Why does it have to be so impossible to win the lottery?Prev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

shyguitar

United States
Member #122,462
February 1, 2012
530 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 7:43 am

Hi everyone,

i have been coming to this site for a long time and appreciate all of Todd's hard work in creating a site like this and how hard it must be to maintain this site daily. Why does the lottery need to continue to change the matrix on games like MM and soon PB? It was already impossible to win the jackpot and even impossible to win the second prize. Before the matrix change I played MM more but having to get 5 numbers out of 75 numbers makes it truly impossible to get a second place prize. I never really expected to hit the main jackpot and was always striving for the 2nd place prize on MM and PB but making the game impossible for myself and everyone else just seems so unfair. The lottery is all about keeping revenues and not about being fair to players. Realize no one is making us play but why can't the odds be better for more people to have a chance to win the 2nd prize on PB and MM. It's not just draw games but scratchers too. Even though I've stayed on budget, the times through the years that I played scratchers, the most I won was 200 dollars on a ticket. More losers than winners and even a win would most likely just be the price I paid for that ticket. Would it really hurt the lottery if they were more fair to it's players? The lottery has revenues in the billions and more people might play if the odds of winning were better so it would still be a win for lotteries. Will continue to play but my realism is back to the forefront and I can play for the rest of my life and most likely never win more than a few hundred dollars.
RJOh

100

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

Sep 27, 2015, 8:28 am

Your question should be "why do people like to play games they think are impossible to win" when there are plenty of local games with better odds and smaller prizes.

States join MM and PB because they know their large jackpots will attract players and hope those players will also play the local games. If MM and PB were easier to win then they couldn't generate those large jackpots and without large jackpots there would be no reason for them to exist.

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

100

Texas
United States
Member #55,887
October 23, 2007
17,730 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 9:13 am

Quote: Originally posted by shyguitar on Sep 27, 2015
Hi everyone,

i have been coming to this site for a long time and appreciate all of Todd's hard work in creating a site like this and how hard it must be to maintain this site daily. Why does the lottery need to continue to change the matrix on games like MM and soon PB? It was already impossible to win the jackpot and even impossible to win the second prize. Before the matrix change I played MM more but having to get 5 numbers out of 75 numbers makes it truly impossible to get a second place prize. I never really expected to hit the main jackpot and was always striving for the 2nd place prize on MM and PB but making the game impossible for myself and everyone else just seems so unfair. The lottery is all about keeping revenues and not about being fair to players. Realize no one is making us play but why can't the odds be better for more people to have a chance to win the 2nd prize on PB and MM. It's not just draw games but scratchers too. Even though I've stayed on budget, the times through the years that I played scratchers, the most I won was 200 dollars on a ticket. More losers than winners and even a win would most likely just be the price I paid for that ticket. Would it really hurt the lottery if they were more fair to it's players? The lottery has revenues in the billions and more people might play if the odds of winning were better so it would still be a win for lotteries. Will continue to play but my realism is back to the forefront and I can play for the rest of my life and most likely never win more than a few hundred dollars.

There's plenty of games to play that are easier to win. The jackpots or payouts may not be millions, but if you want millions, then naturally it's going to be harder to win.

CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)
zephbe

South Carolina
United States
Member #77,165
July 15, 2009
946 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 9:13 am

Your question should be "why do people like to play games they think are impossible to win" when there are plenty of local games with better odds and smaller prizes.
GoogilyMoogily

United States
Member #35,334
March 16, 2006
238 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 10:29 am

Quote: Originally posted by shyguitar on Sep 27, 2015
Hi everyone,

i have been coming to this site for a long time and appreciate all of Todd's hard work in creating a site like this and how hard it must be to maintain this site daily. Why does the lottery need to continue to change the matrix on games like MM and soon PB? It was already impossible to win the jackpot and even impossible to win the second prize. Before the matrix change I played MM more but having to get 5 numbers out of 75 numbers makes it truly impossible to get a second place prize. I never really expected to hit the main jackpot and was always striving for the 2nd place prize on MM and PB but making the game impossible for myself and everyone else just seems so unfair. The lottery is all about keeping revenues and not about being fair to players. Realize no one is making us play but why can't the odds be better for more people to have a chance to win the 2nd prize on PB and MM. It's not just draw games but scratchers too. Even though I've stayed on budget, the times through the years that I played scratchers, the most I won was 200 dollars on a ticket. More losers than winners and even a win would most likely just be the price I paid for that ticket. Would it really hurt the lottery if they were more fair to it's players? The lottery has revenues in the billions and more people might play if the odds of winning were better so it would still be a win for lotteries. Will continue to play but my realism is back to the forefront and I can play for the rest of my life and most likely never win more than a few hundred dollars.

Excitement at 9 digit jackpots has faded.

The daily pick 3 typically pays 500 on odds of 1:1000 (000-999). Depends on where you play, legal or otherwise I suppose. We all know this and it's awesome odds if you ask me. Theoretically, over time you can only win back half of what you play. Whoops, forgot taxes. Yikes. I'm not going to make a living or retire playing the daily. It's like a Toyota, in that it's common, dependable and predictable. I'm not saying predictable in what the numbers will be, but predictable-ish in the payout. Cold and hot streaks aside, it all balances out. I always see people playing stacks of daily numbers. Getting gas at the same gas station at roughly the same time of day after work, you tend to see the same people playing the daily as a regular thing. It brings in steady revenue to the state, but little else from what I've read.

Playing Megamillions (my fave, still a buck) at odds of 1:258,890,850 has astronomically bad odds for winning, but the windfall can be absolutely life changing. My theory is that playing $1 per draw (twice a week), means I'm sure to hit MM at least once in a little over 129 million weeks (~2.5 million years). I can cut that down to winning once every 1/2 million years by playing $5 per draw. Ha ha, foolproof or foolish retirement plan? Foolish for sure. It's like the world's fastest race car in it's rarity, excitement and danger. People show up in droves at the lottery sellers when record level jackpots arrive. Thus, if people lose interest in the routine $300 million plus draws, the lotto has little choice but to ramp up the odds to increase the jackpots and keep people interested/playing. Can you imagine the mayhem when a lotto hits $1 billion plus in the US? I will make one prediction about that lotto draw: record numbers of people will call in sick to stand in hours long lines to buy hundreds of QP/EP tickets, even people that have never played before.

Not related, but the most money I've ever won is playing horses at the track. Short legs for sprints. Long legs for distance. Lightweight jockey. Got it. Watching the horses warm up is 90% of my method. I watched a trainer punch a favored horse once. Kept that to myself teehee. I bet against that horse and won big time lol. Probably never happen again. It was a bad day for the horse but a good day for me.

Here's my perspective:

If I paid $1 for a chance to win the daily, it's like paying $1 at the door, going into a 25x40 foot room (1000 sq ft), and standing on the correct tile to win. That's not so bad. I can see that.

Contrast that tiny room against paying $1 for a chance to win MM, you pay the same $1 at the door, but now you walk into a room that is a little over 3 miles square (~5 km), then standing on the correct tile to win. What? It would take me one hour just to walk to the other corner of the room! Yupp. Kinda depressing odds if you ask me. If I were in one corner, and somebody in the opposite corner, would I even see their feet considering curvature of the Earth? Still, at a bargain $1 compared to greedy ole Powerball at $2, I still play. (5280 ft/mi * 3.05mi)^2 is roughly equal to the odds of MM. I hardly see people play the jackpot games much, unless it's a record, then there will be line for sure.
bigbear29

United States
Member #145,261
August 1, 2013
1,740 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 12:17 pm

Hi shyguitar, the lottery is a business to make money and tax money for the state. It is not design to put money into the pockets of the people. And yes, it is an extremely unfair game. Do you remember for your state when they was promoting the lottery, the big seller was, schools will benefit from the lottery. And in most places the schools are not benefiting from the lottery. Unless you live in a rich area where the schools do not need the money.
Raven62

25

New Jersey
United States
Member #17,842
June 28, 2005
180,983 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 12:21 pm

Quote: Originally posted by zephbe on Sep 27, 2015
Your question should be "why do people like to play games they think are impossible to win" when there are plenty of local games with better odds and smaller prizes.

An avid desire for the gain of wealth!

At the U.N.: Pope Condemns Greed!

A mind once stretched by a new idea never returns to its original dimensions!

Catch-22: A dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges: When the republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous.

The best way to learn is to never stop being an Experiential Student!
bigbear29

United States
Member #145,261
August 1, 2013
1,740 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 12:25 pm

The Pope might as well go home instead of changing the greed mentality in the United States. The United States grow on greed and it will fail on greed.
CDanaT

Central TN
United States
Member #121,187
January 4, 2012
7,760 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 2:26 pm

Quote: Originally posted by bigbear29 on Sep 27, 2015
The Pope might as well go home instead of changing the greed mentality in the United States. The United States grow on greed and it will fail on greed.

The USA and its greed ??? hmmmm Interesting, gotta look this up. So I went to the global humanitarian assistance dot org site and found these statistics;
In 2013
United States of America gave a total of $30.9 Billion in assistance
UK gave $17. 7 Billion Assistance
United Arab Emerates gave 5.1 Billion
China GAVE & RECIEVED 6.6 Billion
Russia gave $543 Million-----WITH AN M not a B

Well crap, lets go to our neighbors to the north and the south shall we ?

Canada gave $5 Billion
Mexico gave $ OH CRAP, it doesn't show they gave anything !

Other Countries;
Saudi Arabia gave in 2012 $ 1.3 Billion
India GAVE & RECIEVED $ 1.1 Billion
European Union gave $15.2 Billion

So the USA gives more than double(except the U.K but its close to double) and certainly 5 or 6 or 25 times as much as some the above named countries and we have "greed mentality" ???

I don't claim this site is the end all and exact right down to the penny but I do find it interesting that it doesn't claim to be funded by the"greed mentality" of the USA.
*** GHA is funded by Canada,Netherlands,Sweden and U.K***According to their website.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.
jjtheprince

United States
Member #106,129
February 13, 2011
806 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 3:21 pm

They have to make it harder to keep the games from going bankrupt. It's way too easy for winners to win.
rcbbuckeye

100

Texas
United States
Member #55,887
October 23, 2007
17,730 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 4:41 pm

Quote: Originally posted by CDanaT on Sep 27, 2015
The USA and its greed ??? hmmmm Interesting, gotta look this up. So I went to the global humanitarian assistance dot org site and found these statistics;
In 2013
United States of America gave a total of $30.9 Billion in assistance
UK gave $17. 7 Billion Assistance
United Arab Emerates gave 5.1 Billion
China GAVE & RECIEVED 6.6 Billion
Russia gave $543 Million-----WITH AN M not a B

Well crap, lets go to our neighbors to the north and the south shall we ?

Canada gave $5 Billion
Mexico gave $ OH CRAP, it doesn't show they gave anything !

Other Countries;
Saudi Arabia gave in 2012 $ 1.3 Billion
India GAVE & RECIEVED $ 1.1 Billion
European Union gave $15.2 Billion

So the USA gives more than double(except the U.K but its close to double) and certainly 5 or 6 or 25 times as much as some the above named countries and we have "greed mentality" ???

I don't claim this site is the end all and exact right down to the penny but I do find it interesting that it doesn't claim to be funded by the"greed mentality" of the USA.
*** GHA is funded by Canada,Netherlands,Sweden and U.K***According to their website.

Lol. Hey Dana youre letting facts get in the way of his bs.

CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)
CDanaT

Central TN
United States
Member #121,187
January 4, 2012
7,760 Posts
Offline

Sep 27, 2015, 5:07 pm

Quote: Originally posted by rcbbuckeye on Sep 27, 2015
Lol. Hey Dana youre letting facts get in the way of his bs.

Perhaps he's just ....just....how does Obama put that ? Oh yeah, now I remember....Misspoke
That's it, he misspoke.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.
RJOh

100

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

Sep 27, 2015, 5:42 pm

Quote: Originally posted by jjtheprince on Sep 27, 2015
They have to make it harder to keep the games from going bankrupt. It's way too easy for winners to win.

It always looks easier for winners but before they won it was just as hard for them to win as the losers.

* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
Stack47

Kentucky
United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,301 Posts
Offline

Sep 28, 2015, 12:14 am

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Sep 27, 2015
Your question should be "why do people like to play games they think are impossible to win" when there are plenty of local games with better odds and smaller prizes.

States join MM and PB because they know their large jackpots will attract players and hope those players will also play the local games. If MM and PB were easier to win then they couldn't generate those large jackpots and without large jackpots there would be no reason for them to exist.

The last time I looked the odds of winning a Ohio Classic Lotto jackpot is much better than winning $1 million playing MM. Complaining about it must be some type of a personal reverse psychology thing.
KY Floyd

NY
United States
Member #23,834
October 16, 2005
4,771 Posts
Offline

Sep 28, 2015, 12:55 am

Quote: Originally posted by CDanaT on Sep 27, 2015
The USA and its greed ??? hmmmm Interesting, gotta look this up. So I went to the global humanitarian assistance dot org site and found these statistics;
In 2013
United States of America gave a total of $30.9 Billion in assistance
UK gave $17. 7 Billion Assistance
United Arab Emerates gave 5.1 Billion
China GAVE & RECIEVED 6.6 Billion
Russia gave $543 Million-----WITH AN M not a B

Well crap, lets go to our neighbors to the north and the south shall we ?

Canada gave $5 Billion
Mexico gave $ OH CRAP, it doesn't show they gave anything !

Other Countries;
Saudi Arabia gave in 2012 $ 1.3 Billion
India GAVE & RECIEVED $ 1.1 Billion
European Union gave $15.2 Billion

So the USA gives more than double(except the U.K but its close to double) and certainly 5 or 6 or 25 times as much as some the above named countries and we have "greed mentality" ???

I don't claim this site is the end all and exact right down to the penny but I do find it interesting that it doesn't claim to be funded by the"greed mentality" of the USA.
*** GHA is funded by Canada,Netherlands,Sweden and U.K***According to their website.

Here. I fixed your data.

United Arab Emirates $540 per person
UK gave $279 per person
Canada gave $141 per person
United States of America gave a total of $96 per person

I also showed it by GDP, but that doesn't change the order.

United Arab Emirates gave 1.27% of GDP
UK gave 0.66% of GDP
Canada gave 0.27% of GDP
United States of America gave 0.18% of GDP

On the bright side, what we lack in greed we make up for in stupidity.

New Topic New Poll

Subscribe to this topic

Why does it have to be so impossible to win the lottery?Prev TopicNext Topic

Why does it have to be so impossible to win the lottery?Prev Topic Next Topic