How would you design a game so more people win?Prev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

jaggudada

NY
United States
Member #103,213
December 31, 2010
96 Posts
Offline

Jan 29, 2011, 9:52 pm

What I mean by more people win is in a game like NY lotto or mega millions or power ball games where jackpot reaches anywhere from 14-15 millions to 60-70 million which is not very uncommon, sometimes it even reaches over 200 million but those are rare occurances.

How would you designa a game where each person wins 2-3 million dollars. for e.g let's say if the jackpot is at 20 million then there will be approximately 20/3 = 7 or 20/2=10 people who will win the 2-3 millions.

If you reduce the number of balls say from 6 to 5 then there can be lot more winners. Just would like to know if there is a way to design a lottery game where more people would win instead of one person winning ungodly amount of money.
joshuacloak

United States
Member #32,536
February 12, 2006
711 Posts
Offline

Jan 29, 2011, 10:35 pm

can't be done , the must simple thing your asking for is already here

its called, raffle games

everyone gets a ticket and their a lot more top winners

the real issue is this, You Cant have the sells of powerball and mega millions giving a small army of winners WITHOUT the Large singe jackpot ,

this is reality, We Are Greedy, We See Big Numbers, We Buy More

People don't spend money on lottery games if they SEE LOW NUMBERS

powerball has already tryed to pass the winnings when they set a record annuity jackpot, did you know that, its the same idiotic logic of share the wealth in LOTTERY game of all things

if it sets a new record , it only 25m max more annuity per draw goes to jackpot, the rest goes to the pack 5 winners , when the jackpot ever won, all that 2nd place money gets boosted by the jackpot sells, AND ITS THE DUMBEST IDEA EVER

if it ever ROLLED at a record amount, they JUST lost sells, cease that annuity that could be 400+ to 500+ is sure stuck at growing 25m per draw,

plus its a annutiy cap, do you know the cash records for pb and mm, will i do, here they are

$240,000,000 cash, Jan. 4, 2011 , aka the monster vs pb, with its stupid ass capped jackpot has only reached, $177.2m CASH , see what a share the winnings does, it caps the SELLS AND THE AMOUNTS,

want a group of like 16 people win and spit that 240m cash jackpot, easy, Form a group with other people, and buy your tickets, then you can all share in the winnings,

To then, me and everyone else who perfers to play by our selfs, perfers taking the 240m cahs jackpots, to our selfs, tyvm

a raffle game is your hope, the fact is, the lottery makes anywhere in 40 to 50% goes to their bottom line, retailers 5%, and about 45% goes to a prize poll, or only 45 cents out of ever buck goes to prizes you and i ever get, You Can't Have millions of small large winners, the sells are not their to support, it, and the fact you named mega millions and powerball games, of 15 to 60-70 is a sick joke

they must make money for their states funding bottom lines, They must offer single jackpots, as they are what Makes the must Sells if they do them right

REPEAT the SELLS depend on A Very Large Prize being offered, mega millions and a to a lesser degree powerball, Have the biggest Sells,

if anything, they made powerball and mega millions have a muti pay option for a buck more, the player wants a bigger reward, for everthing but the jackpot, they can have it ALREADY

, turning 2nd place prizes into a auto 1 million buck prize, thats the best you get, as we had 67 2nd place price winners on mm 4th , my point, you want more 2nd class winners, get a bigger Jackpot, to then, stay to your raffle games and b e happy,

even thro i think i made my point how the sells are not their to support it, if i had the power of god over all the state lottery's this is how it could be Done

Like powerball and mega millions has 40+ states all going to jackpot prize, do a muti state rafle game

say ever state lotto that sells both pb and mm, now offers,

the biggest raffle game EVER, the sells period would need to be 1 year, or whenever they fixed amount of tickets sells out, then hold a draw and give away your 3 millonp top rpize, to like 20 winners liek you suggest, but again, the number of SELLS needed, or raffle tickets sold, now tos be huge to support that, the only way, is hance, a lnog selling time, and a muti state epic level sell
joshuacloak

United States
Member #32,536
February 12, 2006
711 Posts
Offline

Jan 29, 2011, 11:14 pm

o and i forget to put something in their, my 20 min edit time limit up,

people are motivated by wealth, more reward you offer them, the better new wealth you create

in usa, just like how the top 1% own over 30% of all wealth, the top 10% as a whole owns over 50% OF ALL the wealth,
Dems and share the wealth people live in a fake reality of stupid, they Want everyone to be rich and have "fairness"

they are in in turth preventing new Wealth, if everyone was the same, or if you tax the rich and give to the poor, the more you do it, the less motivated people are

the best way to create new wealth is to let that 1% go to 90% of the wealth, your eyes went up yes?

the more motivated people are the more they Create

you know the best parents in the world, are the ones motivated to have kids, and give them best of life,

the best kinds of people, are motivated they Create things, they put effort into things, the sec the money not their, the goal in essense, they must Lazy , unhelpful to boot human beings in the world

my point is, if you really Want large amounts of jackpots winners, the best bet is to a, play mega millions and play with a group, so you can share your wealth then

just like the best way for a nation to Create wealth is to have 0% tax's and stay out of the way of the Motivated people,

Never, Ever reward lazy people, the sec we reward people for not being Motivated, you have just Beeped everyone out wealth created in the first place

or someone who wants everyone to be the same, more winners in life etc

my point, let a few people vs majority of losers keep on, people are not Motivated by a low jackpot win , and more winners, aka fariness idea, their motivated by that insane Large amount, so for the good of all future lottery winners, for god sakes, keep that share the wealth idea, Far the hell away
RJOh

100

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline

Jan 30, 2011, 12:28 am

Games like Pick5 with better odds have winners all the time. Facts are they are so easy to win that their jackpots hardly ever go over $500K cash. If that $500K cash was used to buy a 30yrs annuity, it could be advertised as a million dollar jackpot, but most winners would probably prefer cash.

* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
ameriken

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103,042
December 29, 2010
547 Posts
Offline

Jan 30, 2011, 1:30 am

I think the bottom line is sales: the huge jackpots attract more ticket sales. I think the lottery commissions have it figured out: the chance of winning a $200 million dollar jackpot sells far more tickets than a chance of winning one of 200 $1 million dollar prizes.

Personally I'd like to see a smaller top prize with more and bigger secondary and tertiary prizes, but I doubt we'll ever see that, other than the raffles as already mentioned.
guesser

United States
Member #41,382
June 16, 2006
1,969 Posts
Offline

Jan 30, 2011, 2:57 am

Quote: Originally posted by jaggudada on Jan 29, 2011
What I mean by more people win is in a game like NY lotto or mega millions or power ball games where jackpot reaches anywhere from 14-15 millions to 60-70 million which is not very uncommon, sometimes it even reaches over 200 million but those are rare occurances.

How would you designa a game where each person wins 2-3 million dollars. for e.g let's say if the jackpot is at 20 million then there will be approximately 20/3 = 7 or 20/2=10 people who will win the 2-3 millions.

If you reduce the number of balls say from 6 to 5 then there can be lot more winners. Just would like to know if there is a way to design a lottery game where more people would win instead of one person winning ungodly amount of money.

That would never work for the reasons mentioned above, but if you DID want to do that, the easiest way would be to draw more than one set of numbers.
KY Floyd

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

Jan 30, 2011, 3:43 am

Quote: Originally posted by guesser on Jan 30, 2011
That would never work for the reasons mentioned above, but if you DID want to do that, the easiest way would be to draw more than one set of numbers.

Perhaps a better way to do it would be something like PB's bonus pool. At some point money that would normally go to the jackpot would be put in the 2nd place prize pool instead. It could even be done in such a way that for jackpots beyond a certain size the 2nd place prize could pay the same as the jackpot, with something left over to put in the next drawing.

That might actually be a workable game. Not having the enormous jackpot would eliminate the enormous sales that go with it, but having a 1 in 5 million chance of winning 3 to 10 million might go a long way towards increasing sales for prize totals in the 100 to 200 million range.
savagegoose

adelaide sa
Australia
Member #37,135
April 11, 2006
3,341 Posts
Offline

Jan 30, 2011, 2:35 pm

i posted a similar idea and fact is the people who buy want massive jackpots, just look at the sales results, you want different payout regimes ther eis 1 answer, stop buying nassive jackpot draws,.

but the lottery wont listen as millions more will buying to negate your protest

" Still swinging, still missing "
2014 = -1016; 2015= -1409; 2016 = -1171; 2017 = -1257 ; 2018 = - 1380 = TOT = - 6233

keno historic = -2291 ; 2015= -603; 2016= -424; 2017 =-427; 2018= -223 TOT = -3968

:
jaggudada

NY
United States
Member #103,213
December 31, 2010
96 Posts
Offline

Jan 30, 2011, 4:52 pm

It is hard for me to believe that more people won't buy lottery if the jackpot isn't stupendous. It may take some time to catch up once the change is made but here is what can really have a domino effect. When you have more winners, that means you will get to hear people from your county, city, area won. I think this will spur the sales. Lottery needs to stay put on more small winners per game than one mega million winner and I believe it will eventually catch up where many more will be willing to try their luck for a buck with the hope that it is much more plausible to win a million or two.

I like the idea of drawing multiple numbers, this way you can control how many winners you want depending upon the sales. Only issue I see with multiple numbers is, it will be difficult to check your numbers, unless everyone checks it with computer.
RJOh

100

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline

Jan 30, 2011, 9:40 pm

Quote: Originally posted by jaggudada on Jan 30, 2011
It is hard for me to believe that more people won't buy lottery if the jackpot isn't stupendous. It may take some time to catch up once the change is made but here is what can really have a domino effect. When you have more winners, that means you will get to hear people from your county, city, area won. I think this will spur the sales. Lottery needs to stay put on more small winners per game than one mega million winner and I believe it will eventually catch up where many more will be willing to try their luck for a buck with the hope that it is much more plausible to win a million or two.

I like the idea of drawing multiple numbers, this way you can control how many winners you want depending upon the sales. Only issue I see with multiple numbers is, it will be difficult to check your numbers, unless everyone checks it with computer.

NY has all kinds of lottery games with varying jackpot sizes and different odds of winning, check their website to see which games sell the most tickets. If you are one of the players not playing those games with the better odds and smaller jackpots then you know why others are doing the same.

* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
savagegoose

adelaide sa
Australia
Member #37,135
April 11, 2006
3,341 Posts
Offline

Jan 31, 2011, 2:58 am

well choice is always best, maybe i just like to throw ideas around see what sticks.

maybe there could be an option, and players get to pick a box when they play

[] i want to share

[] i want it all.

maybe there could be 2 different games in the same draw, both contributing to the same pot, but offering different odds of wining. and a much greater likelyhood of sharing a massive jackpot prise if you take the lower option asnd a much greater chance of wining it all if you take the long odds?

i guess the feasability woyuld be why thake the long odds if people are going share, so the game runs on long odds till an amount is reached say 50 mill, then the option becomes to play on shorter odds, nothing would stop people taking the longer odds, but im betting the punters would all swap over en mass.

something like a in order drawn for 1-45 offers 1 in 8 mill in any order., and umm 1 in 6.4 billion to one for the long odds, so you could make a entry 1c a combo and make poeple pick 100 lines. min entry costing $1 for 1 in 64 mill odds.

maybe u toss it in as a side bet,. $1 as a drawn order jackpot costing 1c a line, so game plays as mormal, and there are 2 jackpots that build a long and a short odds. watch as it takes for ever to buiild and the money pile on once the hjackpot reaches $1 billion.

like i say its just iddle talk , but i like this idea of 2 games played on same draw with separate jackpots accumulating.

i know its getting out of hand here. i cant even hit the 1 in 2.2 mill local game'

" Still swinging, still missing "
2014 = -1016; 2015= -1409; 2016 = -1171; 2017 = -1257 ; 2018 = - 1380 = TOT = - 6233

keno historic = -2291 ; 2015= -603; 2016= -424; 2017 =-427; 2018= -223 TOT = -3968

:
sully16

25

Ringleader

Michigan
United States
Member #81,738
October 28, 2009
128,350 Posts
Offline

Jan 31, 2011, 3:06 pm

Quote: Originally posted by savagegoose on Jan 31, 2011
well choice is always best, maybe i just like to throw ideas around see what sticks.

maybe there could be an option, and players get to pick a box when they play

[] i want to share

[] i want it all.

maybe there could be 2 different games in the same draw, both contributing to the same pot, but offering different odds of wining. and a much greater likelyhood of sharing a massive jackpot prise if you take the lower option asnd a much greater chance of wining it all if you take the long odds?

i guess the feasability woyuld be why thake the long odds if people are going share, so the game runs on long odds till an amount is reached say 50 mill, then the option becomes to play on shorter odds, nothing would stop people taking the longer odds, but im betting the punters would all swap over en mass.

something like a in order drawn for 1-45 offers 1 in 8 mill in any order., and umm 1 in 6.4 billion to one for the long odds, so you could make a entry 1c a combo and make poeple pick 100 lines. min entry costing $1 for 1 in 64 mill odds.

maybe u toss it in as a side bet,. $1 as a drawn order jackpot costing 1c a line, so game plays as mormal, and there are 2 jackpots that build a long and a short odds. watch as it takes for ever to buiild and the money pile on once the hjackpot reaches $1 billion.

like i say its just iddle talk , but i like this idea of 2 games played on same draw with separate jackpots accumulating.

i know its getting out of hand here. i cant even hit the 1 in 2.2 mill local game'

lmao I picked I want it all.
Coin Toss

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

Jan 31, 2011, 7:48 pm

savagegoose,

I know you've toyed with this concept around a lot.

Re:the OP, I'm not sure how it could be done or if it could be done drawing one set of winning numbers, but if there was a 2nd Chance so to speak, another dollar buys a chance for the numbers you already have and a secind drawing for a lesser prize, that might be a start. Kind of like the occassional Illinois Pick 3 Green Ball Double Draw.

After the Pick 3 is drawn there's a separate bowl with white balls and one green ball., and one ball is drawn. If it's green, another set of numbers is drawn, if not, one white ball is eliminated. There's no extra buy-in for that though.

Someone mentioned raffles. I don't think it's quite the same as lotto considering a $1 million dollar prize awarded to four people who played $20 each for a ticket.

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.
savagegoose

adelaide sa
Australia
Member #37,135
April 11, 2006
3,341 Posts
Offline

Feb 1, 2011, 1:09 pm

Quote: Originally posted by sully16 on Jan 31, 2011
lmao I picked I want it all.

hehehe yeah i think everyone would pick it.

seems theres a few people comment on wanting the pots to be shared around more but the games aint designed that way. the jackpots dfont happen if its easier to win. and if they canged the odds to play once the pot got higher why would anyone buy at harder odds instead of just waiting for the better odds.

" Still swinging, still missing "
2014 = -1016; 2015= -1409; 2016 = -1171; 2017 = -1257 ; 2018 = - 1380 = TOT = - 6233

keno historic = -2291 ; 2015= -603; 2016= -424; 2017 =-427; 2018= -223 TOT = -3968

:
guesser

United States
Member #41,382
June 16, 2006
1,969 Posts
Offline

Feb 5, 2011, 2:48 am

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Jan 30, 2011
Perhaps a better way to do it would be something like PB's bonus pool. At some point money that would normally go to the jackpot would be put in the 2nd place prize pool instead. It could even be done in such a way that for jackpots beyond a certain size the 2nd place prize could pay the same as the jackpot, with something left over to put in the next drawing.

That might actually be a workable game. Not having the enormous jackpot would eliminate the enormous sales that go with it, but having a 1 in 5 million chance of winning 3 to 10 million might go a long way towards increasing sales for prize totals in the 100 to 200 million range.

Then why not just have the second tier (all WB, miss the PB) pay like 2-3 million dollars?

Those are the same odds.

New Topic New Poll

Subscribe to this topic

How would you design a game so more people win?Prev TopicNext Topic

How would you design a game so more people win?Prev Topic Next Topic