By Todd Northrop
AUSTIN, Tx. — The Texas Lottery has temporarily suspended sales for its "All or Nothing" draw game.
The Lottery Commission says it has been notified by GTECH Corp., the lottery operator in Texas, of a game design issue. The issue is caused in part by player propensity to play certain numbers.
The Texas Lottery will evaluate placing limitations on wagers that can be purchased for any number combination in the game. According to the Lottery, The practice of setting liability limits is common in the lottery industry for games that offer guaranteed prizes.
"We have been advised of this game design issue and, in an abundance of caution, we have temporarily suspended sales for All or Nothing to evaluate the situation thoroughly," said Gary Grief, executive director of the Texas Lottery. "While we review this matter, we will honor all prizes for All or Nothing tickets that have already been purchased by our players."
Grief continued, "Although there have been no negative financial consequences to the state as a result of the identified game design issue, we will take any and all necessary steps to protect the financial interests of the state of Texas."
All or Nothing is played by selecting 12 numbers from a pool of 24. The game offers a variety of prizes. Players can win the game's top prize of $250,000 by matching all of the 12 numbers drawn by the Texas Lottery or by matching none of the 12 numbers drawn.
There are four All or Nothing drawings per day: at 10:00 am, 12:27 pm, 6:00 pm, and 10:12 pm (all Central Time).
According to the Lottery, players have embraced the game and its unique playstyle, pushing sales beyond expectations. All or Nothing
launched on Sept. 9, 2012, and in its first eight months, the game has generated sales of $62.5 million and $36.7 million in prizes to players.
That's why if you have a system that works, keep it quiet. The minute 'they' know, they will stop it or change it.
I agree, some people will never learn.
in an abundance of caution,
is just another way of saying......... "The state will now hire more employees"
I agree with jackpotismine about keeping quiet about an actual winning system.
Also, in any form of gambling, casinos, racetracks, sports books, lotteries the number one priority is always 'protecting the integrity of the game'. All of these entities know that math is on their side and will eventually prove itself out.
If a flaw, real or perceived is found in any game suspending or eliminating it is the usual result.
Yeah they'll suspend or eliminate a game if they think players have found a flaw in the game,but would they also suspend or eliminate the game if they uncovered a flaw to their benefit?I think not.They would just keep their mouth shut and continue selling the tickets.
"I agree with jackpotismine about keeping quiet about an actual winning system."
That's good advice but this game wasn't shut down because of systems for picking the numbers. It was probably closed because a large number of players are playing all even and odd or all high and low. And/or possibly because a large number of players are playing the leftover set of numbers to win the match 12 and match 0 jackpots. The game really has two $250,000 jackpots and for an extra $2 a player can win both.
"All of these entities know that math is on their side and will eventually prove itself out."
They knew the math, but they also added the High/low and even/odd option on the playslips without knowing how many players would check those boxes. If a 100 players used both high and low or even and odd options and it won, the payoff would be $50 million. An aggregate payoff would be pennies on the dollar and could kill the integrity of the game.
The flaw would balance out over time, but with four drawings per day, I don't think they want to take the chance.
I use to give daily picks until the mob got angry that I didn't give up my system. Ha! Now I keep everythng to myself and make out like a bandit. Mastered the 3 digit and went on to the 4 digit. Keeping away from the 5 digit for my own reasons, the lottery wouldn't like a consistent winner in that game.
I hear that the Megaball is going to be made more difficult to hit, I wonder why?
Sure, the game was paying out a few percentage more than it should, but GTECH notified the TLC of another problem. They are the ones that see the number population, coverage of combinations, duplicates/overlap, and betting patterns. They probably saw a potential problem with an extremely high prize liability looming in the near future.
The math is one thing, but lotteries operate with annual budgets, which could get clobbered due to certain people not acting like random number generators...the nerve!
I don't see how they can limit wagers, or even if they remove the odd/even boxes, players can still do it manually. What they might do is similar to what PB and MM has, is to add pari-mutuel exceptions in the game rules, a cap on prize liability if the total exceeds some set amount or percentage of sales.
"if they uncovered a flaw to their benefit?"
There is no such thing as "a flaw to their benefit", they call that good design. They call a flaw that benefit the players "a bad design".
"I don't see how they can limit wagers,"
Why couldn't they limit wagers? They do it with the pick3 and pick4 games. Don't you think their computers are powerful enough to track all the possible combinations and what has been waged on them fast enough?
Anything is possible, but what limit? 100? 0.1%? What is practical without upsetting players with confusing and arbitrary rejections?
I haven't encountered anything about limits on pick 3/4 wagers, do you have a link which shows where they do that?
Only limits I heard of in recent memory was the MA Cash Winfall rolldown issue, limiting the amount of wagers per terminal and enforcing employee rules for use of machines, etc.
Keep the system players happy who can not purchase their selections on a cutoff of number combinations and go pari mutuel for payout.
New Jersey does pari mutuel in their pick3 and whatever other games.
Other states have pari mutuel too.
I don't have a link but I do know in Ohio on certain holidays, historical or special dates, if you want to play those numbers (pick3 or pick4) you have to play them early because they are cut off after a certain amount has be wagered on them. I assumed that was standard in most other states too.
triples(pick3) and quads(pick4) sell out alot of the times also.
Jimmy
"The math is one thing, but lotteries operate with annual budgets, which could get clobbered due to certain people not acting like random number generators...the nerve!"
The QP players probably figured out they should play the remaining numbers too and double those wins. Maybe they didn't do the math the jackpot for nothing is the same as for all.
"What they might do is similar to what PB and MM has, is to add pari-mutuel exceptions in the game rules, a cap on prize liability if the total exceeds some set amount or percentage of sales."
They could create a $10 million jackpot limit and either limit the number of wagers to 40 tickets or tell the players up front it will be divided. As silly as it sounds, taking the High/Low and Even/Odd boxes off the playslips might solve that problem.
Is this limiting of duplicate number combos disclosed or confirmed anywhere by the lottery/state? What is the number or percentage? What does the terminal say when a number is rejected?
And I think this is could be viewed as borderline fraud, if it is not disclosed. So if someone gets a quick pick generated at the terminal, it is not just a (pseudo) random number, it is also checked against existing numbers wagered with certain numbers withheld from the RNG results. If they start doing this on a lotto style game like All or Nothing, they should disclose that.
We don't have that issue here in CA, as all prizes are pari-mutuel for all draw games, so there is no unexpected/underfunded prize liability. You either control that on the front end with limiting wagers and number combos, which can cause player angst, or do it on the back end with pari-mutuel.(which can cause winner angst)
According to the Lottery, players have embraced the game and its unique playstyle, pushing sales beyond expectations. All or Nothing
launched on Sept. 9, 2012, and in its first eight months, the game has generated sales of $62.5 million and $36.7 million in prizes to players.
there's your problem. paying out $36 mill and only taking 62 mill in sales, how is a business meant to run on that?
Different games have different profit margins. Lotto and pick3/4 typically are structured to have 50% total prize payout. The highest payout are Scratch games, with 60-70% prize payout.
This TX All or Nothing game seems to be in the middle, designed to pay out around 56% in prizes, although right now in the early stages of it's life is paying out 58% with some lucky hits recently.
A careful mix of games and profit margins in various states gives them a total 50-60% prize payout to the public. So you don't want one particular game sucking up the profits and reserves of the rest of the lottery unexpectedly.
I think it depends in each state on how they handle it or what they set as their liability limit. I found the following on the Florida Lottery Pick3 site:
Unlike the Lottery's other terminal games, which are pari-mutuel in design (that is, players are vying for a portion of what is in the prize pool), Cash 3 and Play 4 offer set prize payouts. Therefore, the Lottery has established a $10 million liability limit for Cash 3 for any particular three-digit number for each drawing. Should any three digit combination (for example 777) be purchased often enough in a single drawing that would result in the liability limit being exceeded, the Lottery will "cut off" further sales of that specific number combination. In addition, no Front Pair or Back Pair that involves the first two or last two digits, respectively, of the three-digit number will be allowed for that drawing. Players that have already played those numbers will still win the full amount of the set prize even if the liability limit has been met. For more details on this issue, please refer to the Cash 3 game rule, section (1)(h).
Jimmy
Maybe some high rollers have come up with a winning scheme like what happened in Massachusetts. The lottery would only start losing money if the regular players felt the high rollers had an unfair advantage and stopped playing.
I would be surprised if Texas didn't have a liability clause somewhere in their rules. Ohio has them but most players never bother to read them even when they are printed on the play slips as was the case a few years ago when Buckeye5 had a top prize of $100K with a cap of $1M if there were more than ten winners. A guy brought 20 tickets with the same combination which won and he sued when he got 20/21 shares of $1M instead of the $2M he thought he won. He lost the case.
i suppose it may look that way,
but that's not true.
it's just a simple updated thing everything needs updated from time to time
I wish MM would start charging $5. per line.
paranormal activity why they even playing
They play for the thrill of the fight.
Seriously?!? I have never played pick3 or pick4 games, so don't know anything about them, but it blows my mind that on any game where you pick your own numbers, you might not be allowed to play the numbers you want!!! What a rip-off!!!
If you know those are the rules before you play, how can it be a rip-off? Besides, if you can't buy a ticket how are you going to get ripped-off. Same thing applies if your numbers come in but you played them too late for the drawing they were drawn.
There you go, player angst.
I really don't agree with limiting number combos as a way to limit liability. Why do it on the front end and piss off players unneccessarily when you don't have to? Any particular number combo with a large number of wagers is not likely to be drawn anyway. So just deal with it on the back end with pari-mutual prize payout exceptions, if and when it happens. Then the only people it affects are those winners. And if the rules are made clear about reduced prizes under certain circumstances, I'm sure they'll be more understanding.
Maybe it was a bonehead move to include the odd/even and high/low options on the All or Nothing playslip in the first place. It would be more of a bonehead move to come out now and say the solution is to remove those options, and limit duplicate wagers on the same sets of numbers. A pari-mutuel exception rule change is the way to go.
Nobody has come up with a winning a scheme, because the game is random and has fixed prizes. The problem is that in this game they advertise that the prizes are guaranteed. There's no escape hatch when they get an unusually high number of winners, and some idiot designed it so that it exposed them to the possibility of an extremely high number of winners.
There are about 2.7 million combinations for a 12 of 24 game. That makes the odds of having all or nothing 1 in 1.35 million, and the prize structure is based on those odds. If people picked their 12 numbers randomly averaging more than 1 winner for every 1.35 million tickets sold would be very unusual, but not all people pick random combinations. Based on the figures they've reported they've been selling about 130,000 tickets per day, and collecting about $260,000. Even if they hadn't been stupid enough to give people a choice right on the slip to play odd, even, 1 to 12, or 13 to 24 there would probably have been at least 100 tickets for each of those combinations for every drawing. By making it so easy they may have had thousands of people playing each of those combinations, and if one of them is drawn all the people who played the opposite combination also win. The chances of paying for one of those combinations is only 1 in 676,000, but if it happened they could have been on the hook for a half billion or more.
yeah could be they see half the players ar playing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
and if it actually came out the liabilty would be a few billion.
01-02-03-04-07-08-16-19-20- all draws under 20 is a good deal
Well whatever happens, it ain't gonna be quick. For whatever rules changes there might be, the lottery director (Grief) has to present the commissioners with a proposed rule change. Then there is a comment period (can't remember how long) in which anyone can comment on the proposed rule change. Then the commissioners rule to accept or decline the rule change. This usually takes 2 or 3 months as a whole. Also, I can't remember the commissioners not accepting a proposed rule change presented to them. Their kinda like "puppets". On a string. LOL.
that's good news
"If people picked their 12 numbers randomly averaging more than 1 winner for every 1.35 million tickets sold would be very unusual, but not all people pick random combinations."
It's unlikely even in the 5/39 games with a fixed jackpot that very many players will play the same combination twice so the lottery doesn't assume they will have extra multiple jackpot and secondary prize winners. In this game, mathematically there is no difference between betting the same combo twice and playing one combo and the opposite combo. But in this game it's more likely that more players will play the opposite set and double the secondary and jackpot prize payouts. Because there are four drawings a day, creating individual rolling jackpots for matching 12 and matching 0 is not a very good solution.
"By making it so easy they may have had thousands of people playing each of those combinations, and if one of them is drawn all the people who played the opposite combination also win."
"The chances of paying for one of those combinations is only 1 in 676,000, but if it happened they could have been on the hook for a half billion or more."
That would require 1000 players playing both high and low or even and odd, but considering they did close the game, you might not be that far off.
Nicely put ... I agree!
Whether it is in the rules or not, before I play or whatever, to be told that "no, you can't play those numbers because too many other people are already playing them" just isn't right!!!
At least the pari-mutual thing if too many people win with the same set is understandable. I may not be so happy that I didn't win as much as I should have or as much as is advertised ... but it IS understandable.
Sure ... you're right ... "rip-off" is not correct ... unless the numbers that you wanted to play came up, and you didn't win because you were not allowed to play those numbers. Then, the lottery ripped you off of the winnings that should be in your pocket.
"The chances of paying for one of those combinations is only 1 in 676,000, but if it happened they could have been on the hook for a half billion or more."
That would require 1000 players playing both high and low or even and odd, but considering they did close the game, you might not be that far off.
It's not people playing both high and low or even and odd. Even if nobody played both even and odd or high and low it's a fairly safe bet that all four options are played equally. If 500 people play even there are probably close to 500 who play odd. Whatever the actual numbers are, if the winning numbers are all odd, then everyone who played even also wins. They didn't just make it easy for huge numbers of people to play the same winning combination, they effectively doubled that number by making everyone with the "losing" numbers a winner also.
FWIW. A very long time ago the NY Lottery ran ads telling people not to play obvious patterns o the play slip (I think it was in relation to promoting the then-new QP option). The most commonly played combination was the diagonal pattern starting at the top left. The diagonal starting at the top right was a close second. IIRC, each one was played close to 10,000 times in a typical drawing. Based on that I could easily believe that the Texas game could have several hundred repeats on each of the four choices.
In the latest press release on Texas's lottery website thay explain that often players were "gravitating to a smaller subset of number combinations available for selection. We saw the potential for unusually and high prize payouts should one of the favored combinations be drawn." It goes on to say that they are looking at options for liability and or wager limits.
This game was growing on me, but I think when they start it up again I'm done with it.
I looked at the sales data and made a plot of it. The Sales had been in steady decline since launch, I guess some of that is expected for a new game. But with this recent cancellation and any bad feelings if they come back with limiting combos, the sales may suffer even further.
With that said, I wouldn't mind seeing this All or Nothing game here in CA. It's got better payout and an interesting playstyle compared to other draw games, perfect for replacing our awful Daily Derby $2 game. Maybe not 4 times a day though. And ours would be pari-mutuel from the get go, with rollover, starting small like $100,000 and building higher on each roll based on sales.
From 9/10/12 through 6/1/13 before the shutdown, it had $62,520,970 sales and $36,672,564 in prizes. Over 228 play days with 4 draws per day saw 29 Jackpots, 1 of them a double all+nothing hit on 5/25/13. The game is designed to pay out about 56% in prizes, but at the end of this (relatively) short period paid it out 58.66% which is due to several more lucky jackpots than statistics would predict. If you take out a couple of the jackpots towards the ending and beginning of the game, it is right back to the 56% payout it should have.
They will definitely revise their system if a lot of players already develop a technique to win huge amount of prizes. I guess it's not good too if there are a lot of winners for sure the prizes will go down. Hopefully they can develop new system that will benefit both the players and the state.
Impressive chart Jon D!
That was a very big spike in payout for I suppose was it one draw? They definately crapped their pants.
I don't think the extra pay out for a single day hurt they too much.