|Posted: January 2, 2014, 5:22 pm - IP Logged|
Lotteries generally do not offer extras unless they benefit them.
Adds-ons like Megaplier reduce the variance among wins, which makes them seem 'better' than buying multiple tickets. Mathematically speaking, however, this also increases minimum (in a negative way) returns and reduces maximum returns. This makes sense because they cost 2x as much but offer only 1 chance. It's quite negligible though because the expected trials necessary to realize those returns are so high. Case in point, Mega Millions.
IMO it would just be better to just buy one and done, no messing with extras and not buying multiple tickets unless you want to save up and put it all in one draw (as I have discussed previously). Or better yet, play better games. The new Hot Lotto is awful.
In 2013 my payback on drawings was only 13%. That wasn't just cause I choose bad numbers, that is a combination of QP and my own. Now compare that to my payback of 75% on scratch-offs. Not just a few trials for either type, yet why so big a difference? Draw games are heavily right-skewed (log normal) and the variance is worse (i.e. randomness is higher). They do have an infinite upside though, so it doesn't hurt to play every now and then
If the chances of winning the jackpot are so slim, why play when the jackpot is so small? Your chances never change, but the potential payoff does.
If a crystal ball showed you the future of the rest of your life, and in that future you will never win a jackpot, would you still play?
2016: -48.28% (13 tickets) ||
P&L % = Total Win($)/Total Wager($) - 1