|Posted: January 20, 2016, 4:41 pm - IP Logged|
Yeah but the first one could have been the "fluke" also. The harder odds seems to favor more up in that range over time. I highly doubt it will be only 3 in 10 years. They will change the matrix again if they don't see it going up more often. We will definitely be seeing it in the middle to upper hundred millions more often.
"As hard as it is to win it seems logical and more "probable" now than before."
Of course it is, but that's not what you said earlier. Murgatroyd said billion dollar jackpots are likely to happen 2 or 3 times per decade, and you said that you think they'll be "much more frequent than that now".
"I highly doubt it will be only 3 in 10 years."
You can doubt it as much as you like, but that doesn't change reality. You've obviously got no clue about the actual probability. If you think I can't prove that it's unlikely to be more common than that you must not understand probability at all. The numbers are different, but calculating the chances of a billion dollar jackpot is the same as calculating the chances of getting 6 heads in a row.
"first one could have been the "fluke" also."
Just more proof that you don't actually know. You think it might or might not have been a fluke, but you don't have the knowledge to do anything more than make an uninformed guess. It's about the same as saying that you think that 2+2 is pretty close to 5.
"they changed the matrix was to create Billion dollar jackpots"
They changed the matrix in the hopes of increasing total ticket sales. They don't actually care how big the jackpots are, except for marketing hype and the correlation between sales and the size of the jackpot.