Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 2, 2016, 9:30 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Do some number combinations have better odds?

Topic closed. 5280 replies. Last post 4 years ago by rdgrnr.

Page 69 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink
RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19816 Posts
Offline
Posted: August 26, 2012, 12:19 am - IP Logged

This is a red flag in itself. They don't mind taking in millions from players on every draw, but when 200 players match (5) numbers, they get all jiggy with itWhat? It was time for them to pass it on!! Remember the original "Friday" movie? What did Smokie say? I'll jog your memeory...

"You're f*ckin' up the rotation!!! Its puff-puff give...puff-puff give!!!" LOL

 

L.L.

With its present format, if 200 players matched 5, there would be 200 disappointed winners because there's no way PB would pay out $200M that wasn't a jackpot. 

There's probably a payout cap somewhere in the rules that no one bother to mention while pointing out all the new millionaires the new format would create.

 * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
   
             Evil Looking       

    Avatar
    New Member
    Jersey City, NJ
    United States
    Member #132076
    August 26, 2012
    13 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: August 26, 2012, 12:29 am - IP Logged

    Another person on a different forum was discussing just that.  Like, he analyzed 1000 drawings and was able to determine when he got a quick pick it had a 60% a 40% or a 1% chance of winning.  I can't post links yet or else I'd show you what he said.


      United States
      Member #111442
      May 25, 2011
      6323 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: August 26, 2012, 6:34 am - IP Logged

      With its present format, if 200 players matched 5, there would be 200 disappointed winners because there's no way PB would pay out $200M that wasn't a jackpot. 

      There's probably a payout cap somewhere in the rules that no one bother to mention while pointing out all the new millionaires the new format would create.

      Caps were thought out long before the games even started. When it comes to money, the states will always cover their ass before the players.

        Lucky Loser's avatar - bucks
        Texas
        United States
        Member #86154
        January 30, 2010
        1646 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: August 26, 2012, 12:00 pm - IP Logged

        With its present format, if 200 players matched 5, there would be 200 disappointed winners because there's no way PB would pay out $200M that wasn't a jackpot. 

        There's probably a payout cap somewhere in the rules that no one bother to mention while pointing out all the new millionaires the new format would create.

        I'll beg to differ on this one but, I'll also do some research on it. In the end, it's the same money being paid out whether only (1) person matches all (6) for 200 MIL, or, (200) people match (5) of (6)...200 MIL is 200 MIL as far as I can see. Now, the likelihood of this re-occurring is questionable while still very possible, though. For either one of those game entities to simply chose not to pay all of the legitimate winning tickets out according to their respective prizes could possible create chaos and seriously hurt busines.

        Players would instantly lose confidence and faith in the game organizations abroad. There's a lot more to consider here than just the idea of it not being a jackpot won by a single person. This is my opinion, okay, but I see more to consider here in the big picture in terms of legalities.

         

        L.L.


          United States
          Member #111442
          May 25, 2011
          6323 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: August 26, 2012, 12:08 pm - IP Logged

          I'll beg to differ on this one but, I'll also do some research on it. In the end, it's the same money being paid out whether only (1) person matches all (6) for 200 MIL, or, (200) people match (5) of (6)...200 MIL is 200 MIL as far as I can see. Now, the likelihood of this re-occurring is questionable while still very possible, though. For either one of those game entities to simply chose not to pay all of the legitimate winning tickets out according to their respective prizes could possible create chaos and seriously hurt busines.

          Players would instantly lose confidence and faith in the game organizations abroad. There's a lot more to consider here than just the idea of it not being a jackpot won by a single person. This is my opinion, okay, but I see more to consider here in the big picture in terms of legalities.

           

          L.L.

          Good point L.L. I wasn't focusing on the integrity aspect of the game. Their reputation for paying those second place prizes are extremely

          important, if they are in this for the long term. And in this day and age news travels quickly, if they were getting stingy with paying off legitimate

          winners, whether 2 or 200.

            Lucky Loser's avatar - bucks
            Texas
            United States
            Member #86154
            January 30, 2010
            1646 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: August 26, 2012, 1:01 pm - IP Logged

            Good point L.L. I wasn't focusing on the integrity aspect of the game. Their reputation for paying those second place prizes are extremely

            important, if they are in this for the long term. And in this day and age news travels quickly, if they were getting stingy with paying off legitimate

            winners, whether 2 or 200.

            Now you're thinking. It would cost them probably twice as much to settle the lawsuits of those (200) winners, that would more than likely STILL GET THEIR PRIZES, than to simply payout the 200 MIL straight out. There would be legal strategies involved to effectively maintain the integrity of the game as well as minimize monetary expenses...which would actually be most important.

            It's all about the decisions you make and actions you take. One would cause people to be very happy and spend more money trying to win like (200) players already have. The other would cause people to frown, complain, and keep their money in their pockets, or, spend it on something else like food, bills, etc. etc.

            Trust me, the lottery entities know full and well that these games are a luxury and not a necessity for the people. Players do not have to spend their hard earned money on the possibility of not being paid in the event they do win along with many other players.

            L.L.


              United States
              Member #116268
              September 7, 2011
              20244 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: August 26, 2012, 3:55 pm - IP Logged

              Caps were thought out long before the games even started. When it comes to money, the states will always cover their ass before the players.

              The legal ease is not available on the PB site (at least not that I could find) but at the powerball wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerball#Winning_expectation 

              it is abundantly clear that the 89 fortune cookie winners got $100k each and 21 w/powerplay got $500k each.

              Total payout, $19.4 million


                United States
                Member #116268
                September 7, 2011
                20244 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: August 26, 2012, 4:12 pm - IP Logged

                And I don't see any reason why they would have changed those rules.

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7295 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: August 26, 2012, 5:44 pm - IP Logged

                  And I don't see any reason why they would have changed those rules.

                  PB rules: "NOTE: The set prize amounts listed above (the $1 million and $2 million 5 + 0 prizes) are based on the probable number of winners sharing the prize pool. In some cases, these prizes may be paid on a pari-mutuel basis, and could be lower than published prize levels. In this case, the Powerball set prize and Power Play prize amounts will be announced by the Powerball Product Group following the drawing."

                  It looks like the probable number of winners means around one 5 + 0 winner for every 5,153,633 tickets sold and in some cases means it's discretionary.

                  MM rules: "In some cases, these prizes may be paid on a pari-mutuel basis, and could be lower than published levels."

                  With MegaMillions, that rule only applies to Megaplier 5 + 0 winners.

                  I doubt they would payout $100 million if there were 50 5 + 0 Powerplay or 100 Megapliers winners, but if they short changed a number of single winners because of one multi winner, they could have some serious legal problems. There was a case in Ohio where one player was over the aggregate max in a Pick-5 game that sued and the court ruled in favor of the Lottery because by signing the back of the ticket, the player agrees to the lottery rules.

                    Lucky Loser's avatar - bucks
                    Texas
                    United States
                    Member #86154
                    January 30, 2010
                    1646 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: August 26, 2012, 10:22 pm - IP Logged

                    PB rules: "NOTE: The set prize amounts listed above (the $1 million and $2 million 5 + 0 prizes) are based on the probable number of winners sharing the prize pool. In some cases, these prizes may be paid on a pari-mutuel basis, and could be lower than published prize levels. In this case, the Powerball set prize and Power Play prize amounts will be announced by the Powerball Product Group following the drawing."

                    It looks like the probable number of winners means around one 5 + 0 winner for every 5,153,633 tickets sold and in some cases means it's discretionary.

                    MM rules: "In some cases, these prizes may be paid on a pari-mutuel basis, and could be lower than published levels."

                    With MegaMillions, that rule only applies to Megaplier 5 + 0 winners.

                    I doubt they would payout $100 million if there were 50 5 + 0 Powerplay or 100 Megapliers winners, but if they short changed a number of single winners because of one multi winner, they could have some serious legal problems. There was a case in Ohio where one player was over the aggregate max in a Pick-5 game that sued and the court ruled in favor of the Lottery because by signing the back of the ticket, the player agrees to the lottery rules.

                    Yeah, I did check that out, Stack, and I personally think it's pretty s*itty! What's the difference in paying out a total of $100Mil whether it's (1) person in a (6) out of (6) or ( 100) people in a (5) of (6) for $1Mil each payoutWhat? The amount is still the same, rightI Agree!. Wow, are they ever f*ckin' stingy!!!Mad So, in some crazy instance where (20) people happen to match (5) for (6), they don't all get a cool $1Mil??? Is this right? If it is, the only caveat is that some money is better than no money for matching a given amount of numbers here. Would I acccept a "PRORATED" $50,000 for my match? <snip> right, I would! But, I'd be complaining and cussing them out all the way to the bank about how unfair it still is because I should really be a MILLIONAIRE!!!!

                     

                    L.L.

                    This post has been automatically changed by the Lottery Post computer system to remove inappropriate content and/or spam.

                      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                      mid-Ohio
                      United States
                      Member #9
                      March 24, 2001
                      19816 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: August 27, 2012, 12:03 am - IP Logged

                      Yeah, I did check that out, Stack, and I personally think it's pretty s*itty! What's the difference in paying out a total of $100Mil whether it's (1) person in a (6) out of (6) or ( 100) people in a (5) of (6) for $1Mil each payoutWhat? The amount is still the same, rightI Agree!. Wow, are they ever f*ckin' stingy!!!Mad So, in some crazy instance where (20) people happen to match (5) for (6), they don't all get a cool $1Mil??? Is this right? If it is, the only caveat is that some money is better than no money for matching a given amount of numbers here. Would I acccept a "PRORATED" $50,000 for my match? <snip> right, I would! But, I'd be complaining and cussing them out all the way to the bank about how unfair it still is because I should really be a MILLIONAIRE!!!!

                       

                      L.L.

                      This post has been automatically changed by the Lottery Post computer system to remove inappropriate content and/or spam.

                      What's the difference in paying out a total of $100Mil whether it's (1) person in a (6) out of (6) or ( 100) people in a (5) of (6) for $1Mil each payoutWhat?

                      It was my understanding that the PB and MM organizations were only responsible for the jackpots and the individual states were responsible for any other prizes won by its players.

                       * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                         
                                   Evil Looking       


                        United States
                        Member #116268
                        September 7, 2011
                        20244 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: August 27, 2012, 2:22 am - IP Logged

                        PB rules: "NOTE: The set prize amounts listed above (the $1 million and $2 million 5 + 0 prizes) are based on the probable number of winners sharing the prize pool. In some cases, these prizes may be paid on a pari-mutuel basis, and could be lower than published prize levels. In this case, the Powerball set prize and Power Play prize amounts will be announced by the Powerball Product Group following the drawing."

                        It looks like the probable number of winners means around one 5 + 0 winner for every 5,153,633 tickets sold and in some cases means it's discretionary.

                        MM rules: "In some cases, these prizes may be paid on a pari-mutuel basis, and could be lower than published levels."

                        With MegaMillions, that rule only applies to Megaplier 5 + 0 winners.

                        I doubt they would payout $100 million if there were 50 5 + 0 Powerplay or 100 Megapliers winners, but if they short changed a number of single winners because of one multi winner, they could have some serious legal problems. There was a case in Ohio where one player was over the aggregate max in a Pick-5 game that sued and the court ruled in favor of the Lottery because by signing the back of the ticket, the player agrees to the lottery rules.

                        I knew that those rules were in there somewhere. The pari-mutual pay out is to be expected when a large number of winners are sold. 

                          Avatar
                          Kentucky
                          United States
                          Member #32652
                          February 14, 2006
                          7295 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: August 27, 2012, 9:59 am - IP Logged

                          What's the difference in paying out a total of $100Mil whether it's (1) person in a (6) out of (6) or ( 100) people in a (5) of (6) for $1Mil each payoutWhat?

                          It was my understanding that the PB and MM organizations were only responsible for the jackpots and the individual states were responsible for any other prizes won by its players.

                          I checked the small print on four different state lottery websites and they all say "probable or expected" number of prize winners. You're correct about each individual PB state being responsible for paying off that states secondary prizes but there wasn't any state that even came close to selling over 5 million tickets on Saturday so the "probable or expected" number of 5 + 0 winners was at best two in each state.

                          The pick-3 and pick-4 games have caps on the number of tickets that can be sold on any one combo and still payout the full amount on each winning ticket. If those games used the "probable or expected" number of prize winners as a cap, it would mean no more than two winning tickets for every 1000 or 10,000 tickets sold.

                          There is no "probable or expected" number of winners when lotteries sell self picks and it would be an interesting court case if one player had ten or more Powerplay self picks, matched five numbers on each ticket, and was paid less than $2 million (before taxes) on each ticket. The Ohio Lottery had a rule limiting a one drawing total on their Buckeye 5 game of $1 million when a player in Cleveland had 52 winning tickets and that player lost in court because of that. But I can't find any monetary caps on regular or Powerplay 5 + 0 winners so the results of the Ohio Buckeye 5 case couldn't be used as a precedent.

                          The Ohio Lottery did set a precedent on that drawing because there was a 53rd winning ticket and that player was paid the full $100,000 instead of the $18,868 their rules said he should be paid.

                            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                            mid-Ohio
                            United States
                            Member #9
                            March 24, 2001
                            19816 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: August 27, 2012, 10:23 am - IP Logged

                            I checked the small print on four different state lottery websites and they all say "probable or expected" number of prize winners. You're correct about each individual PB state being responsible for paying off that states secondary prizes but there wasn't any state that even came close to selling over 5 million tickets on Saturday so the "probable or expected" number of 5 + 0 winners was at best two in each state.

                            The pick-3 and pick-4 games have caps on the number of tickets that can be sold on any one combo and still payout the full amount on each winning ticket. If those games used the "probable or expected" number of prize winners as a cap, it would mean no more than two winning tickets for every 1000 or 10,000 tickets sold.

                            There is no "probable or expected" number of winners when lotteries sell self picks and it would be an interesting court case if one player had ten or more Powerplay self picks, matched five numbers on each ticket, and was paid less than $2 million (before taxes) on each ticket. The Ohio Lottery had a rule limiting a one drawing total on their Buckeye 5 game of $1 million when a player in Cleveland had 52 winning tickets and that player lost in court because of that. But I can't find any monetary caps on regular or Powerplay 5 + 0 winners so the results of the Ohio Buckeye 5 case couldn't be used as a precedent.

                            The Ohio Lottery did set a precedent on that drawing because there was a 53rd winning ticket and that player was paid the full $100,000 instead of the $18,868 their rules said he should be paid.

                            Remember the two guys in West Virgina who had multiple 5+0 PB winners?  With a lot less resources than Ohio, West Virgina paid them their full amounts so I think a situation would have to be pretty bad before a state would go pari-mutuel.

                             * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                               
                                         Evil Looking       


                              United States
                              Member #116268
                              September 7, 2011
                              20244 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: August 27, 2012, 10:31 am - IP Logged

                              I checked the small print on four different state lottery websites and they all say "probable or expected" number of prize winners. You're correct about each individual PB state being responsible for paying off that states secondary prizes but there wasn't any state that even came close to selling over 5 million tickets on Saturday so the "probable or expected" number of 5 + 0 winners was at best two in each state.

                              The pick-3 and pick-4 games have caps on the number of tickets that can be sold on any one combo and still payout the full amount on each winning ticket. If those games used the "probable or expected" number of prize winners as a cap, it would mean no more than two winning tickets for every 1000 or 10,000 tickets sold.

                              There is no "probable or expected" number of winners when lotteries sell self picks and it would be an interesting court case if one player had ten or more Powerplay self picks, matched five numbers on each ticket, and was paid less than $2 million (before taxes) on each ticket. The Ohio Lottery had a rule limiting a one drawing total on their Buckeye 5 game of $1 million when a player in Cleveland had 52 winning tickets and that player lost in court because of that. But I can't find any monetary caps on regular or Powerplay 5 + 0 winners so the results of the Ohio Buckeye 5 case couldn't be used as a precedent.

                              The Ohio Lottery did set a precedent on that drawing because there was a 53rd winning ticket and that player was paid the full $100,000 instead of the $18,868 their rules said he should be paid.

                              Thanks for all that work Stack. Very informative. It just goes to show (once again) that the state has the power to make up the rules as they go.

                              No reason to pay the 53rd winner any more than the 52 other parts in a pari-mutual pay out situation, except that the state can do whatever it wants (before or after the fact) and the courts will uphold it for them. 

                              Perhaps the player should have kept his mouth shut and taken the win as an annuity??

                                 
                                Page 69 of 353