91–100 of 191 posts
I wish lotteries handed out many $1M prizes instead of giving $250M to one person. People understand what to do with $1M (I think) but most people are ruined by $250M.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason they don't do that is marketing; more people play for big jackpot. I think even saying there might 250 $1 million winners this week isn't as big of an enticement.
When the jackpot reached a certain amount, say 500 million, they could switch from a winner takes all to essentially a raffle with 500 winners. I think it would greatly increase the number of tickets purchased when the threshold was met.
I wish lotteries handed out many $1M prizes instead of giving $250M to one person. People understand what to do with $1M (I think) but most people are ruined by $250M.
That thrill is only there when the jackpot is at $1B.
I wish lotteries handed out many $1M prizes instead of giving $250M to one person. People understand what to do with $1M (I think) but most people are ruined by $250M.
Everywhere, people say they prefer lotteries where there are more prizes with smaller wins, instead of one winner with huge jackpot. But also everywhere, their actual bahaviour is that when there is one big jackpot, they bet more. And those who arrange lotteries do know their business.
I wish lotteries handed out many $1M prizes instead of giving $250M to one person. People understand what to do with $1M (I think) but most people are ruined by $250M.
Everywhere, people say they prefer lotteries where there are more prizes with smaller wins, instead of one winner with huge jackpot. But also everywhere, their actual bahaviour is that when there is one big jackpot, they bet more. And those who arrange lotteries do know their business.
Love hearing stories like this where people gained because of some loophole. Does anyone know if there is a compilation somewhere of these? See also: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-mint-ends-the-dollar-coin...
There is a story similar to the dollar coin gig to earn reward miles. A long time ago when plastic gift cards were first a thing, stores didn't have a way to update the balance. The scheme would be to buy a $100 gift card from Walmart using your credit card (getting the miles). You would then use the gift card to buy a $0.35 pack of gum. Since the store couldn't update the balance, they would give you cash as change.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the irony is that from the organizer's point of view, it's essentially working as intended. The "windfall" mechanic was supposed to make rollovers more enticing by increasing the payout amounts for everyone. The only reason to make a lottery more enticing is to sell more tickets. So they sold more tickets, and made more payouts on lesser tickets. Exactly as they planned. The lottery doesn't actually lose out…
I don't understand why this is an issue since each drawing's odds are independent. Perhaps I don't understand how these pools work.
So there's a collectivism that goes into a growing pot. This is the only thing that really makes a "rollover" enticing to players. If each draw was an isolated incident, the "windfall" mechanic the article describes would be in place for every draw. So a collective pitches in, and the pot is distributed amongst the collective's members (the players) according to how successful each ticket is. So if there's no 6-number winners, there's more left in the pot for the 5-number winners. If there's 5-number winners, there's more left in the pot for the 4-number winners, etc.
(Either that, or the house makes out like bandits. State lotteries are usually regulated to keep a distinction between the pot and the profit, hence such pot-emptying mechanisms.)
But if the pot rolls over - it's not distributed, but added to the pot for the next draw - you now have more than one collective. One collective that's contributed to the pot (over n draws), and one collective that participates in the winning game (over 1 draw). And if there's a significant disconnect between the two, then yes - as one commenter put it, sour grapes. It's the difference between feeling like you've lost a fair game, and feeling like you've been hustled.
Technically it makes zero difference. But if it makes people less inclined to play in future, then it's bad for the long-term health of the game.
Love hearing stories like this where people gained because of some loophole. Does anyone know if there is a compilation somewhere of these? See also: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-mint-ends-the-dollar-coin...
There is a story similar to the dollar coin gig to earn reward miles. A long time ago when plastic gift cards were first a thing, stores didn't have a way to update the balance. The scheme would be to buy a $100 gift card from Walmart using your credit card (getting the miles). You would then use the gift card to buy a $0.35 pack of gum. Since the store couldn't update the balance, they would give you cash as change.…
Now, gift cards operate more like limited credit cards.
The paper's reporting revealed that two groups were dominating Cash Winfall: the Selbee gang from Evart, Michigan, and their competition, a syndicate led by math majors from MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These were kids young enough to be the Selbees' grandchildren. Incredibly, the MIT group bet between $17 and $18 million on Cash Winfall over a seven-year period, earning at least $3.5 million in pr…