Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 9, 2016, 9:55 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Increasing draw numbers

Topic closed. 4 replies. Last post 11 months ago by SergeM.

Page 1 of 1
51
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
New Member
San Tan Valley arizona
United States
Member #172421
January 24, 2016
1 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 24, 2016, 10:11 am - IP Logged

While we are selecting winning numbers from the amount now available for selection on that recent power ball prize it's self explanatory why the prize got so ridiculously high. When this scenario happened with the UK lottery the format was so unpopular with the public they later reverted the game back to fewer numbers which still gave a worthwhile prize after a moderate number of rollovers. After all most people who play the lottery are needy not greedy. Lets face it nobody needs over a billion for lifelong security.When the top prize becomes half a billion it would be a better idea to then top up the lower prizes with the surplus. While statisticians claim there is more chance of being struck by a meteorite than winning the current jackpot it gives you some idea of how the odds are stacked against you. Has a consensus with the lottery playing public ever been taken on this issue? It would be interesting to to have an evaluation or a vote taken to get an answer on this. As a matured person with over 50 years of speculative gambling behind me  I don't think i have enough years left to accumulate my losses with the present odds. Selecting from 69 numbers is a daunting task.

Terry

    Avatar
    South Carolina
    United States
    Member #18322
    July 9, 2005
    1707 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 24, 2016, 11:31 am - IP Logged

    While we are selecting winning numbers from the amount now available for selection on that recent power ball prize it's self explanatory why the prize got so ridiculously high. When this scenario happened with the UK lottery the format was so unpopular with the public they later reverted the game back to fewer numbers which still gave a worthwhile prize after a moderate number of rollovers. After all most people who play the lottery are needy not greedy. Lets face it nobody needs over a billion for lifelong security.When the top prize becomes half a billion it would be a better idea to then top up the lower prizes with the surplus. While statisticians claim there is more chance of being struck by a meteorite than winning the current jackpot it gives you some idea of how the odds are stacked against you. Has a consensus with the lottery playing public ever been taken on this issue? It would be interesting to to have an evaluation or a vote taken to get an answer on this. As a matured person with over 50 years of speculative gambling behind me  I don't think i have enough years left to accumulate my losses with the present odds. Selecting from 69 numbers is a daunting task.

    Terry

    You should post this in the Discussion forum. You can create a "poll" thread yourself to ask this question.  The Suggestions forum is for suggestions to TODD to consider making certain changes, improvements or upgrades to the Lottery Post website, that Todd might deem necessary.

      Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
      Chief Bottle Washer
      New Jersey
      United States
      Member #1
      May 31, 2000
      23275 Posts
      Online
      Posted: January 24, 2016, 12:08 pm - IP Logged

      <Moved to Jackpot Games forum>

      Please post in the appropriate forum ... thank you.

        rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
        Texas
        United States
        Member #55889
        October 23, 2007
        5615 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 24, 2016, 4:45 pm - IP Logged

        While we are selecting winning numbers from the amount now available for selection on that recent power ball prize it's self explanatory why the prize got so ridiculously high. When this scenario happened with the UK lottery the format was so unpopular with the public they later reverted the game back to fewer numbers which still gave a worthwhile prize after a moderate number of rollovers. After all most people who play the lottery are needy not greedy. Lets face it nobody needs over a billion for lifelong security.When the top prize becomes half a billion it would be a better idea to then top up the lower prizes with the surplus. While statisticians claim there is more chance of being struck by a meteorite than winning the current jackpot it gives you some idea of how the odds are stacked against you. Has a consensus with the lottery playing public ever been taken on this issue? It would be interesting to to have an evaluation or a vote taken to get an answer on this. As a matured person with over 50 years of speculative gambling behind me  I don't think i have enough years left to accumulate my losses with the present odds. Selecting from 69 numbers is a daunting task.

        Terry

        The consensus was taken in the form of falling sales. That's why MUSL changed the matrix which resulted in the highest jackpot ever which resulted in massive ticket sales. People don't get excited over 100 million dollar jackpots anymore. And the game that was invented to create more million dollar winners failed massively.

        CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

        A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)

          SergeM's avatar - slow icon.png
          Economy class
          Belgium
          Member #123700
          February 27, 2012
          4035 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 24, 2016, 6:10 pm - IP Logged

          When they launched EuroMillions, people stopped playing the national lotto.

          EM: 5/50 + 2/9 for 2 EUR
          LO: 6+R/42 for 0.50 EUR

          The payouts for the lotto were good in the small prices and I won relatively often.
          It was affordable, for a cup of coffee in the center I would play 4 lines.

          1 line of EM = 4 lines of Lotto

          A few years later:

          EM: 5/50 + 2/11 for 2 EUR
          LO: 6+F/45 for 1 EUR

          Lotto payouts went down, the chances to win money got less. The chances to win any price went up by 1 percent, but the payouts suck. Your chances diminished by 50%, as the price doubled. +1% -50% = around 49% worse?

          ...

          The better game was killed.