Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 7:25 am
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 6 of 16
4.19
PrintE-mailLink
joshuacloak's avatar - Money Swim-uncle-scrooge-mcduck-35997717-677-518.jpg

United States
Member #32537
February 12, 2006
698 Posts
Offline
Posted: December 16, 2014, 1:22 pm - IP Logged
  • Multiplier is included in base price  - Oh alright i was confused by that part, now things click in my mind.

 

"Because the lower prizes are more likely to be won, in a real drawing the players would probably be happier"

Yea that was same logic of monopoly game, more winners make more people happy.

How did they turn out for them?  I have a feeling these same big shot lottery people who was thinking MMC was best idea in long time, are the same people cheering for this game change to happen. They can sell everyone else on idea being great at lottery offices , but it fails out in real world.

As i said before I have major issues taking money away form jackpot prize pool. People Play for high jackpots, not better low prizes for PB/MM games.

Pick 3/4 etc players are ones who spend money on better odds.  PB/MM players are not looking to win small prizes, at lest that's why they don't put down money for a ticket, it's the freaking jackpot that does that.

On 1 hand they make it harder to win, higher odds is good thing for sells, higher overall jackpots!

On other hand they steal jackpot growth power, it's prize fund is lower.

Jackpot will grow much slower, so sells will be slower overall and take even longer to get to better sells form high jackpots.

And when jackpots do get super high 300+ million, they sure grow less by many millions takes to these new rules. 

The fact is majority of players Don't keep coming back to play more and more thanks to lower prizes.

There trying to have there cake and eat it to.  You can't get get kind of sells form lower prizes as you do the jackpot.

Why do they insist on this nitwit idea, they get more sells form better lower prizes then the jackpot. it's insanity, it does not work for national games.

Besides a pure raffle I don't see the lower prize logic working on these massive games.

Vast majority of players see and care about that high jackpot they have 1 in trillion shot of winning. Not much better chances of winning smaller prizes

Do you really think people spend millions of dollars on PB to get a better shot at freaking low 1/2/3/4  matching ball prize , Hell no.

That's what brings in sells to PB. The current addon works for players wanting better small prizes.

Best change they can do is just up the odds and if they had balls, up the prize % amount going to the jackpot even higher.

Current sells of way more base game then current PB addon is very telling! The vast majority of players don't give a rats behind about higher lower prices vs the jackpot base game. Why would they care when YOU FORCE lower prizes on then and lower jackpot funded game.

No bees, no honey.

    LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
    Happyland
    United States
    Member #146344
    September 1, 2013
    1129 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 16, 2014, 1:37 pm - IP Logged
    • Multiplier is included in base price  - Oh alright i was confused by that part, now things click in my mind.

     

    "Because the lower prizes are more likely to be won, in a real drawing the players would probably be happier"

    Yea that was same logic of monopoly game, more winners make more people happy.

    How did they turn out for them?  I have a feeling these same big shot lottery people who was thinking MMC was best idea in long time, are the same people cheering for this game change to happen. They can sell everyone else on idea being great at lottery offices , but it fails out in real world.

    As i said before I have major issues taking money away form jackpot prize pool. People Play for high jackpots, not better low prizes for PB/MM games.

    Pick 3/4 etc players are ones who spend money on better odds.  PB/MM players are not looking to win small prizes, at lest that's why they don't put down money for a ticket, it's the freaking jackpot that does that.

    On 1 hand they make it harder to win, higher odds is good thing for sells, higher overall jackpots!

    On other hand they steal jackpot growth power, it's prize fund is lower.

    Jackpot will grow much slower, so sells will be slower overall and take even longer to get to better sells form high jackpots.

    And when jackpots do get super high 300+ million, they sure grow less by many millions takes to these new rules. 

    The fact is majority of players Don't keep coming back to play more and more thanks to lower prizes.

    There trying to have there cake and eat it to.  You can't get get kind of sells form lower prizes as you do the jackpot.

    Why do they insist on this nitwit idea, they get more sells form better lower prizes then the jackpot. it's insanity, it does not work for national games.

    Besides a pure raffle I don't see the lower prize logic working on these massive games.

    Vast majority of players see and care about that high jackpot they have 1 in trillion shot of winning. Not much better chances of winning smaller prizes

    Do you really think people spend millions of dollars on PB to get a better shot at freaking low 1/2/3/4  matching ball prize , Hell no.

    That's what brings in sells to PB. The current addon works for players wanting better small prizes.

    Best change they can do is just up the odds and if they had balls, up the prize % amount going to the jackpot even higher.

    Current sells of way more base game then current PB addon is very telling! The vast majority of players don't give a rats behind about higher lower prices vs the jackpot base game. Why would they care when YOU FORCE lower prizes on then and lower jackpot funded game.

    You make some valid points but the difference in jackpot growth will be insignificant. Only about $1.25 million less per $100 million in sales. Players won't notice.

    If people cared nothing about the lower prizes then they wouldn't play. Especially at lower jackpots....roughly 10-12 million people play PB regardless the value. If I give you a 1/1000000 chance at winning $500K or nothing, or give you a 1/2000000 chance of winning $500K, 1/500000 chance of winning $100K, 1/200 chance of winning $5 etc, then you will prefer that game over the all or nothing (regardless if the other is better from an EV perspective). You might play the all or nothing for awhile, but you will get tired of never winning anything and stop altogether or switch. This is because most people are risk adverse even in gambling situations.

    Will there be more drawings without a winner? Of course. But this means that jackpots can also grow larger. Like I mentioned near the start of the thread, this doesn't correct the jackpot fatigue issue. What it does do is make the lower prizes more lucrative to encourage players not to wait out for near-record jackpots.

    I've heard people say the odds should be higher and make the jackpot even higher, but then nobody would win and people would stop playing. So there's a fine line between what players want and what they are really willing to pay for. As seen with the MMC debacle. LOL

    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

      joshuacloak's avatar - Money Swim-uncle-scrooge-mcduck-35997717-677-518.jpg

      United States
      Member #32537
      February 12, 2006
      698 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: December 16, 2014, 2:15 pm - IP Logged

      Lottometro, I love your positive attitude, hell I hope your right about sales, i just don't see it happening with this change.

      I don't think "What it does do is make the lower prizes more lucrative to encourage players not to wait out for near-record jackpots."

      Am one of these 10-12 million players who always buy 1 ticket no matter what, but I sure do it for jackpot!

      I have a feeling the majority of players like my self playing regardless of the small jackpot are the same.

      For instant I know a 40 million "25m cash" starter jackpot would be a life changer regardless, just like 300+ jackpot  million win would be, Just one has private jet lifestyle vs a commercial first class around the world lifestyle as you travel.

      To make my point, total sells for the Powerplay option for first draw of 40m jackpot on 11/12/14. $2,128,350 sells for powerplay  out of $22,622,144 sells. 

      Sure it's about 10%  ish at best give or take for total players who pay more money for better lower prizes vs just buying a 2nd ticket for better jackpot chance.

      If 10%  of players right now would be more happy by this change, what in hell makes you think current 90% who only care about jackpot would play more, it's insanity.

       

      -----------------------

      "the difference in jackpot growth will be insignificant." god I hope your right, but if lottery logic is based on higher sells at lower jackpot levels.

      Right now I notice the short fund for PB jackpots ends at about 100 million  to 120 million ish range the past few years.

      I hope jackpot sure takes blasts thro minimum 10m rollover at same 120 million ish level  as before this new change.

      I hope your right and it's behind a few million at best, the much higher odds will 100% make bigger jackpots on average, So this change should sell more total tickets pure year and make everyone happy at lottery offices.

      i just don't trust making the current 10%  ish of players who pay for better lower prizes now, thinking some how this 10% will be so much more happy  they will have any strong effect on total sells going up!

      No bees, no honey.

        LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
        Happyland
        United States
        Member #146344
        September 1, 2013
        1129 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 16, 2014, 2:21 pm - IP Logged

        This best describes how I think it would encourage more play:

        • You are a casual player who wins $7 (old matrix)
        • You are a casual player who wins $20 (new matrix)

        Would you as a casual player be more likely to play the next draw, or even spend more in the draw, given the second scenario?

        I say yes. $2 is a tenth of $20 versus nearly a third of $7. Hardly a dent in your winnings! It is common industry knowledge that lottery sales increase following large jackpot hits. The prize is reset so we know this isn't jackpot-based. This isn't just from advance sales either, but the fact that more players are winning more smaller prizes and are comfortable "re-investing" those winnings. It reminds me of people I have seen who have won $500 on MMC. They "love" the game and play more often because they actually won something. Sure, they are shooting for that top prize or $1 million, but the prizes they do win keep them coming back.

        I think this matrix change is about trying to convert rare players into more frequent players, and trying to get frequent players to spend more of their winnings.

        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

          joshuacloak's avatar - Money Swim-uncle-scrooge-mcduck-35997717-677-518.jpg

          United States
          Member #32537
          February 12, 2006
          698 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 16, 2014, 3:07 pm - IP Logged

          "I think this matrix change is about trying to convert rare players into more frequent players, and trying to get frequent players to spend more of their winnings. "

          Alright now that logic i can get behind lottometro.

          Thro I think the new players stay playing past a 300-500+ jackpot run sense awareness of game sure in there mind form the big jackpot short time ago and not just the ones that won a few bucks.

          I think sense jackpot should see more 300-500+ million streaks you should see more new players overall keep playing.  that is very sound logic they have.

          I was just to worried about lower jackpot funds hurting growth of the current jackpot speed we have now, once the higher jackpot runs bring in more total players i can see this being covered.

          I just hope they don't get unlucky and sure see one to many low jackpot hits like what's been happening. I guest my logic is based  in a worst-case scenario vs reality.

          Seeing MMC idea fail flat on it's face makes me worry to way much for  these pb changes.

          Your right it should not be issue, and if it is a issue, we can always keep the new higher odds, and just change the prize fund levels back to this current % and restore old powerplay option.

          No bees, no honey.

            Think's avatar - lightbulb
            Marquette, MI
            United States
            Member #20541
            August 20, 2005
            705 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 16, 2014, 7:12 pm - IP Logged

            This best describes how I think it would encourage more play:

            • You are a casual player who wins $7 (old matrix)
            • You are a casual player who wins $20 (new matrix)

            Would you as a casual player be more likely to play the next draw, or even spend more in the draw, given the second scenario?

            I say yes. $2 is a tenth of $20 versus nearly a third of $7. Hardly a dent in your winnings! It is common industry knowledge that lottery sales increase following large jackpot hits. The prize is reset so we know this isn't jackpot-based. This isn't just from advance sales either, but the fact that more players are winning more smaller prizes and are comfortable "re-investing" those winnings. It reminds me of people I have seen who have won $500 on MMC. They "love" the game and play more often because they actually won something. Sure, they are shooting for that top prize or $1 million, but the prizes they do win keep them coming back.

            I think this matrix change is about trying to convert rare players into more frequent players, and trying to get frequent players to spend more of their winnings.

            The matrix change is also about getting the people who currently play frequently to quit.

            All I will say is 285,000,000 to 1?  Bl0w me!

              LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
              Happyland
              United States
              Member #146344
              September 1, 2013
              1129 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: December 16, 2014, 7:33 pm - IP Logged

              The matrix change is also about getting the people who currently play frequently to quit.

              All I will say is 285,000,000 to 1?  Bl0w me!

              Will you still be singing this tune when the jackpot is $500 million?

              Or will you secretly make a purchase Naughty Yes Nod

              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

                Igamble's avatar - spider
                nj
                United States
                Member #145657
                August 10, 2013
                974 Posts
                Online
                Posted: December 16, 2014, 10:58 pm - IP Logged

                July 26  2015 CBS  NEWS

                A national report of state lotteries powerball revenues after the new matrix change has found a dramatic decrease of revenue of exactly 6.66%average  in all 22 states currently offfering players this game .Players are buying tickets less often and spend  less money.The question is -Should a new matrix change of 01-99 numbers b imediately applied and would this help raise the sales  by bringing in a billion dollar jackpot  due to almost mpossible odds  ?

                We also heard an unconfirmed rumor from a source called "rdgrn" who informs us lotteries may revert to a very odd matrix called"  HIT IT NOW dumbass"Blue Angel of 01-10 numbers only for a very limited time .

                Reporting FOR CBS from Nevada,

                I   Gamble.

                Note -Our Assistent editor for grammar correction-onlymoney -has been on vacation.

                  RedStang's avatar - tallman zps6gf4inoc.jpg
                  NY
                  United States
                  Member #121961
                  January 21, 2012
                  3157 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: December 17, 2014, 1:36 am - IP Logged

                  Increasing the lottery payouts is the way to go. We also want see bigger lottery jackpots which means higher lottery sales. Capping lottery jackpots is against free markets capitalism.

                  We also want see bigger lottery jackpots which means higher lottery sales.

                  I'm going to change the Lotto billboard sign to 700mill and see if your proposition works.

                    Avatar
                    NY
                    United States
                    Member #23835
                    October 16, 2005
                    3474 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: December 17, 2014, 2:12 am - IP Logged

                    Fair enough. I can see why most people would be indifferent to the smaller jackpots but look at this example: http://www.powerball.com/powerball/winners/2014/071914CA_Long.shtml

                    It's about a guy who won a 60 mil jackpot, which is a smaller jackpot by PB standards. Imagine if he had thought, I'm not going to play this drawing, I'll wait until the jackpot rolls to 100 mil, who knows maybe he would not have won. For me one of two tickets is doable so I play consistently. That's how I see it, but play the game anyway you want.

                    Would you consider laying 1,2,3,4,5+6 or any of the other extremely common combinations?  That and playing for small jackpots are two sides of the same coin. In the unlikely event that you do win, the amount you win will be less than what many others win. You are far, far more likely to not win, making the amount (or the combination you choose) irrelevant.

                    Since it's a game of chance, the only thing you can control is how many chances you have, and the potential prize you have a chance at. In 2015 would you rather have 20 chances at a jackpot of $40 or $50 million or 20 chances at a jackpot of $140 million? Those are real choices you can expect by playing in each of the two drawings at the start of a roll or spending the same amount after the jackpot has rolled for a bit. Your cost and your chance ff winning will be the same either way.

                      Avatar
                      NY
                      United States
                      Member #23835
                      October 16, 2005
                      3474 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: December 17, 2014, 2:28 am - IP Logged

                      They're actually decreasing the portion of sales that go towards the jackpot, so I doubt it will increase that much. This is why I think it is staying the same. They have to be able to fund the jackpot and setting minimum starting/rollover points higher increases the liability during low-jackpot cycles.

                      I have heard from yet another lottery that the Power Up is a completely separate drawing, similar to the second drawing in Monopoly, which would use your numbers from the primary drawing. Yes, I understand that makes the game more complex and it makes zero sense (the lottery I heard from agrees).

                      The director* I mentioned above never came out and explicitly said that the PU is/not separate drawing, just that it has its own top prize and lower prizes. From a player payout perspective I don't think it really matters. It will increase variance to have separate drawings but the long-term return will be additive and therefore the same. I suppose from a marketing standpoint it could be lucrative, as a player has 2 chances to win with a multiplier (base draw, followed by second draw).

                      MUSL has been making changes to the proposal even as recently as last week, so I think I won't get the definitive word on this until January. If the MMC experience has taught them anything, hopefully it's that players don't want a confusing game. At this point though, we have a general idea of what the main changes will be. Thumbs Up

                       

                      *I tend to give more weighting to director's info since he/she actually attends MUSL meetings. Commission-sourced info is less detailed and usually vague.

                      "They have to be able to fund the jackpot and setting minimum starting/rollover points higher increases the liability during low-jackpot cycles."

                      That's offset somewhat by the increased odds. Monopoly MC definitely burned them badly by having a jackpot winner with far fewer tickets sold than probability suggests, but the risk is pretty low for PB. They'll occasionally pay out more than they collect, but just a single drawing for an advertised jackpot of $500 million will make up for several underfunded jackpots.

                      Would you rather collect 47% profit on sales of $2.3 billion or 50% profit on $2 billion?

                      Of course they could still end up with less profit overall if sales really stagnate based on the new format. It seems to me that, yet again, they're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. I don't think that's worked out very well for MM, and the new PB will have odds that are even worse.

                      On the upside, the high odds make it that much more likely that a huge jackpot will have a single winner.

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #161539
                        December 3, 2014
                        328 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: December 17, 2014, 12:45 pm - IP Logged

                        "They have to be able to fund the jackpot and setting minimum starting/rollover points higher increases the liability during low-jackpot cycles."

                        That's offset somewhat by the increased odds. Monopoly MC definitely burned them badly by having a jackpot winner with far fewer tickets sold than probability suggests, but the risk is pretty low for PB. They'll occasionally pay out more than they collect, but just a single drawing for an advertised jackpot of $500 million will make up for several underfunded jackpots.

                        Would you rather collect 47% profit on sales of $2.3 billion or 50% profit on $2 billion?

                        Of course they could still end up with less profit overall if sales really stagnate based on the new format. It seems to me that, yet again, they're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. I don't think that's worked out very well for MM, and the new PB will have odds that are even worse.

                        On the upside, the high odds make it that much more likely that a huge jackpot will have a single winner.

                        Let's not forget ... as you mention the MM matrix changes ... the largest jackpot ever hit was with the "older" MM matrix ... they had a winner system but they wanted "more" and got less!

                        CW

                          LottoMetro's avatar - Lottery-024.jpg
                          Happyland
                          United States
                          Member #146344
                          September 1, 2013
                          1129 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: December 17, 2014, 1:31 pm - IP Logged

                          "They have to be able to fund the jackpot and setting minimum starting/rollover points higher increases the liability during low-jackpot cycles."

                          That's offset somewhat by the increased odds. Monopoly MC definitely burned them badly by having a jackpot winner with far fewer tickets sold than probability suggests, but the risk is pretty low for PB. They'll occasionally pay out more than they collect, but just a single drawing for an advertised jackpot of $500 million will make up for several underfunded jackpots.

                          Would you rather collect 47% profit on sales of $2.3 billion or 50% profit on $2 billion?

                          Of course they could still end up with less profit overall if sales really stagnate based on the new format. It seems to me that, yet again, they're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. I don't think that's worked out very well for MM, and the new PB will have odds that are even worse.

                          On the upside, the high odds make it that much more likely that a huge jackpot will have a single winner.

                          It seems to me that, yet again, they're trying to fix something that wasn't broken.

                          The problem is that, in their eyes, it IS broken. Sales are so bad that pretty much every state is suffering. For instance, South Dakota Lottery relies on Powerball for 50% of their total revenue. Ultimately that's a diversification issue, but it just goes to show how much these states are dependent on jackpot-driven games.

                          If you read some of the lottery commission notes concerning sales for any given jurisdiction, PB and MM jackpots are usually the highlight. They happily report sales when jackpots consistently drive them, but their reports are despondent when there are no big jackpots to spur sales.

                          I think the days of keeping one matrix for several years are going to be gone. I heard that they plan to change PB every 3 years now.

                          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

                            Avatar
                            NEW YORK
                            United States
                            Member #90535
                            April 29, 2010
                            11978 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: December 17, 2014, 3:22 pm - IP Logged

                            The matrix change is also about getting the people who currently play frequently to quit.

                            All I will say is 285,000,000 to 1?  Bl0w me!

                            1 in 286 Million is better than ZERO. Green laugh

                            US Flag

                            PLAY THE LOTTERY SOMEDAY-IT IS OKAY TO DREAM!

                              Avatar
                              NEW YORK
                              United States
                              Member #90535
                              April 29, 2010
                              11978 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: December 17, 2014, 3:30 pm - IP Logged

                              It seems to me that, yet again, they're trying to fix something that wasn't broken.

                              The problem is that, in their eyes, it IS broken. Sales are so bad that pretty much every state is suffering. For instance, South Dakota Lottery relies on Powerball for 50% of their total revenue. Ultimately that's a diversification issue, but it just goes to show how much these states are dependent on jackpot-driven games.

                              If you read some of the lottery commission notes concerning sales for any given jurisdiction, PB and MM jackpots are usually the highlight. They happily report sales when jackpots consistently drive them, but their reports are despondent when there are no big jackpots to spur sales.

                              I think the days of keeping one matrix for several years are going to be gone. I heard that they plan to change PB every 3 years now.

                              Buying 1 lottery ticket is not a bad deal, but you have to realize these lottery games odds are approaching the size of the USA population.

                              US Flag

                              PLAY THE LOTTERY SOMEDAY-IT IS OKAY TO DREAM!

                                 
                                Page 6 of 16