Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 2, 2016, 12:53 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Powerball Matrix Change - April 15, 2015

Topic closed. 227 replies. Last post 1 year ago by weshar75.

Page 12 of 16
4.19
PrintE-mailLink
Original Bey's avatar - Lottery-022.jpg

Bahamas
Member #133462
September 30, 2012
5946 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 30, 2015, 10:07 am - IP Logged

players only wait for the bigger jackpots because they know they won't win any of the lower prizes. True

So the idea is that by improving overall odds, this will encourage player retention at the lower jackpots. I wouldn't bet on it!

It actually makes sense, but I still don't think it will solve jackpot fatigue. No it doesn't.  I have explained what is causing that jackpot fatigue,  the same places winning consistently, that is where your problem is.

There is much validity in your claim. While the regular/seasoned player recognizes that anyone can win regardless of when and where he plays, the casual player is more prune to buy into the conspiracy theories. Until the MUSL can motivate this category of players, the games will continue to struggle with respect earning more revenue year over year. In fact, the games will see a decline respectively. Proof of this lies in the fact that people travel miles to buy tickets to stores that have produced winners in hopes that they will find luck there too. Can you imagine how deflated casual players must be who live in states that have produced a jackpot winner? Or haven't produced one in years? The continued success of these games rely on the casual player not the LP savvy gamer.

"Everything works  ONCE!"

    Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
    Zeta Reticuli Star System
    United States
    Member #30470
    January 17, 2006
    10344 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 30, 2015, 11:21 am - IP Logged

    "...players only wait for the bigger jackpots because they know they won't win any of the lower prizes. True"

    So those at the Smart Tech lottery conference and pickone4me want the players to believe that their chances of winning a jackpot are better than hitting a lower prize?

    Those running the lotteries see something like that and go Banana

    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.

      pickone4me's avatar - 021414tvlies zpsa453b327.jpg
      Wisconsin
      United States
      Member #104962
      January 23, 2011
      1075 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 30, 2015, 11:22 am - IP Logged

      There is much validity in your claim. While the regular/seasoned player recognizes that anyone can win regardless of when and where he plays, the casual player is more prune to buy into the conspiracy theories. Until the MUSL can motivate this category of players, the games will continue to struggle with respect earning more revenue year over year. In fact, the games will see a decline respectively. Proof of this lies in the fact that people travel miles to buy tickets to stores that have produced winners in hopes that they will find luck there too. Can you imagine how deflated casual players must be who live in states that have produced a jackpot winner? Or haven't produced one in years? The continued success of these games rely on the casual player not the LP savvy gamer.

      Here is a better system,  let the places that often win ( not a conspiracy theory, it is technically a conspiracy since it can be proven by the winners page ) have their own lottery,  and have a separate one for the states that haven't won in 3 plus years.  That may help save these types of lottery games.

      Trump 2016!

        Avatar
        NY
        United States
        Member #23835
        October 16, 2005
        3471 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 30, 2015, 11:30 am - IP Logged

        "It actually makes sense"

        I'm sure it makes sense to the kind of thinkers who came up with MMC and the previous powerball failure with odds in the 1:250 million range. Of course that's not surprising when their overlords insist that income always has to increase.  The reality is that they can't offer significant lower tier prizes with decent odds of winning and still generate huge jackpots in a reasonable amount of time.

        I'm sure that every player is happy when they win their money back or get a few bucks more, but nobody with a lick of sense plays to win back 10 or 15% of their money with zero chance of winning a prize that actually matters. Each time they change the game they make the odds of winning a  real prize closer to zero. I expect that the best they can hope for is a minor increase in typical sales based on smaller prizes at the expense of large jackpots that result in huge sales. Considering that a single huge jackpot can generate as much revenue as a dozen or more jackpots leading up to it I think that's a losing proposition.

        "I have explained what is causing that jackpot fatigue,  the same places winning consistently, that is where your problem is."

        It's an interesting irony that morons like you who don't understand simple probability might not play the lottery because they don't understand simple probability, but that's only a small part of the overall picture. Those with a clue know that the steeper the odds get the better their chances are of having a chance at an even bigger jackpot for the next drawing. 20 years ago a jackpot of $100 million seemed huge and people who didn't normally play would wait in line for a chance to buy tickets. Today when the jackpot is $100 million the same people figure there's better than a 90% chance that they can play for the same chance at winning $120 million if they just wait 3 or 4 days. It's those infrequent players and the people who shoot their whole wad on what they figure is their best chance at the biggest jackpot that drive the big sales, and each matrix change just makes them wait longer before they get in the game.

          pickone4me's avatar - 021414tvlies zpsa453b327.jpg
          Wisconsin
          United States
          Member #104962
          January 23, 2011
          1075 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 30, 2015, 11:36 am - IP Logged

          "It actually makes sense"

          I'm sure it makes sense to the kind of thinkers who came up with MMC and the previous powerball failure with odds in the 1:250 million range. Of course that's not surprising when their overlords insist that income always has to increase.  The reality is that they can't offer significant lower tier prizes with decent odds of winning and still generate huge jackpots in a reasonable amount of time.

          I'm sure that every player is happy when they win their money back or get a few bucks more, but nobody with a lick of sense plays to win back 10 or 15% of their money with zero chance of winning a prize that actually matters. Each time they change the game they make the odds of winning a  real prize closer to zero. I expect that the best they can hope for is a minor increase in typical sales based on smaller prizes at the expense of large jackpots that result in huge sales. Considering that a single huge jackpot can generate as much revenue as a dozen or more jackpots leading up to it I think that's a losing proposition.

          "I have explained what is causing that jackpot fatigue,  the same places winning consistently, that is where your problem is."

          It's an interesting irony that morons like you who don't understand simple probability might not play the lottery because they don't understand simple probability, but that's only a small part of the overall picture. Those with a clue know that the steeper the odds get the better their chances are of having a chance at an even bigger jackpot for the next drawing. 20 years ago a jackpot of $100 million seemed huge and people who didn't normally play would wait in line for a chance to buy tickets. Today when the jackpot is $100 million the same people figure there's better than a 90% chance that they can play for the same chance at winning $120 million if they just wait 3 or 4 days. It's those infrequent players and the people who shoot their whole wad on what they figure is their best chance at the biggest jackpot that drive the big sales, and each matrix change just makes them wait longer before they get in the game.

          It isn't my fault that the lottery is screwing themselves,  because the same places often win.  When the odds of probability are consistently beaten,  then there is something going on behind the curtain that needs to be checked.  The fact that you can't debate honestly, and  have to insult me, doesn't help your cause, nor the lottery.

          Trump 2016!

            LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
            Happyland
            United States
            Member #146344
            September 1, 2013
            1129 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 30, 2015, 12:42 pm - IP Logged

            "It actually makes sense"

            I'm sure it makes sense to the kind of thinkers who came up with MMC and the previous powerball failure with odds in the 1:250 million range. Of course that's not surprising when their overlords insist that income always has to increase.  The reality is that they can't offer significant lower tier prizes with decent odds of winning and still generate huge jackpots in a reasonable amount of time.

            I'm sure that every player is happy when they win their money back or get a few bucks more, but nobody with a lick of sense plays to win back 10 or 15% of their money with zero chance of winning a prize that actually matters. Each time they change the game they make the odds of winning a  real prize closer to zero. I expect that the best they can hope for is a minor increase in typical sales based on smaller prizes at the expense of large jackpots that result in huge sales. Considering that a single huge jackpot can generate as much revenue as a dozen or more jackpots leading up to it I think that's a losing proposition.

            "I have explained what is causing that jackpot fatigue,  the same places winning consistently, that is where your problem is."

            It's an interesting irony that morons like you who don't understand simple probability might not play the lottery because they don't understand simple probability, but that's only a small part of the overall picture. Those with a clue know that the steeper the odds get the better their chances are of having a chance at an even bigger jackpot for the next drawing. 20 years ago a jackpot of $100 million seemed huge and people who didn't normally play would wait in line for a chance to buy tickets. Today when the jackpot is $100 million the same people figure there's better than a 90% chance that they can play for the same chance at winning $120 million if they just wait 3 or 4 days. It's those infrequent players and the people who shoot their whole wad on what they figure is their best chance at the biggest jackpot that drive the big sales, and each matrix change just makes them wait longer before they get in the game.

            "The reality is that they can't offer significant lower tier prizes with decent odds of winning and still generate huge jackpots in a reasonable amount of time."

            Correct, which is why they are not improving the prize value of the lower prizes but merely improving the odds of winning them...without harming the amount of sales or capacity for size available for large jackpots. I actually think the fact that the rumored revised matrix has worse jackpot odds yet better overall odds than what was previously "official" is proof that the lotteries know that players want bigger jackpots, but that they would play even more if they won more often.

            I mean, if jackpot was $500 million I would play regardless how often I've won before. This is echoed by the hysteria ticket purchases we see in record runs. Now if it was 'only' $300 million but I had won in the past few draws (i.e. better overall odds), then I might tell myself, "$300 million is still a lot of money" and play anyway.

            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

              LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
              Happyland
              United States
              Member #146344
              September 1, 2013
              1129 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 30, 2015, 12:46 pm - IP Logged

              I have been playing in four decades now and I have yet to win anything decent let alone a jackpot.

              All the time I have been playing they have just been making it harder and harder to win the jackpot.  If I wanted the smaller prizes I would just quit and save up the money....so guess what...when those jackpot odds get worse again I'm quitting and I will have all those "small prizes" I'm saving up from not playing!

              The consensus @ Smart-Tech (Kansas aside, I think) was that nobody cares about smaller prizes and they only play for the jackpot in games like PB and MM.

              However, if you won your money back in the last draw, wouldn't you be more inclined to play again this drawing? That's the idea. They're not taking away the big jackpots that everybody plays for; rather, they're giving back small amounts more often to encourage higher play at all jackpot levels.

              It has nothing to do with fooling players into believing they have better chances of winning the jackpot, but merely winning anything is enough to convince players that a jackpot is attainable and they will capitalize on this.

              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

                psykomo's avatar - animal shark.jpg

                United States
                Member #4877
                May 30, 2004
                5112 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 30, 2015, 2:05 pm - IP Logged

                LM:

                                         I Agree!  ............rather, "they're giving back small amounts more often to encourage higher play at all jackpot levels".    Cheers

                    yes.....beware U sharks out DARE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!!!

                 

                  THey're CHUMMING UR WATER AGAIN,  AGAIN, AGAIN & GAIN!

                                                                                                                                                                     Party    Dance       Party

                  Avatar
                  Arizona
                  United States
                  Member #165073
                  March 24, 2015
                  220 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 30, 2015, 3:59 pm - IP Logged

                  It isn't my fault that the lottery is screwing themselves,  because the same places often win.  When the odds of probability are consistently beaten,  then there is something going on behind the curtain that needs to be checked.  The fact that you can't debate honestly, and  have to insult me, doesn't help your cause, nor the lottery.

                  The odds of probability are NOT consistently beaten. When six states sell almost half of all tickets, probability says you can expect almost half of all winners to be from  those six states.

                    pickone4me's avatar - 021414tvlies zpsa453b327.jpg
                    Wisconsin
                    United States
                    Member #104962
                    January 23, 2011
                    1075 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 30, 2015, 5:23 pm - IP Logged

                    The odds of probability are NOT consistently beaten. When six states sell almost half of all tickets, probability says you can expect almost half of all winners to be from  those six states.

                    Then there is a big problem,  it isn't actually random then.  They should branch off a seperate powerball for those six states, and change up the matrix to make it harder to win anything.

                    Trump 2016!

                      Avatar
                      Arizona
                      United States
                      Member #165073
                      March 24, 2015
                      220 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 30, 2015, 5:46 pm - IP Logged

                      Then there is a big problem,  it isn't actually random then.  They should branch off a seperate powerball for those six states, and change up the matrix to make it harder to win anything.

                      You seem to be using a very strange definition of "random". My definition is "every ticket has the same chance of winning". What's yours?

                        Think's avatar - lightbulb
                        Marquette, MI
                        United States
                        Member #20541
                        August 20, 2005
                        705 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 30, 2015, 9:18 pm - IP Logged

                        The consensus @ Smart-Tech (Kansas aside, I think) was that nobody cares about smaller prizes and they only play for the jackpot in games like PB and MM.

                        However, if you won your money back in the last draw, wouldn't you be more inclined to play again this drawing? That's the idea. They're not taking away the big jackpots that everybody plays for; rather, they're giving back small amounts more often to encourage higher play at all jackpot levels.

                        It has nothing to do with fooling players into believing they have better chances of winning the jackpot, but merely winning anything is enough to convince players that a jackpot is attainable and they will capitalize on this.

                        Hmmm....how do I get my point across...

                        How about this...

                        If you have been pushing a boulder up a hill for 30 or 40 years trying to reach the top and the hill just keeps getting higher and higher the longer you push wouldn't you learn your lesson and just quit pushing?

                          LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
                          Happyland
                          United States
                          Member #146344
                          September 1, 2013
                          1129 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 30, 2015, 11:22 pm - IP Logged

                          Hmmm....how do I get my point across...

                          How about this...

                          If you have been pushing a boulder up a hill for 30 or 40 years trying to reach the top and the hill just keeps getting higher and higher the longer you push wouldn't you learn your lesson and just quit pushing?

                          That's exactly what Kansas and one of the vendors said at Smart-Tech, that players who never win anything will eventually give up. What you're saying doesn't contradict my post. However, studies have shown that lottery players do not distinguish between odds of 100 million or odds of 200 million when it comes to mega jackpot games. It is all a longshot and the media constantly reminds them of how they will never win. But their eyes are only on the prize. Have players stopped playing Mega Millions? No, because the better overall odds has helped retained players (albeit, I am not convinced the new matrix performs better). If you consider that PB not only costs twice as much as MM but also has worse overall odds, then it is not a surprise that the lack of large jackpots makes the game suffer.

                          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

                            pickone4me's avatar - 021414tvlies zpsa453b327.jpg
                            Wisconsin
                            United States
                            Member #104962
                            January 23, 2011
                            1075 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 30, 2015, 11:59 pm - IP Logged

                            You seem to be using a very strange definition of "random". My definition is "every ticket has the same chance of winning". What's yours?

                            Speaking of strange definition of random,  you mentioned this earlier: "When six states sell almost half of all tickets, probability says you can expect almost half of all winners to be from  those six states"

                            That doesn't sound like every ticket has the same chance of winning.

                            Trump 2016!

                              LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
                              Happyland
                              United States
                              Member #146344
                              September 1, 2013
                              1129 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 31, 2015, 12:09 am - IP Logged

                              Speaking of strange definition of random,  you mentioned this earlier: "When six states sell almost half of all tickets, probability says you can expect almost half of all winners to be from  those six states"

                              That doesn't sound like every ticket has the same chance of winning.

                              Have you tried calling them to have your concerns addressed?

                              (414) 276-3122

                              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

                                 
                                Page 12 of 16