For Fun: You a regular participant in your lottery pool but this time...Prev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

noise-gate

* In hot pursuit of $ *

White Shores- California
United States
Member #136,471
December 12, 2012
7,039 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 12:47 am

You short on cash * for either the Tuesday/Wednesday games, so you decide to " skip it altogether" hoping to get back on track the coming Friday since you will be getting paid... BUT your worse nightmare comes true. The group wins $200 million... without you!

Do you..

A: Wish the rest of the group the very best, and walk away or do you hope that they will consider you a stand up guy/gal and have you join in the merriment, meaning you get an equal share of the pie?

B: Mull it over and decide your next steps should be?

* Have a Great week People, and be safe out there!
Lucky Loser

Texas
United States
Member #86,151
January 30, 2010
1,889 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 12:41 pm

Quote: Originally posted by noise-gate on Aug 26, 2014
You short on cash * for either the Tuesday/Wednesday games, so you decide to " skip it altogether" hoping to get back on track the coming Friday since you will be getting paid... BUT your worse nightmare comes true. The group wins $200 million... without you!

Do you..

A: Wish the rest of the group the very best, and walk away or do you hope that they will consider you a stand up guy/gal and have you join in the merriment, meaning you get an equal share of the pie?

B: Mull it over and decide your next steps should be?

* Have a Great week People, and be safe out there!

You know, there was another thread on something very similar to this. It was the group allowing players to be entered in the draw if they were short on cash, and, they went into the player's 'reserve' to opt them back in. The reserve was based on any winnings obtained but, how often does that happen? This is where there needs to be an agreement on those technicalities...or they'd probably follow the old 'ya gotta be in it to win it' deal in terms of an equal share. Personally, I'd hope that they'd consider me for at least a reasonable amount between them all just because I've always contributed. I wouldn't need an equal share. I mean, hell, let's just say there are (6) people in the group...that's a little over $30M each before taxes. If it were me breakin' someone else off, $100K each, or so, would be pretty cool to do.

There are also other ways to factor in a player missing a winning draw. The group could it set up to where they'd all pitch in and pay the guy's/girl's house off if they have one. Or, they could take care of all their credit issues/loans...pay the vehicle loan off. So many options to show that the person hasn't simply lost all the way around on the deal. Just my .02. Maybe there are those that'll think it's too 'liberal'. I call it being compassionate and doing the right thing for someone that deserves it. If that's too liberal, so be it.

I don't need a certain number of friends...just a number of friends I can be certain of...Alice Walker.

L.L.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living
Stack47

Kentucky
United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 2:12 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Lucky Loser on Aug 26, 2014
You know, there was another thread on something very similar to this. It was the group allowing players to be entered in the draw if they were short on cash, and, they went into the player's 'reserve' to opt them back in. The reserve was based on any winnings obtained but, how often does that happen? This is where there needs to be an agreement on those technicalities...or they'd probably follow the old 'ya gotta be in it to win it' deal in terms of an equal share. Personally, I'd hope that they'd consider me for at least a reasonable amount between them all just because I've always contributed. I wouldn't need an equal share. I mean, hell, let's just say there are (6) people in the group...that's a little over $30M each before taxes. If it were me breakin' someone else off, $100K each, or so, would be pretty cool to do.

There are also other ways to factor in a player missing a winning draw. The group could it set up to where they'd all pitch in and pay the guy's/girl's house off if they have one. Or, they could take care of all their credit issues/loans...pay the vehicle loan off. So many options to show that the person hasn't simply lost all the way around on the deal. Just my .02. Maybe there are those that'll think it's too 'liberal'. I call it being compassionate and doing the right thing for someone that deserves it. If that's too liberal, so be it.

I don't need a certain number of friends...just a number of friends I can be certain of...Alice Walker.

L.L.

"The reserve was based on any winnings obtained but, how often does that happen?"

The pool I was in didn't have a reserve, but the winnings from the previous drawings were used to purchase tickets for the next drawing. Technically and maybe legally, a player could quit the pool, but still have a claim on any winnings from the last drawing they participated in. If it was the first time the player was "short of cash" maybe somebody in the pool would give them a loan. If it happens often or nobody offers a loan, have the player sign a document stating they are not part of that drawing.

If I ran a pool, I would stipulate upfront the amount of tickets I would purchase would equal the amount I collected. In other words, if I collect $5 each from 10 players, I buy $50 worth of tickets. If they don't pay, they don't play. Make it known upfront and make no exceptions because that's probably the number one cause of hard feelings that become lawsuits.

I don't know if it's called being "too liberal", but there are people who might suggest voting whether or not to give the "short of cash" player an equal share even if the pool rules stated they were not entitled. I would say "no vote" but if anybody wants to give a portion of their winnings to them, it's none of my business. I don't think it would be fair to all the other players "short of cash" in other drawings.
HoLeeKau

Idaho
United States
Member #94,279
July 17, 2010
2,453 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 3:12 pm

I would not allow a vote after the fact on whether a player should get their share if they didn't pay up for the draw. You know there's always at least one in a group who's not popular and if it's them the vote will go against them. If a popular person didn't pay, they'll get their share. It's not at all fair, but it is human nature.

To be completely fair, any voting on the rules needs to be done as the pool is set up, before the first draw, and it needs to be made clear to every prospective member that the rules will be abided by no matter who is involved.

Like you said, if anyone disagrees with not giving a person who didn't pay up a share, they can give theirs up.
RJOh

100

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 3:16 pm

When I played in a lottery pool at work the rule was if you didn't pay then you weren't in simple because those who weren't in only wanted to pay after the drawing if the winnings were more than the cost to be in. What a concept, a lottery pool that you only pay to be in after it wins.

* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
Saylorgirl

Indiana
United States
Member #129,219
June 13, 2012
595 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 4:37 pm

Quote: Originally posted by noise-gate on Aug 26, 2014
You short on cash * for either the Tuesday/Wednesday games, so you decide to " skip it altogether" hoping to get back on track the coming Friday since you will be getting paid... BUT your worse nightmare comes true. The group wins $200 million... without you!

Do you..

A: Wish the rest of the group the very best, and walk away or do you hope that they will consider you a stand up guy/gal and have you join in the merriment, meaning you get an equal share of the pie?

B: Mull it over and decide your next steps should be?

* Have a Great week People, and be safe out there!

I would turn on the waterworks and beg and plead! If that didn't work I would just jump off the Golden Gate Bridge!
Shelby Mustang

United States
Member #149,814
December 9, 2013
644 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 5:25 pm

Wish them the best and hope like heck in the back of your mind they take pity on you. Other than that you are screwed
Lucky Loser

Texas
United States
Member #86,151
January 30, 2010
1,889 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 5:27 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Aug 26, 2014
"The reserve was based on any winnings obtained but, how often does that happen?"

The pool I was in didn't have a reserve, but the winnings from the previous drawings were used to purchase tickets for the next drawing. Technically and maybe legally, a player could quit the pool, but still have a claim on any winnings from the last drawing they participated in. If it was the first time the player was "short of cash" maybe somebody in the pool would give them a loan. If it happens often or nobody offers a loan, have the player sign a document stating they are not part of that drawing.

If I ran a pool, I would stipulate upfront the amount of tickets I would purchase would equal the amount I collected. In other words, if I collect $5 each from 10 players, I buy $50 worth of tickets. If they don't pay, they don't play. Make it known upfront and make no exceptions because that's probably the number one cause of hard feelings that become lawsuits.

I don't know if it's called being "too liberal", but there are people who might suggest voting whether or not to give the "short of cash" player an equal share even if the pool rules stated they were not entitled. I would say "no vote" but if anybody wants to give a portion of their winnings to them, it's none of my business. I don't think it would be fair to all the other players "short of cash" in other drawings.

I agree with this rationale and honestly believe there should be a notarized/signed document outlining all stipulations. My option of giving something, or, receiving something was based on the 'good faith' and 'consistency' of the player on every draw prior. that's it. I'm not in on the 'something for nothing' bandwagon...though I'm sure it's what people are thinking. Consider this, though. There are lots of folks, right now, that have people in mind that they'd just give some money to in a case like this...and they wouldn't have 'put in on it', or, would be relatives either. How much more fair would it be to at least consider the person that was committed to sharing the cost of purchasing the tickets faithfully?

I just like to think things through, man, 'cause you never know when you might end up in this spot.

L.L.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living
Stack47

Kentucky
United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 11:44 pm

Quote: Originally posted by HoLeeKau on Aug 26, 2014
I would not allow a vote after the fact on whether a player should get their share if they didn't pay up for the draw. You know there's always at least one in a group who's not popular and if it's them the vote will go against them. If a popular person didn't pay, they'll get their share. It's not at all fair, but it is human nature.

To be completely fair, any voting on the rules needs to be done as the pool is set up, before the first draw, and it needs to be made clear to every prospective member that the rules will be abided by no matter who is involved.

Like you said, if anyone disagrees with not giving a person who didn't pay up a share, they can give theirs up.

There was a story in the News Forum about a group or Realtors who shared their jackpot with a new co-worker who declined to play. They voted to give her a full share which put anyone on the spot if they didn't want to share. It really depends on how many former employees, friends, or whoever think they have a right to a share because they weren't asked to participate.

The last thing anyone wants who just won a share of jackpot is to face a lawsuit.
Stack47

Kentucky
United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline

Aug 26, 2014, 11:48 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Lucky Loser on Aug 26, 2014
I agree with this rationale and honestly believe there should be a notarized/signed document outlining all stipulations. My option of giving something, or, receiving something was based on the 'good faith' and 'consistency' of the player on every draw prior. that's it. I'm not in on the 'something for nothing' bandwagon...though I'm sure it's what people are thinking. Consider this, though. There are lots of folks, right now, that have people in mind that they'd just give some money to in a case like this...and they wouldn't have 'put in on it', or, would be relatives either. How much more fair would it be to at least consider the person that was committed to sharing the cost of purchasing the tickets faithfully?

I just like to think things through, man, 'cause you never know when you might end up in this spot.

L.L.

I have nothing against sharing with someone who had participated as long as it doesn't add up to a large number of former players.
IPlayWeekly

Columbus, Ohio
United States
Member #128,900
June 5, 2012
599 Posts
Offline

Aug 27, 2014, 9:18 am

Honestly, I would have a hard time knowing my numbers came up and I didn't play. I won't have that problem because I play every drawing.