Two employees of a Chicago Heights, Illinois, bakery are suing co-workers over a $118 million Mega Millions jackpot, alleging they were unfairly left out of the winnings.
Jose Franco and Marco Medina were regular participants in a lottery pool with co-workers at the bakery for about a year, according to the suit.
The group won $9 during a drawing on May 1, and there was an understanding that the money would be used to purchase more tickets for a May 4 drawing, the suit said. Some employees kicked in additional money, but Franco and Medina say they weren't asked to contribute.
The group won the grand prize that day, but an attorney for Franco and Medina said the two were cut out because they did not contribute additional money.
The suit said the group collects money every Monday and Thursday for Mega Millions drawings. That week, the money was instead collected on Wednesday, and Franco and Medina were not notified. Attorney Erron Fisher argued they were still involved in the pool because of the $9 rolled in from the May 1 drawing, which Franco and Medina paid toward.
"Our clients got in on the rollover to buy the tickets," Fisher said. "Lo and behold, they pulled the winning ticket but afterward, our clients were told 'no.' "
The suit, filed Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court, names 11 people who split the Mega Millions winnings. Fisher said all work in the bakery for Pita Pan, which makes Greek pitas, pocket bread and flatbread.
A woman who answered the phone Wednesday at Pita Pan declined to comment.
The suit asked lottery officials to hold off on dispersing the winnings pending a court ruling on the lawsuit.
Fisher said he believes there are three additional Pita Pan employees with similar claims who are seeking lawyers.
Most people are probably rolling their eyes at the prospect of another lottery pool lawsuit, but they might have a case here, if lottery tickets were purchased with the previous drawing's winnings.
McGinnin56: Where are you! Wanna share those views again on Lottery PRO Choice? Lol.
It seems the "Winsome Twosome" does have a case reading this preliminary report, but that's not why I roll my eyes HRH Todd. I am PRO individual and do not support pools...lottery politics - lol.
This is the reason i dislike lottery pools...
"Jose Franco and Marco Medina were regular participants in a lottery pool with co-workers at the bakery for about a year, according to the suit."
I see nothing wrong with occasionally pooling when the jackpots are huge, but this is exactly what happens when pools are played every week and some players are in some drawings and out others. The difference in this story is the previous winnings were part of the pool and if a share of the winnings belonged to these two, they have an excellent law suit.
As you would see in my post, we agree on their legal standing if their arguments are indeed valid. On the matter of participating in pools, let's just say we'll agree to disagree.
Consider this though: Think those other clowns who collected will be presenting as a possible argument that the first 9 picks didn't produce the winning jackpot? Ergo, those who didn't contribute additional monies in that drawing do not qualify? lol!
I have heard more insane arguments presented in court, so I wouldnt put it pass them!
if they indeed had rollover money in the pool, why would they not just include them in the winnings... they would still get more money than they will ever need... people are so greedy.
I have to agree with this, especially if they were normal, consistent players of the pool. If The pool won $9 bux from the previous draw, that should have been included in the tickets towards the Jackpot win.
At the very least, they should divide the # of tickets purchased for the Jackpot win and calculate the percentage that each would have won from the 9 tickets from the previous draw. They could split that amount and include the 2 people that are suing. Then divide the remaining amount to the people who actually paid into the Jackpot pool's draw
Rolling eyes lol,
exactly what I thought until I read the whole story. 
this might be legitimate and not sour grapes.
No rolled eyes here. They might not be entitled to an equal share, if other players contributed extra money for the draw. But if previous winnings were rolled over, I'd be willing to bet that they are entitled to something.
I don't have anything against pools because they tend to win often enough. Having to go to court to get your money is better than not getting any money at all. I play alone though hehe.
GREED.
How much money does one person need?
If more tickets were purchased from the $9 win, all that participated in the draw by paying to play the previous draw should be participating in collecting the jackpot win
now. It does not matter if the 2 were missed that day, it's POOL money, it all goes together. Maybe if they passed out winnings as they were won in cash, the 2 wouldn't
have a case. It was rolled over to buy more tickets....I believe they have a case. They claim they were regulars for about a year, I hope they have some proof of that.
I'll bet this will get pretty ridiculous....I can see it now: None of the tickets purchased with the $9 won.
Or the $9 divided 13 ways doesn't cover a full ticket purchase.
Or the $9 was for extra tickets on top of the regular biweekly purchase which the 2 outcasts didn't officially contribute to that draw.
I would never play a stinking pool, too many problems and after the fact rules to overcome when a big win comes sailing in.
No copies. No names. I wish they were closer. I'd join the suit too.
This is what the judge should do.
Take 9 and divide it by the total # of tickets purchased.
Take that percentage and multiply it by the total jackpot.
Take that number and divide it by the total number of people in the pool including the two people originally left out.
Subtract the amount given to the two people left out from the total jackpot.
Divide that amount equally by the remaning pool participants.
Example.
Assume the 11 each added $1.00.
Take 9 and divide it by the total # of tickets purchased.
9/20 = .45
Take that percentage and multiply it by the total jackpot.
.45* 118,000,000 =53,100,000.
Take that number and divide it by the total number of people in the pool including the two people originally left out.
53,100,000 /13 = 4,084,615.
Subtract the amount given to the two people left out from the total jackpot.
118,000,000 - 8,169,230 = 109,830,770
Divide that amount equally by the remaning pool participants.
109,830,770 / 11 = 9,984,615.
Is there a link to the story of the jackpot win?
Still PRO-choice.
These guy's look to have a SERIOUS crack at a getting a lions share of the lotto loot! 
Wouldn't mind trading shoes with either of them.
Fisher said he believes there are three additional Pita Pan employees with similar claims who are seeking lawyers.
I'll check in again with you after the other 3 clowns join the circus.
I want to be a LAWYER when I grow up!
Yea, they have a case alright, most of the claims you hear of are laughable, but still get heard by a judge.
watch this case closely, that rollover money is going to make all the difference.
Lawyers are one of god's great gifts to mankind.
If you should pursue becoming an ambulance chaser, you should take great pride and
reverence in this coveted position.
The 2 workers shouldn't get a dime they knew that every monday and thursday the group collects money for the drawing that seem to be the rules
They just felt some kind of way after not contributing that game and feel like they deserve some money that wasn't the agreement with the group.
The judge should send their attorneys away this is the typical story of lottery winners it's the greedy ones that know they didn't put money in for that game that tries to sue.
they didnt collect the money on monday but on wednesday and werent told about it. they still had money in the poll from the $9 they won and kept to pay for the next poll. sounds like a good case to me
I agree with Todd and feel there is merit to their lawsuit. It would be nice if they disclosed what additional funds were actually added tothe winning draw.
If these two gentleman can validate their claims of having been in the previous drawing then I feel the Judge will rule in their favor. They won't get an equal share but will be entitled to a decent cut.
The more I think about it, maybe we do agree because the last pool I was in continued until all the winnings were spent on more tickets plus kicking in a couple more bucks. A one time thing turned into multiple drawings and not exactly what I had in mind when I entered.
Hate to say it, but I was sort of relieved when we won nothing on the last drawing.
Stack47: Here's the thing, a few of us on LP were actually hoping that this lottery pool win would be the one notable exception and some even commented as much as you'll find in the archives. Certainly if I had the time and resources, I would do a statistical analysis of lottery pool wins that did not wind up in litigation versus those that did. That would tell a very interesting story far more substantitve than our anecdotal remarks stemming from fading memories tainted by preconcieved biases. If I were ever in a pool (bite my tongue) and we won, I would never support going to court to fight against a few that laid claim. The matter would definitely be settled among participants past and present. I don't want my chance of a lifetime to be marred with stress like this.
100%. Better to play alone than enjoy lawsuit if pool becomes 'lucky'. The reports about pool lawsuits appears again and again...
I wouldn't be in any sized lottery pool ever again [I wasn't even told how much small prize monies won were being rolled-over into purchasing additional draw lines each week]!
However, for those that are in, or considering entry into, a lottery pool -- make sure that the proposed leader of your lottery pool is a fair person (this is difficult, since they'd rarely be more than a mere acquaintance)!
Keep in the mind that IF (keyword - 'IF"!!!) pool wins BIG money... for example, jackpot in Powerball... then 100% any man or woman shows their hidden nature. Money changes people. Especially BIG money.
That jackpot was bought by a $9 that was won from a previous draw. Its not hard math.
The plaintiffs DO NOT deserve an equal share with the others because they only contributed
to the jp via a previous win of $9. But this is just me being rational. Their lawyers will argue that
absent a written agreement, the JP should be divided EQUALLY among all the members. Ouch! Double ouch!
People who are in charge of pools don't understand and outline the rules. people who play in pools don't understand the rules. I stopped contributing to pools at work because of this particular scenario and many, many others. I can see conflicts but some people are just blind or refuse to see the problem with inconsistent lottery pools. besides, I may give but I'm not sharing.
Reality is... these JackPot winners SHOULD NOT be liable to split the jackpot with the other NON-participants. The Roll over money that existed should simply be paid out according to percentage of the Lottery Pool to the 2 "players" that were in the pool previously. So $9.00 divided by number of players for that draw is what SHOULD be paid out to those individuals who were NOT a part of the JackPot winning draw.
If these Lottery Players who DID NOT participate were so concerned about NOT being included, why didn't they say ANYTHING on Thursday when the ORIGINAL collections would take place on prior draws to those who were in charge of the Lottery Pool? Apparentley they had NO qualms about NOT putting money in when it WASN'T asked for on Thursday because it was apparently collected on Wednesday! Even though they MAY not have been informed of the unusual Wednesday collection. Reality is, the NON-participants may have possibly thought "ah, ill just skip this draw and keep my money in my pocket for now instead of participating in this drawing", thinking that they might just be throwing there money away for this upcoming drawing.
It's not like they were making waves for NOT being able to participate PRIOR to the FRIDAY Mega Millions draw. If anything, maybe the one buying the tickets bought them a day earlier possibly due to the Jackpot excitement of $118,000,000 or just NOT being able to purchase the tickets on Thursday because of other plans or a combination of both. Who Knows...
All I know, based on the common sense of Property Ownership, the 2 non-participants should receive their share of the $9.00 winnings and that's it! Simple as that. You don't participate, YOU DON'T WIN!
Lottery Pools should NOT be obigated to make sure everyone who were in previous draws are magically included in future draws based upon past participation. That's just not fair. What's fair is that all who ARE part of the pool and want to remain A PART of the pool, pony over the dough when required or in worst case scenario before the drawing occurs.
Crying about it AFTER the Jackpot was won, well, that's just greed on the non-participants part.
This is the same as if you played the same numbers every drawing for 10 years, but, failed to play them the night they actually were drawn. Should the lottery be responsible to pay out based upon previous participation with the winning numbers? Of course not, and so it is in this case that the jackpot should be paid to those WHO PARTICIPATED FOR THAT SPECIFIC DRAWING! SIMPLE!
This is EXACTLY why I WANT NOTHING to do with Lottery Pools!
They have legit claim to equal share. The $9 from the previous pool is their participation in the jackpot drawing. One could claim that had that $9 not existed, they would not have won it, especially since it was already established that the money won from the previous drawing would go towards the next. Sounds like a slam dunk case to me.
I think they should get equal share.
My favorite line from Skakespeare:
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!"
(From: Henry The Sixth)
Wisdom survives the ages - lol!
Wow, equal share. They didn't even put in for this drawing, while others DID. So that means the others, according to your logic, should end up with equal share of the jackpot. A more equitable approach would be a percentage basis of the jackpot that those 2 who DID not pay into the winning jackpot drawing but from the $9 win plus whatever else was paid in additionally for the jackpot drawing. You would have to calculate what everyone put in, then come up with the figures if you use your logic. However...... The lottery pool didn't just take the whopping $9 win and use ONLY that.... no, they put other funds in that were NOT part of the previous $9 win.
In any case, if I'm hearing you correctly, let's say they give the non-participants their equal share of the $9 win prior, then that evens things up and the money spent on the winning tickets are then free and clear for the participants?
In either case, the $9 should be distributed to the participants involved and the next drawing should be based on those who actually paid in wheather or not another $9 was used towards the drawing. All that matters is that the non-participants are made whole for the $9 win, NOT the jackpot.
The rightful property of the non-participants IS their equal share of the $9 win. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. That they are surely entitled to. Problem is, it won't cover lawyer fees to try and get the equal share of the jackpot.
I think this case WILL get ruled in favor of the Lottery pool and against the non-participants. IMO. BTW, it was an "Understanding", nothing in writing that future winnings go towards future draws.
All we can do is what and see my friend.
Heck, why don't they just give the $9 to the two to split. Heck, they won the jackpot, they can afford to give all the previous winnings to the two who didn't play in the last draw..
They did put in for the drawing. The $9 was their particpation in the winning jackpot drawing. It bought them their ticket in. That $9 has equal weight to the new money the pool received for the new drawing. Why would it be on a percentage basis? They already had an understanding that the $9 won in the previous drawing would be used in the next. It's the same thing if they had given these guys their share of the $9, only for them to hand it right back and say "this is my buy-in into the next drawing".
Two things that make this a slam dunk case:
1. The $9 was used to purchase the winning ticket.
2. They had an understanding that the $9 won would go towards the next drawing.
That's equal share in my book.
The $9 was used on behalf of the pool players that contributed money to purchase the tickets that won the prize of $9.
The $118m Jackpot was won with shares of money that belonged to the two plaintiffs. There was an existing authorization by the two plaintiffs, that saw their share in the $9, share in the pool of a larger fund, that won the $118m Jackpot. I believe that the two plaintiffs should at least, get a proportion in the Jackpot, that equals their share of money contribution, as already reflected in these posts by others.
Without considering any other factors that the Judge or Jury might be looking at, I believe that the following formula should be minimal enough to help determine the share of winnings for each player, and that is, assuming that the two plaintiffs will only be the plaintiffs in this matter before the lawsuit is over.
Each of the 11 players that contributed a dollar each has a total contribution of $1-9/13 or $22/13 or $1.692
Each of the 2 players that contributed ZERO dollar, each has a total contribution of $0-9/13 or $9/13 or $0.692
The 2 players contributed significantly less than 1/2(0.408) of what each of the other 11 players contributed.
The distribution of prize money will not be equal for the 11 and the 2 plaintiffs in the least. The plaintiffs may be allowed to receive the equivalent of 41% of what each of the other 11 players get, and again, that is of course if this case takes a simple linear path, which may be un-likely, as there could be any number of un-written practices between th eplayers that could be introduced, that could add to or reduce what the 2 plaintiffs may get.
Great line. Gotta love Shakespeare! Shakespeare slammed lawyers in several lovely different ways in different penned pieces (he musta had his share of run-ins with them).
In "Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio uses the line "O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees;"
In "King Lear", the fool defends a speech in riddles by comparing it to an "unfee'd lawyer".
In the past, lottery prizes for pool members have been split in proportion to the amount of money contributed by each pool member. So, a player that contributes $1.00 would get half the amount that a player that contribuited $2.00 gets. This traditional precedent is most likely to be played out again in this matter
The contributions of money to purchase the winning ticket were not equal, and therfore the sharing of prizes should not be equal.
What is accepted shared equal among all, is an intagible component of the event that caused the jackpot win, the matter of randomness, etc. This factor is not easily measurable and no monies, or weights of monies were assigned to any player in specifics. Therefore, this accepted equality plays no role in the dividing of the prize money. Only the measurable monies that were brought in by each player, should be used to sort out the payouts to each player including the two who did not contribute additional dollars.
Pools are for fools. What should be a time of total elation is instead a time of contention and strife. I would rather have less of a chance of winning with my few buck per draw plays than to win any amount of prize with a pool of fools.
j.w.blue's answer is the right method to distribute the lottery funds this is the only way to have the funds divided up and makes lots of sense. well done jwblue
It depends on how their pool is set up. If it's simply a set buy-in pool and everyone gets an equal share in the event of a jackpot win regardless of the amount they put in($1 vs $2), then these two should be entitled to equal share of the overall jackpot. I've done a pool before and that's how we set it up. Each buy-in gave the person an equal share in the event of a jackpot win. I've sinced stopped doing pools, but I sure as hell wouldn't join a pool if those weren't the rules. In other words, we'd have the buy-in set at $2, and if you wanted to contribute any more than that, that's up to you, but we'd all get equal share if we won. If Johnny wants to put a "little extra" into the pot, that's up to him, but he isn't taking away from my share. I just don't see how you could have it any other way.
If it was set up differently, then it should follow those rules.
anyone who runs a pool , heres a nickle , ill pay you the rest later.
What a sad story.
It looks like the people who won the grand prize that day have forgotten that they were once upon a time just poor Pita Pan employees making Greek pitas, and other breads.
I predict that their Mega Millions prize money will bring them ONLY bad luck unless they reach a compromise with Franco and Medina.
I hope the lucky winners change their minds, so that all of them in the lottery pool win.
COMPLETELY disagree! So you're saying if I put in $10 to a lottery pool and everyone else put in a $1, that those winners are ALSO entitled to an equal share of the jackpot. What are you smoking? Where is the fairness in that? That does NOT make one ounce of sense.
I remember a story on The Lottery Changed My Life where people who worked at some Tiki restauraunt pooled for the Lottery. Well, they hit. The woman who put in $2 got a higher percentage than those who put in $1.
So, while i respect your opinions, i believe they are WAY off. $2 vs $1 is a 100% difference in equity.
If this case settles in favor of the non-participants, then they will most likely end up with the percentage of their ownership of the $9 previous win.
If you like fighting with your co-workers...join a lottery pool.If you enjoy giving lawyers a share of your winnings...join a lottery pool.If you want to avoid the fights with your co-workers and avoid paying the lawyers a share of your winnings...then say NO when invited to join a lottery pool.Seems pretty simple to me.Play your own numbers and you don't have to share with anyone except Uncle Sam & your state, through taxation.
Todd Vader is wise!
I always play on my own, but I don't have any coworkers anywho!
NEVER EVER EVER EVER PLAY in a Lottery Pool without a Lottery Pool Contract. I don't care if they're your best friends, relatives or even your own mother or father. Today, we live in a wicked world, were values are put on the back burner and trust isn't everything. I play in a Lottery Pool, there are ten onf us. we all signed a contract, and if anyone wihes to drop out it has to be in writing, that way if someone does drop out we have it on paper, no reason to go to court, to hold up everyones money that is due to them.
It is EXTREMELY DUMB and I undeline the DUMB to join in a Lottery Pool without a contract.
That's my 2 cents now spend it wisely.
Like I said, it depends on the rules of their pool. If the pool has a $2 buy-in, and you decide to put a little extra in, that's up to you, but only $2 was required to get in. If Johnny decides to get bold with a $10 bet, why should the rest of the pool suffer? I'm just sayin, I wouldn't join a pool with any other set of rules. If you're telling me the buy-in is $5, I don't want someone coming in out of nowhere and putting in $20 and taking money away from everyone else.
Some girl'd giggle and I'd get red
And some guy'd laugh and I'd bust his head
I'll tell ya, life ain't easy for an ol' boy in a pool
Good thing I don't get in pools cuz Bubba don't play dat.
"All I know, based on the common sense of Property Ownership"
It's not about "property ownership". It's a contract dispute that's governed by contract law. If the claims in the article are true the two people suing were members of the pool and participated in the winning drawing. As members they're entitled to share in the winnings under the same rules as all other members. If those rules are that prizes are shared equally they're entitled to equal shares.
A party (or parties) to a contract can't unilaterally change the terms without the consent of all parties to the contract. Absent terms to the contrary, any member(s) of the pool could leave at any time, and start a new pool with new rules, but that's not what they did. They simply chose to ignore the terms of the contract and collect money on a different day without notifying all parties to the contract. In doing that they gave up the right to change the terms that they would have had if they had given all parties the chance to agree to the new terms or to discontinue the existing pool. If the other members simply forgot to notify everyone and collect money they simply lost the few bucks they could have collected. If they intended to eliminate anyone from the pool they should have done it lawfully when those people weren't already included by virtue of the money from the previous winnings.
This is just one more example of a lesson not learned. A never-ending saga of having to deal with all the hassles that always arrise and the inevitable sleazy, slimy lawyers who will take and steal as much of your money as they possibly can.
Stay out of pools.
They rarely win anyway, compared to individuals.
Play your own numbers, bet your own money, win your own jackpot.
And you won't have to deal with all the headaches and sleazy lawyers dripping slime all over what should be a celebration.
lol - how about...
1. everyone put in the price of 1 ticket into the pool.
2. pool manager buys tickets with the exact same number on each ticket.
3. pool manager hands out tickets, one to each member.
4. if they win - everyone cashes in their OWN ticket for their OWN portion of the pool.
5. those IN the pool have a ticket to prove it. those NOT in - dont have a ticket.
(typed using 'innocent-look-in-eyes' font)
LOL Good one !
That would be costly and defeat the purpose of the pool which is to be in position to buy a large number of tickets
I think its a very good way to handle pool. Let's say a pool has 15 people and buy 150 tickets for each draw. Then every member should get (10) tickets :)
It is not costly, but it might be time consuming. I guess you will have to weight it against the event of a lawsuit :) rather safe than sorry???
I dont think thats the point of a pool. They want 150 different number combination for the 15 people. Why would you join a pool to buy 10 tickets?
I misread your previous post - my apologies. I thought you meant buying the same numbers times the number of people in the pool. I don't see how what you are saying clearly now as a means of alleviating the drama though. One person will attempt as we've seen in recent times to run off with the whole loot if they possessed the ticket that matched all six. As in this case at the top of the thread what if you can't get in touch with me before the drawing to give me my 10?
You can never anticipate the hundreds of angles that could go wrong - never.The fool proof way to avoid the drama is to avoid pools but some of you refuse to accept that and I continue to enjoy the entertainment.
wait... I am confused... I thought a pool will buy the same set of numbers for every draw and hoping it will hit one day??? are you saying that they buy different set of numbers each draw?
What are you suggesting here?
15 people in a pool each buy the same 10 numbers? If that's the case, that is completely non sensical. On my first read, I thought you were suggesting that the group of 15 buy 150 different combos and each hold 10 of the tickets purchased. In that instance, I promise you the one holding the winning ticket would collect claiming these were his or her individual numbers.
I am sure many like you thought they had their fool proof way of effectively running a lottery pool. Thing is, it's not put to the test until the BIG WIN. That's not a time when I want to be discovering I may be robbed of my entitlement and for the record, going to court to fight over it and an attorney taking a THIRD is a huge loss.
I was a lottery syndicate leader at a company I worked for. I would get $1 from all my co-workers who wanted to participate, and anyone who wanted to put more money into the lottery pool, I would tell them that it's only $1 from each participant.I would make copies of the lottery tickets with all the participants names. And when we did win some money in that game, I would put that money in the next game, with just those co-workers who participated in the win. I didn't have a problem.
The pool ever won a jackpot?
Yes,we did win,but only for maybe $20 or so.
Pools are for fools.
Well put!Couldn't have said it any better.
lol - i was teasing with my previous post. Since I dislike pools, and do not think that there is any safe way to run them and be protected from people who want what they want... the ONLY way that makes a modicum of sense is to simply give everyone their own ticket. (to my way of thinking)
yes i realize that that is a silly idea. 10 tickets for a pool of 10 with all 10 tickets with the same identical numbers would be a statement in the absurd... as is pool participation (in my opinion).
even the good ones are fraught with 'what-ifs'. even if you have an honest pool-man/woman running it, what is to say that your pool-mates (fellow players) will continue to espouse the same level of fair-playing ethics as you?
yes, the primary purpose for pools (to some/many) is to give many extra 'chances' for a fraction of the cost that it would cost you if you played all of them on your own.
yes, a secondary purpose is to share with those that you are like-minded with (co-workers - neighbors - dare i add... family?)
yes, a tertiary purpose is for fun/comradery...
and yes i still hold that the only safe way (TO ME) to participate in a pool is to have everyone be given their own ticket...
or to say it another way, the only safe way to play in a pool, is to BE the pool...
Yea, I was suprised your post was taken seriously,
I mean you did start it w/ a lol. LOL
This is an example of what can happen when a pool is not run correctly. No kind of written agreement,
and greedy, unethical people with any buisiness transaction can bring about hard feelings and bad blood.
These men have a legitimate case, and there going to win, simply because, they owned a share of the funds
that bought the winning ticket.
whats worse, is that a couple of Lincoln lawyers are going to get PAID for
putting on a courtroom dog and pony show. when in fact, in this case, the judge
has no choice in which verdict he must deliver.
just ask anyone who has logged more than a few hours on this site.
Max:
Regulars on here know you are PRO individual but notice how you gained an ally along the way who will now feel encouraged on his/her suicide mission? lol.
I can not BE the pool.
I am far too busy BEING one with the universe!
ahh ridge - i have much more modest expectations (BE the pool...)
... sides we only need 1 atlas
... and since YOUR job is more volumous than that (universe being a tab bit... bigger)
i will continue with the mundane...
**sigh** (muttering to self "BE the pool", "be THE pool", "be the POOL")
Blah blah blah. Good idea, but runs counter to why people participate in pools. If I only have one set of numbers at play, the last thing I want to do is create a shared jackpot scenario. People do pools to have a few addional opportunities to win. The perceived increased chance at winning is what drives people to pool money, not the increased and definite prospect of sharing that jackpot with people they may or may not like or care about.
The author was being FACETIOUS.
Two more workers from the bakery came forward to claim they were also part of this pool bringing the total to five.
The latest 2 individuals had claimed that they last contributed to the pool on March, 30th and were not asked to contribute to the May 4th drawing. They claim they would have chipped in IF asked.
Two of the twelve winners were first time players.
In the real world it is each individuals reponsibility to contribute to a pool, if you don't pay your share for the upcoming drawing because you were not asked that is too bad.
It doesn't matter if you contributed a month or a year ago. Simply put, you pay you play.
this just isnt going to end until some judge creates enough 'history'/presidence for these cases to have a clean/clear-cut arguable line of either defense or blarney
I agree ... up to the last step. The members who paid more money into the May 4 drawing may have contributed varying amounts. If so, then their winning amounts should be calculated the same way.
I think they have a case-unless for some UNBELIEVABLE reason they seperated the tickets into two envelopes: 'past winning proceeds for new tickets' and 'this weeks players'.