The argument will always be "you can't change the odds" even though our odds are based on set conditions. It's a fact 2.56% of all the groups of 28 will match all five numbers in every drawing and you're simply betting you selected one of them. It's also a fact 2.50% of all QPs will win a prize so the odds against a group of 28 numbers matching five numbers are slightly better than better than those overall odds of a like number of QPs winning any prize..
Using Roulette as an example, I tried to explain to Boney while there is an overall effect on all the wagers by making multiple wagers, the odds against any one of those wagers is only reduced by 1 for every wager. By making 98,280 wagers or 175,711,536 MM wagers doesn't change the fact only one of those wagers can win the jackpot.
By setting your conditions it was not only difficult to beat 39 to 1 odds, you set a second condition and was successful by beating the 46 to 1 odds against matching the bonus number. Mediabrat believes you're bragging way to much about your accomplishment and Boney will say your odds against were "only" 1788 to 1 against because of the accumulative effect of your bet. But even after meeting all your conditions, only one of your tickets could win the jackpot. It doesn't matter how Boney figures odds because there still were 175,613,256 possible outcomes against you matching 5 + 1 and something worth bragging about.
Jimmy will tell you your bet isn't worth making because of ROI as if it's possible for a like number of QPs to win 100% of every wager. By meeting your second condition, you won on every one of the 33,649 the combos you used that didn't match one number. Using Boney math, a like number of QPs had 7 to 1 odds against winning $10,000.
How many times do we need to say, we're discussing the existing possibilities and betting on our conditions before our critics finally (if ever) understand it?