Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 22, 2017, 7:16 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

why did more people win in the 1990's than today? Lotto.

Topic closed. 33 replies. Last post 4 years ago by Stack47.

Page 2 of 3
51
PrintE-mailLink
RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 4, 2013, 9:35 am - IP Logged

I don't about other states but in the 90's and early 2000's more people played Ohio's 649 game Super Lotto because it had the largest jackpots in the area.  Players came to Ohio from all the surrounding states and the game generated enough funds to increase the jackpots as much as $4M after each drawing. 

When Ohio decided to limit the amounts a ticket could win to $20M, people stopped coming to Ohio to play and the game started losing money.  When Ohio reversed that rule a year later, surrounding states had added PowerBall and BigGame and even Ohioans started going out of state to play them instead of playing the local game.

Eventually Ohio discontinued its Super Lotto game and replaced it with Lot's Play which paid less.  They bought back the 649 format with Classic Lotto in 2007 but with PowerBall and MegaMillions competition, it will never attract the number of players as Super Lotto did before those games came to the area.

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

    Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
    Zeta Reticuli Star System
    United States
    Member #30470
    January 17, 2006
    10392 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 4, 2013, 10:33 am - IP Logged

    Maybe we can say that what Wal Mart is to local businesses MM and PB is to state lotteries.

    Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

    Lep

    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.

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      19903 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 4, 2013, 11:30 am - IP Logged

      Maybe we can say that what Wal Mart is to local businesses MM and PB is to state lotteries.

      Most states decided if you can't beat 'em then join 'em, that's what Ohio did even with its Classic Lotto.

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


        United States
        Member #123632
        February 25, 2012
        156 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 4, 2013, 3:57 pm - IP Logged

        I don't about other states but in the 90's and early 2000's more people played Ohio's 649 game Super Lotto because it had the largest jackpots in the area.  Players came to Ohio from all the surrounding states and the game generated enough funds to increase the jackpots as much as $4M after each drawing. 

        When Ohio decided to limit the amounts a ticket could win to $20M, people stopped coming to Ohio to play and the game started losing money.  When Ohio reversed that rule a year later, surrounding states had added PowerBall and BigGame and even Ohioans started going out of state to play them instead of playing the local game.

        Eventually Ohio discontinued its Super Lotto game and replaced it with Lot's Play which paid less.  They bought back the 649 format with Classic Lotto in 2007 but with PowerBall and MegaMillions competition, it will never attract the number of players as Super Lotto did before those games came to the area.

        Alot of people do not mind at all if a lottery changes their games, it doesn't really matter. If it's better chances to win, then that's a good thing.

        Most people would be very thrilled to play a game that pays less as long as they have a better chance to win. Winning a Jackpot in MM or PB is like next to impossible yet in a lower pay game if your chance is better more people will play it and still play the bigger games like MM and PB when the jackpot gets real high. That reminds me I need to go do that!!! Wink

          maringoman's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcTbRxpKQmOfcCoUqF2FyqIOAwDo7rg9G-lfJLAALPGWJWwiz19eRw
          Massachusetts
          United States
          Member #37433
          April 14, 2006
          2747 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 4, 2013, 5:02 pm - IP Logged

          Could it be because the matrixes of playing the game have changed more than 3 times since the 1990s? I wonder which game between MM and PB will first increase the odds of winning the JP to be 1:200,000,000 because that is where it is headed. Say it ain't so o_O

          That money's gone fo ever

            Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
            Zeta Reticuli Star System
            United States
            Member #30470
            January 17, 2006
            10392 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 4, 2013, 5:41 pm - IP Logged

            maringoman,

            Before the last matrix change the PB odds were over 195M to 1.

            Scientistman,

            The odds againt hitting 5 + 0 on MM are somewhere around 3.9M to 1.

            The odds against hitting the Illinois loto, with jackpots usually beywen $1 and $3M, are over 20.3M to 1.

            An extra buck on the MM is a much better chance to hit $1M than the Illinois 6/52 when the jps are low.

            Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

            Lep

            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.

              maringoman's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcTbRxpKQmOfcCoUqF2FyqIOAwDo7rg9G-lfJLAALPGWJWwiz19eRw
              Massachusetts
              United States
              Member #37433
              April 14, 2006
              2747 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 4, 2013, 5:57 pm - IP Logged

              maringoman,

              Before the last matrix change the PB odds were over 195M to 1.

              Scientistman,

              The odds againt hitting 5 + 0 on MM are somewhere around 3.9M to 1.

              The odds against hitting the Illinois loto, with jackpots usually beywen $1 and $3M, are over 20.3M to 1.

              An extra buck on the MM is a much better chance to hit $1M than the Illinois 6/52 when the jps are low.

              Before the last matrix change the PB odds were over 195M to 1.

              Mary mother of Jesus! did anybody ever win on that? even now I still think the odds are ridiculous but I cannot help it lol I still throw in my $3

              That money's gone fo ever

                Avatar
                Kentucky
                United States
                Member #32652
                February 14, 2006
                7344 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 4, 2013, 6:15 pm - IP Logged

                msharkey2011 thanks for the reply.

                 

                I understand his and your theory its just that I'm not buying it!!!

                 

                Your theory goes a bit like this...

                The more people who play the more winners. Its not rocket science here guys! I understand.

                 

                Yet if it were true that more people won back in the 1990's playing their state lotteries because there were no MM or PB then you are making a theory that goes a bit like this.....

                1993 1000 people playing lotto 53 people win.

                2012 100 people playing lotto 2 people win.

                In otherwords 900 of those left lotto and are now playing MM or PB

                So less lotto winners.

                And if that were the case I would agree.

                 

                Yet that is NOT what is happening. Your theory is wrong.

                There are MORE people playing LOTTO  than ever before because population is greater today than in 1993 so even though there are many more playing MM or PB there is still a greater number of people playing LOTTO today than in 1993, yet the same amount of balls are used. Still 49 balls. Its just as it was then in 1993. The same game the same amount of balls yet MORE people playing. Even with MM and PB being added to the state. There are still MORE people playing today than in 1993. Include marketing, more commercials on tv & radio. And you have no increased the amount of people playing by a ton.

                You have some warped theory believing that there are LESS people playing LOTTO today than in 1993. It simply is not true. And I aint buying it! Im calling BS! There are statistics ya know. There are MORE people playing LOTTO today than ever before and more today than in 1993. So it would stand to reason that there should be more winners today than in 1993 not less. Same amount of balls 49.

                Thats my point.

                You are trying to get me to believe that their are LESS people playing lotto today when its the opposite. Population in Washington has grown which increases the amount of people who play even though MM and PB are now in this state.

                Your theory is wrong!

                 

                Your theory would be correct if somewhere between 1993 and now they had increased the amopunt of balls from 49 to 56 but they havent and there are MORE people playing today than in 1993. There should be more winners toda not LESS!

                 

                 

                Washington state population grew by 830,419  during the last decade — to 6,724,540 — according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Washington’s 14.1 percent increase from 2000 to 2010  was the slowest rate of growth the state has experienced in five decades.

                Still, Washington grew at a faster pace than the nation as a whole, and is now the 13th most- populous state in the country.

                 This Census was from 2010 it is now almost up to 8 million people in Washington State.

                 So there is CLEARLY more people playing LOTTO than in 1993 by far!

                MORE PEOPLE PLAYING LOTTO SAME AMOUNT OF BALLS. There should be more winners NOT LESS!

                Who the hell you trying to kid!

                Same amount of balls...more players.

                There should be 103 winners or more today getting 5 of 6 numbers right like in 1993 not 5 people when theres more people playing!

                So what gives?

                "You are trying to get me to believe that their are LESS people playing lotto today when its the opposite."

                According the Washington State Lottery's Annual Report, in 2001, Lotto sales were $155 million and in 2012, $54 million or a 65% drop in sales. In 2003 when Washington joined MM, the lotto sales dropped to $104 million. I don't know where you're getting your information, but lotto sales were three times higher in 2001 than in 2012 which proves considerably LESS people are now playing lotto in Washington.

                http://www.walottery.com/AboutUs/AnnualReports/default.aspx

                 

                "Population in Washington has grown which increases the amount of people who play even though MM and PB are now in this state."

                The combined sales of MM, PB, and Lotto were $156,522,897 in 2012 compared to the $155,191,561 Lotto sales in 2001. With sales only $1 million more combined sales in all the large jackpot games, your estimate of population growth must be a gross under estimate.

                "1993 1000 people playing lotto 53 people win. 2012 100 people playing lotto 2 people win. In otherwords 900 of those left lotto and are now playing MM or PB "

                If the average player bought $5 worth of lotto tickets every Lotto drawing in 2001 and in 2012, 2/3 of all 2001 Lotto players are now playing MM and PB.

                "You have some warped theory believing that there are LESS people playing LOTTO today than in 1993. It simply is not true."

                You made that same false argument at three times now and even if you make it 30 more times won't change the fact Lotto sales are $102 million less in 2012 than they were in 2001. From the inception of the Washington Lottery in 1982, Lotto sales accounted for 32% of all ticket sales, but in 2012 it's only 11%. It's obvious that in 1993, Lotto was the game and has drastically decreased in popularity since MM came to town. What were the Lotto sales in 1993 when Lotto was the only large jackpot game?


                  United States
                  Member #123632
                  February 25, 2012
                  156 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 4, 2013, 7:58 pm - IP Logged

                  Stake47  Im talking about 1990's and before not 2001 and 2012. Regarless thanks for the info. regardless I dont give a rip! ITS NOT THE POINT! You think ticket sales is the point but its not the point. Thats your issue. Im just commenting on it off the cuff so fine I may stand corrected in my figures but I dont care about all that, its not the point of this thread.

                  Thank you for the fine work you did in an attempt to over throw an argument that I could care a less about. Its your issue that you are trying to win NOT MINE. My issue is not about sales at all. Thats your issue. Personally because your not seeing my point, Im getting lost in your issue about ticket sales. And ticket sales is not the point!

                   And I could care a less about looking up figures from 2001 compared with 2012. Ot even concerned about sales in 1993 though i rattled off some figures. Its not the point!

                   

                  This thread was never about the ticket sales or $$$$$$$$. Its about how 75, 89, 100, 103 to 150 human beings in Washington state almost every drawing were able to somehow attain or pick 5 of the 6 winning numbers in 1993 and today only 5 to 10 people can do it on average today. There is a fine line to what I am attempting to convey I understand it sounds like its about ticket sales but its not. And I can understand how you could take it that way.

                  But every drawings in the 1990 there sometimes  on average 75 people a night who were able to somehow come up with 5 of the 6 winning numbers. How can this be. I hate to put down the good state of Washington but I dont think theres even 50 people in the entire state of Washington that could do this today if the entire state were to play tonight!

                  Let me say it this way how long has it been since you got your last 5 out of 6 win in any game whether Lotto, MM, PB any game ever. And if you have never gotten 5 of 6 numbers correct just ask your self one question? Why? Why cant you and others like you who study day in and day out cant get 5 of the 6 winning numbers when 75 a night can get them in Washington in the 1990" as I said when I started this thread did people somehow get less smart or dumb since then. Lets go ahead with the the fact less people are playing. Then why is it that in one year on lottery post there isnt even as many winners who have gotten 5 out of 6 winning numbers collectively in a years times that in 1993 was accoplished by people in a weeks time over and over again. Either those people in Washington state are smarter than all the people on LP who study the lottery day and night for years and years or something else is going on.

                  Think about it, how many people have you met in your state who got 5 of the 6 winning numbers that you have met? I havent counted the exact amount in Washington yet but Ive met maybe a handfull of people in Washington who got 5 of 6 winning numbers myself being one of them yet back then there were at times 150 people in one night getting 5 of 6 winning numbers. In otherwords if everyone in my city and the next 5 cities over all played lotto tonight you wouldnt see even a hundred winners with 5 out of 6. Im suggesting people eaither got dumb or the lottery made people believe there were more winners than there actually were as a marketing tactic to make people think getting 5 out of 6 was easy. When getting 5 out of 6 in the lotto in Washington is almost impossible to do. And to think that that many people could get 5 outof 6 right every drawing Im not buying it. Maybe Im in denial but it seems a bit hard to believe. hell I should be running into a lottery winner every time I step out side with those numbers or data.

                    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                    mid-Ohio
                    United States
                    Member #9
                    March 24, 2001
                    19903 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 4, 2013, 11:09 pm - IP Logged

                    Stake47  Im talking about 1990's and before not 2001 and 2012. Regarless thanks for the info. regardless I dont give a rip! ITS NOT THE POINT! You think ticket sales is the point but its not the point. Thats your issue. Im just commenting on it off the cuff so fine I may stand corrected in my figures but I dont care about all that, its not the point of this thread.

                    Thank you for the fine work you did in an attempt to over throw an argument that I could care a less about. Its your issue that you are trying to win NOT MINE. My issue is not about sales at all. Thats your issue. Personally because your not seeing my point, Im getting lost in your issue about ticket sales. And ticket sales is not the point!

                     And I could care a less about looking up figures from 2001 compared with 2012. Ot even concerned about sales in 1993 though i rattled off some figures. Its not the point!

                     

                    This thread was never about the ticket sales or $$$$$$$$. Its about how 75, 89, 100, 103 to 150 human beings in Washington state almost every drawing were able to somehow attain or pick 5 of the 6 winning numbers in 1993 and today only 5 to 10 people can do it on average today. There is a fine line to what I am attempting to convey I understand it sounds like its about ticket sales but its not. And I can understand how you could take it that way.

                    But every drawings in the 1990 there sometimes  on average 75 people a night who were able to somehow come up with 5 of the 6 winning numbers. How can this be. I hate to put down the good state of Washington but I dont think theres even 50 people in the entire state of Washington that could do this today if the entire state were to play tonight!

                    Let me say it this way how long has it been since you got your last 5 out of 6 win in any game whether Lotto, MM, PB any game ever. And if you have never gotten 5 of 6 numbers correct just ask your self one question? Why? Why cant you and others like you who study day in and day out cant get 5 of the 6 winning numbers when 75 a night can get them in Washington in the 1990" as I said when I started this thread did people somehow get less smart or dumb since then. Lets go ahead with the the fact less people are playing. Then why is it that in one year on lottery post there isnt even as many winners who have gotten 5 out of 6 winning numbers collectively in a years times that in 1993 was accoplished by people in a weeks time over and over again. Either those people in Washington state are smarter than all the people on LP who study the lottery day and night for years and years or something else is going on.

                    Think about it, how many people have you met in your state who got 5 of the 6 winning numbers that you have met? I havent counted the exact amount in Washington yet but Ive met maybe a handfull of people in Washington who got 5 of 6 winning numbers myself being one of them yet back then there were at times 150 people in one night getting 5 of 6 winning numbers. In otherwords if everyone in my city and the next 5 cities over all played lotto tonight you wouldnt see even a hundred winners with 5 out of 6. Im suggesting people eaither got dumb or the lottery made people believe there were more winners than there actually were as a marketing tactic to make people think getting 5 out of 6 was easy. When getting 5 out of 6 in the lotto in Washington is almost impossible to do. And to think that that many people could get 5 outof 6 right every drawing Im not buying it. Maybe Im in denial but it seems a bit hard to believe. hell I should be running into a lottery winner every time I step out side with those numbers or data.

                    The last person I met who matched 5of6 in a 6/49 game was me and it was a week ago.

                    Pick 6

                     Statistic  Current Month  Last Month  Current Year  Last Year  Lifetime 
                    Picks10801405903,527
                    Hits0141672
                        Hit Ratio0.00%1.25%2.86%2.71%2.04%
                    Winnings$0$5,000$5,015$270$5,735
                        Prize Ratio0.00%6250.00%3582.14%45.76%162.60%

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

                      Avatar
                      Kentucky
                      United States
                      Member #32652
                      February 14, 2006
                      7344 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 5, 2013, 3:34 pm - IP Logged

                      Stake47  Im talking about 1990's and before not 2001 and 2012. Regarless thanks for the info. regardless I dont give a rip! ITS NOT THE POINT! You think ticket sales is the point but its not the point. Thats your issue. Im just commenting on it off the cuff so fine I may stand corrected in my figures but I dont care about all that, its not the point of this thread.

                      Thank you for the fine work you did in an attempt to over throw an argument that I could care a less about. Its your issue that you are trying to win NOT MINE. My issue is not about sales at all. Thats your issue. Personally because your not seeing my point, Im getting lost in your issue about ticket sales. And ticket sales is not the point!

                       And I could care a less about looking up figures from 2001 compared with 2012. Ot even concerned about sales in 1993 though i rattled off some figures. Its not the point!

                       

                      This thread was never about the ticket sales or $$$$$$$$. Its about how 75, 89, 100, 103 to 150 human beings in Washington state almost every drawing were able to somehow attain or pick 5 of the 6 winning numbers in 1993 and today only 5 to 10 people can do it on average today. There is a fine line to what I am attempting to convey I understand it sounds like its about ticket sales but its not. And I can understand how you could take it that way.

                      But every drawings in the 1990 there sometimes  on average 75 people a night who were able to somehow come up with 5 of the 6 winning numbers. How can this be. I hate to put down the good state of Washington but I dont think theres even 50 people in the entire state of Washington that could do this today if the entire state were to play tonight!

                      Let me say it this way how long has it been since you got your last 5 out of 6 win in any game whether Lotto, MM, PB any game ever. And if you have never gotten 5 of 6 numbers correct just ask your self one question? Why? Why cant you and others like you who study day in and day out cant get 5 of the 6 winning numbers when 75 a night can get them in Washington in the 1990" as I said when I started this thread did people somehow get less smart or dumb since then. Lets go ahead with the the fact less people are playing. Then why is it that in one year on lottery post there isnt even as many winners who have gotten 5 out of 6 winning numbers collectively in a years times that in 1993 was accoplished by people in a weeks time over and over again. Either those people in Washington state are smarter than all the people on LP who study the lottery day and night for years and years or something else is going on.

                      Think about it, how many people have you met in your state who got 5 of the 6 winning numbers that you have met? I havent counted the exact amount in Washington yet but Ive met maybe a handfull of people in Washington who got 5 of 6 winning numbers myself being one of them yet back then there were at times 150 people in one night getting 5 of 6 winning numbers. In otherwords if everyone in my city and the next 5 cities over all played lotto tonight you wouldnt see even a hundred winners with 5 out of 6. Im suggesting people eaither got dumb or the lottery made people believe there were more winners than there actually were as a marketing tactic to make people think getting 5 out of 6 was easy. When getting 5 out of 6 in the lotto in Washington is almost impossible to do. And to think that that many people could get 5 outof 6 right every drawing Im not buying it. Maybe Im in denial but it seems a bit hard to believe. hell I should be running into a lottery winner every time I step out side with those numbers or data.

                      "This thread was never about the ticket sales or $$$$$$$$. Its about how 75, 89, 100, 103 to 150 human beings in Washington state almost every drawing were able to somehow attain or pick 5 of the 6 winning numbers in 1993 and today only 5 to 10 people can do it on average today."

                      The loss in volume of ticket sales is a contributing factor and more so a factor now because there are three drawings a week. If there were two drawings a week in 2001 or 1993, the average ticket sales per drawing were $1.4 million. With three drawings a week, the 2012 average per drawing is only $346,000. The matrix is the same now as it was in 1993 so we can only compare the number of winning tickets.

                      There were a total of 51,430 winning tickets for a $4 million jackpot in 1993, but only a total of 15,530 winning tickets for another $4 million jackpot in 2012. Of those winning 1993 tickets, 44 matched five numbers, each paid at $728 for a total of $32,032. The 2012 five number match payoff was a fix payoff of $1000 each, 12 winning tickets for a total of $12,000. Statistically 3.7% of ticket sales should win something so based on that ticket sales for the 1993 were about $1.39 million and $419,729 in 2012. Ticket sales were 3.3 times more in 1993, the total number of winning tickets were 3.3 times higher, but the total prizes paid to the match five winners was only 2.7 times higher than in 2012. You're comparing 44 match five winners to 12 that's 3.7 times higher to the prize payoff that was only 2.7 times higher and are suggesting the lotto game is rigged even though they are now paying out proportionately MORE.

                      In 1993 the jackpots were raised on average $1 million each drawing and only $100,000 in 2012. PB raises their prize a minimum of $10 million every drawing which is 10 times higher than Lotto when it was the only large jackpot game in town. At the start of a run the MM jackpots grow slower but when it reaches $20 million the average raise is at least $5 million.

                      The volume of ticket sales is a huge factor why there were considerably more five number matches in 1993 than now. Another smaller factor could be the fixed payoff and the possibility because of it, the terminal generated QP are programed for a distribution that is closer to the probability of how many five numbers matches there should be for every 13.2 million tickets sold. When the Lotto game had pari-mutual payoffs, the QP distribution was irrelevant because the Lottery took their cut off the top and divided what was left by the number of winning tickets. Had there been 200 winners when the 1993 jackpot was $4 million and had the same volume of play, the total match five prize payoff would still be $32,032 and each winner would get a much smaller prize.

                      "Why cant you and others like you who study day in and day out cant get 5 of the 6 winning numbers when 75 a night can get them in Washington in the 1990" as I said when I started this thread did people somehow get less smart or dumb since then."

                      Statistically 70% to 80% of all ticket sales are QPs so that same percentage of the 75 winning tickets were probably QPs. When the volume of sales was three times higher, the amount of QPs was three time higher. Those picking their numbers are probably now getting the same percentage of five number matches as the did in 1990s. IMO how the QPs are now distributed because of the change to fixed payoffs is probably the reason.


                        United States
                        Member #123632
                        February 25, 2012
                        156 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 5, 2013, 6:30 pm - IP Logged

                        "This thread was never about the ticket sales or $$$$$$$$. Its about how 75, 89, 100, 103 to 150 human beings in Washington state almost every drawing were able to somehow attain or pick 5 of the 6 winning numbers in 1993 and today only 5 to 10 people can do it on average today."

                        The loss in volume of ticket sales is a contributing factor and more so a factor now because there are three drawings a week. If there were two drawings a week in 2001 or 1993, the average ticket sales per drawing were $1.4 million. With three drawings a week, the 2012 average per drawing is only $346,000. The matrix is the same now as it was in 1993 so we can only compare the number of winning tickets.

                        There were a total of 51,430 winning tickets for a $4 million jackpot in 1993, but only a total of 15,530 winning tickets for another $4 million jackpot in 2012. Of those winning 1993 tickets, 44 matched five numbers, each paid at $728 for a total of $32,032. The 2012 five number match payoff was a fix payoff of $1000 each, 12 winning tickets for a total of $12,000. Statistically 3.7% of ticket sales should win something so based on that ticket sales for the 1993 were about $1.39 million and $419,729 in 2012. Ticket sales were 3.3 times more in 1993, the total number of winning tickets were 3.3 times higher, but the total prizes paid to the match five winners was only 2.7 times higher than in 2012. You're comparing 44 match five winners to 12 that's 3.7 times higher to the prize payoff that was only 2.7 times higher and are suggesting the lotto game is rigged even though they are now paying out proportionately MORE.

                        In 1993 the jackpots were raised on average $1 million each drawing and only $100,000 in 2012. PB raises their prize a minimum of $10 million every drawing which is 10 times higher than Lotto when it was the only large jackpot game in town. At the start of a run the MM jackpots grow slower but when it reaches $20 million the average raise is at least $5 million.

                        The volume of ticket sales is a huge factor why there were considerably more five number matches in 1993 than now. Another smaller factor could be the fixed payoff and the possibility because of it, the terminal generated QP are programed for a distribution that is closer to the probability of how many five numbers matches there should be for every 13.2 million tickets sold. When the Lotto game had pari-mutual payoffs, the QP distribution was irrelevant because the Lottery took their cut off the top and divided what was left by the number of winning tickets. Had there been 200 winners when the 1993 jackpot was $4 million and had the same volume of play, the total match five prize payoff would still be $32,032 and each winner would get a much smaller prize.

                        "Why cant you and others like you who study day in and day out cant get 5 of the 6 winning numbers when 75 a night can get them in Washington in the 1990" as I said when I started this thread did people somehow get less smart or dumb since then."

                        Statistically 70% to 80% of all ticket sales are QPs so that same percentage of the 75 winning tickets were probably QPs. When the volume of sales was three times higher, the amount of QPs was three time higher. Those picking their numbers are probably now getting the same percentage of five number matches as the did in 1990s. IMO how the QPs are now distributed because of the change to fixed payoffs is probably the reason.

                        hey Stack47 that was a darn good read I appreciate the simplicity of it and how you broke everything down. I have to re-read it again because I want to respond on some other things. I like the fact that you are able to break things down in the way that you do. Great job man!

                        I dont know the % of people on LP who have actually won 5 of 6 numbers right. I know RJOH just won yet thats the first 5 of 6 win that I have heard of on LP in a long time other than myself a couple weeks ago, but it seems as many people on this website that there is you should be hearing far more occurances than just one or two 5 out of 6 wins, well it seems like you would? maybe not???

                        You know what I wish I could do? I wish I could get 50,000 people to play every drawing for the next month and see what the outcome would be and see if we would see 103 wins in a night or even 75 wins in a night in every drawing. Because if the amount of players is the same and the matrix is the same you should have the same outcome correct??

                        I still find it difficult to believe in one night 103 people got 5 of 6 numbers correct and in some other years there were upwards to 150 winners in one night when I first saw that I was like what the hell!!!! Yet if your data is on the money Stack47,  I suppose it would seem plausable. 

                        I dont think that many people on LP play lotto because most on here are into pick 3 and pick 4 games but even so with all the people on lotterypost you would think you'd be hearing of more winners like RJOH won last week. I would personally think we'd be hearing of wins like that weekly on LP but we dont because getting 5 of 6 numbers correct like RJOh did is an almost impossibility for most players even with the greatest of systems and we all on here know that. And Thats why I find it difficult to believe that the number of winners upwards to 150 winners in a night then were able to get 5 of 6 right, yet as you explained if most of those were QP's then maybe the computer gave out a % of winning tickets based upon the amount of sales each night as you said.


                          United States
                          Member #123632
                          February 25, 2012
                          156 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 5, 2013, 6:35 pm - IP Logged

                          The last person I met who matched 5of6 in a 6/49 game was me and it was a week ago.

                          Pick 6

                           Statistic  Current Month  Last Month  Current Year  Last Year  Lifetime 
                          Picks10801405903,527
                          Hits0141672
                              Hit Ratio0.00%1.25%2.86%2.71%2.04%
                          Winnings$0$5,000$5,015$270$5,735
                              Prize Ratio0.00%6250.00%3582.14%45.76%162.60%

                          Congratualations RJOh on your win! Party( I know you felt great when that occured) wow!!!! wow!!! wow!!! Party   You've been working away at that forever! You deserved it man! Patriot

                            psykomo's avatar - animal shark.jpg

                            United States
                            Member #4877
                            May 30, 2004
                            5145 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 5, 2013, 7:03 pm - IP Logged

                            If you check the history of the size of the number pool over the years you may find an increase in the amount of numbers in the drawing pool.

                            More numbers in a pool increases the odds of winning.

                            JP:

                            this make's "CENT'$">>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                            PSYKO>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>CRAZY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!

                            MO number'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

                            "RAI$E" UR investment in "LOTTERY"!

                                                DanceDrumDance

                              Avatar

                              United States
                              Member #105312
                              January 29, 2011
                              435 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 5, 2013, 7:21 pm - IP Logged

                              Scientistman:  Seems to me there's an excellent chance your basic premise is flawed.  But if it isn't, there might be a lot of explanations, some of which have been mentioned here already. 

                              More people might well have been playing lotteries early in the 1990s for the simple reason that in most states lotteries were spanking new.  Texas didn't have one until around that time, and when it began huge numbers of people might have regularly bought tickets, but gradually ceased doing so as the new wore off.

                              And almost all state games probably suffer from the fact there aren't any billboards telling how much can be won on the state lottery games.

                              A lot more people might have been playing then, as opposed to now. 

                              I've only been back reading here a short while, but I've seen your assertions that the lotteries are somehow fixed.  My thought is it might happen occasionally, but generally speaking security of lottery draws is probably as good, or better than most banks, and that the lotteries are going the last mile to keep everything clean and well lighted.  Scandals of any sort, such as the one with the Texas lottery a few years ago [which didn't precisely involve dishonesty and didn't compromise the draw results in any way] cost them money. 

                              The lotteries need to be, know they need to be, and I personally believe, do their best to be, beyond reproach when it comes to efforts to assure everything is honest.

                              Which seems to be the underlying subject of this thread, somehow, just taking a different direction.

                              ValidationAll statements made above are accurate, precise, lucid and sometimes supported by factoids written down somewhere.