed to the winning pot, but just not to the tune of a dollar and then some like everyone else (which I posted about earlier).  But if that were true, then they wouldn't be asking for a full share compared to everyone else who had previous winnings AND a dollar in play.  Any ticket purchased could have won it, and if one person in the 15 hadn't put in the extra dollar they might have not won.

So in a sense, rightfully I think they are entitled to something but at a lower contribution rate since they didn't put in a dollar.  While everyone else who played both pots put in a dollar and some change from the previous winnings.  While this isn't extortion, their sought amount certainly isn't rational.

Now, back to my original scenario.  Where states that don't allow anonymous winners (Ohio allows for blind trusts but chances are most winners aren't told), there is the chance people will try to baselessly claim ownership of some or all of their winnings.  This is where the state should step in and charge these people with extortion.  Just like the drunk who gets a DUI for hitting me with his car whether it's my fault or his.  These people should face extortion charges if they try to position themselves to where they block the true winner from their winnings...trying to stalemate them until they pay them some amount to drop the suit.  If the state wants to publicize the winners name, they should put some effort into discouraging non-legit claimants on other people's winnings.

It could just as easily be a well off boss and a part time minimum wage employee ...the employee wins and doesn't have the resources to fight the boss if he decides to say he put the money down for the tickets.  The boss is just going to wear the employee down financially until he gives in because he can't afford to fight it..and the whole time the winnings will be tied up until the case is decided or settled.  Extortion.

Let's consider that you were actually hit by a sober nun who honestly believes she  wasn't on thee sidewalk, then. Plenty of lawsuits (and criminal cases) are essentially he said she said cases.

In the Piqua case, the plaintiffs are claiming an agreement that all would share. Such an agreement strikes me as foolish if people  chose whether or not to participate on a draw by draw basis, but we have no way of knowing what the agreements really were. Perhaps there was such an agreement, based on the assumption that everybody would play in every drawing, and  the plaintiffs just didn't get included for some reason. In that case, the reason and the original intent of the agrement both come into play. For all we know, the ticket was bought 3 days before the drawing, when the plaintiffs werent at work, and when the plaintiffs offered to pay two days before the drawing they were told  they could settle when they paid for the following drawing. They could have legitimately assumed that meant they were being included, while the pool member they spoke to legitimately assumed they would rejoin the rest in the subsequent drawing. From the article posted here all we really know is that there doesn't seem to be a written agreement, and there is some dispute as to who was a (partial) participant.

Again it just doesn't add up simply because the guy who put in 2 bucks (1 for himself, 1 for his mother) was given two shares of the pot.  If the rest of the 13 agreed that was fair and within their lotto pot agreement... then it seems there were two agreements made on how to split the winnings.  Seems to be in the "A little to convenient" department for me.  Plus can always roll on over to Dayton Daily News (where this forum got the article) and read the comments there.  Lots of emotion and hearsay but interesting nonetheless.  Myself, I see they weren't at work admitted by themselves and couldn't contribute to the pool.  They claim they were regular players at the top of the article, so you would assume that someone in the pool would have contacted them to see if they wanted in or they would have put in their money before they were off from work if possible if not called to say they'll pay them back.  Agreement or not, it doesn't make sense that they didn't make sure the dollar was in if they were "regular" players.  And if it's you half buy 7 tickets this drawing, and we'll buy 7 tickets next drawing.....then why were people contributing to the pot?  My point is, 15 people are sharing this pot...and they some how magically decided to cut out 4 people who were in a mythical agreement with them.  Except the 15 people who won, had a dollar in on the pot (1 of them by proxy), and the 4 who weren't included didn't.  So by actions, that tells me the majority of the players knew that you had to be "in it, to win it".  And the other 4 didn't want to be in enough to make sure they were, until after it had been won.  So we can assume by the majority of 15 out of 19 being included in the winnings that you had to put in a dollar to included by their verbal agreement.  Now if previous winnings (if they exist) were used, and they were contributors to the previous winnings.  Then yes I agree they should have some share of the winning pot, but not an equal share.  Because who in their right mind is going to make a verbal agreement where anyone can not pay at any time, but still take an equal share of the winnings whether or not they helped purchased tickets?  That's crazy.

I called this one on an earlier post.

I run two lottery pools (a MM and a PB), each of which will last about a year.  When I first started running pools, I left myself open to a lot of problems; luckily, we never won.  From reading about lawsuits on this site, I made up a list of rules that you have to agree to if you want to play in my pool.  The rules are on a buy-in receipt that you must sign.  I update the rules for new pools as I hear about new issues in new lawsuits.

The receipt includes:

• just because you are in this pool doesn't mean I have to invite you to join any other pools I run
• who's in the pool
• how much was paid by each person
• how long it will last
• who keeps the money
• numbers will be communicated by email
• numbers will be cash option quick picks
• everyone, including me,  can purchase their own tickets and any winnings on them are not subject to claims by anyone in the pool- although there is a stipulation that I'm protected only as long as I get the pool numbers out in advance
• small wins extend the length of the pool
• when a new pool is opened, new/departing people are reported
• when we win we will NOT be claiming the money immediately

I may not cover everything, but I think I come close and I don't do verbal agreements anymore.  The people in my pools laugh at me because of my rules but I don't want to be one of those that learned the hard way.

I even have a fellow LP member in one of my pools, even though we've never met (just talked on the phone and emailed).  He saw a post from me here and emailed me.  He runs several pools but I've only played in one of his.

Lotto pools are a good thing if well planned.

Seems to me the best way to address this issue of pool "carryovers" from small wins would be to include in your rules that wins under $X will be donated to Y 501(c)(3) non-profit charity, instead of used to buy more tickets on the next draw. Buying more tickets just seems like a really bad idea, it opens the door for all sorts of ludicious claims.

And someone who is serious about operating a pool should form a corporation (with seperate bank account, etc) to operate the pool as this will allow one to avoid personal liability for any boo boos the corporation makes in adminstering the pool.  Joining the pool should include an application with intergreated terms and conditions, i.e. cash option or annuity, quickpicks or something else, powerplay or not, provision for disposal of small wins, cutoff time for contributions for the next drawing, activity of the pool, etc.

Contributions to the pool should be done with signed and dated deposit slips which upon reciept and acceptance by the adminstrator are acknowledged with a signed and dated reciept.

If you set the pool up correctly, it can be a great thing as you can buy far bigger spreads than one person can afford on thier own. But verbal agreements are worthless and unless someone does the proper bookeeping for the pool, a win is sure to result in a fight or a lawsuit or both.