Anyone play the Lottery?

[chaze]

If so what kind mega fantasy 5?

I have an awesome idea for lotto players.

[Jarmusch]

The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.

[L-Pink]

Winning the lottery is my retirement plan.

.

[Zorgman]

I play OZLotto and Powerball (Australian Lotto). Won a bit and will keep playing.

[Due]

I don't but looking at the recent emails I'm getting I'm winning all the time !!!!

[bronco67]

It's gambling for retards. It's the reason I have to stand in line at the convenience store to buy a newspaper, because some mouth-breather is buying lottery and scratch tickets.

[topsiteking]

Originally Posted by bronco67

It's gambling for retards. It's the reason I have to stand in line at the convenience store to buy a newspaper, because some mouth-breather is buying lottery and scratch tickets.

[Ron Bennett]

Originally Posted by bronco67

It's gambling for retards. It's the reason I have to stand in line at the convenience store to buy a newspaper, because some mouth-breather is buying lottery and scratch tickets.

Or, perhaps, your local convenience store should get with the times and get an on-line self-service lottery terminal.

For example, Pennsylvania have on-line self-service units that can dispense instant tickets, number game tickets, and redeem smaller winning tickets.

Ron

[Ron Bennett]

Originally Posted by Jarmusch

The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.

Perhaps, but then consider what the combined life-time odds are of a low income person accumulating any real meaningful wealth over their lifetime. Note my emphasis above ... I'll get to why in more detail in a moment.

What are the odds of a low income person accumulating $1,000,000, after taxes, etc, in 2011 dollars over their lifetime...

And to make matters worse, one needs to adjust for inflation and dollar devaluation along with taxes that reduce annual yield, so the actual amount would be far higher; ie. in 30 years, one might need to save upwards of $10,000,000 to reach that milestone.

How realistic is that really? What are the odds of accumulating that much money over a lifetime working low to average paying jobs - most jobs today pay $20 or less per hour, offer very limited benefits. And consider the cost of living is rising far faster than wages.

In short, the odds of accumulating any decent amount of wealth over a lifetime is relatively tiny for most people.

Now at this point, one may think, sure ok, but the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical. And that's true per play, but combined play over a lifetime greatly improves the odds of getting a large payday.

Not talking PowerBall or MegaMillions per se, but rather lottery games, such as Fantasy 5, Cash 5, and 5-digit games (ie. PA's Quinto, DC's DC5, etc) that have high, but not insane odds, such as say between 1 in 100,000 and 1 in 1,000,000. Also, included in that would be instant tickets - many of the higher domination ones have top prizes with odds in a similar range.

Rambling on ... here are some real life examples to consider - all are based on PA Lottery http://www.palottery.state.pa.us/

Cash 5 ... odds of hitting jackpot is 1 in 962,598 with typical payout of $225,000 - $500,000. Cost $1 per play. Play $35 week (5 different sets of numbers per drawing) over 10 years (~18,260 plays) and the combined odds drops to around 1 in 53 ... that's not so impossible.

Quinto (5-digit game) ... odds of hitting jackpot is 1 in 100,000 with fixed payout of $50,000 per $1 wagered. Play $5 once per day on the same number for a $250,000 payout; $35 per week over 10 years (~3,652 plays) and the combined odds drop to around 1 in 27 ... that's very much possible.

$20 dollar instant tickets, such as Casino Cash - http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/dat...1-28/1148.html

Odds of winning $1,000,000 is 1 in 960,000. Play 2 $20 tickets per week; 104 over one year and the combined odds is 1 in 9230. Not so great, but then that's only for one year ...

Also, unlike the number games above, many instant games have relatively high non-jackpot prizes too. I mention instant tickets, because while their top jackpot odds per dollar wagered tend to be worse than numbers games, the overall percentage payout is often better at 70% verses 50% for number games - that can matter for some players who seek a big payout, but are also ok with winning smaller prizes too, and disciplined enough to save those payouts instead of buying lots more tickets.

In summary, contrast the odds of a low income person accumulating $250,000 over 10 years compared to the combined odds of winning a jackpot prize of around $250,000 in the first two examples above of 1 in 53 and 1 in 27 respectively. I'd wager a low income, disciplined lottery player has a far better chance of winning such a sum in the lottery than earning / saving it.

Ron

[moeloubani]

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

Perhaps, but then consider what the combined life-time odds are of a low income person accumulating any real meaningful wealth over their lifetime. Note my emphasis above ... I'll get to why in more detail in a moment.

What are the odds of a low income person accumulating $1,000,000, after taxes, etc, in 2011 dollars over their lifetime...

And to make matters worse, one needs to adjust for inflation and dollar devaluation along with taxes that reduce annual yield, so the actual amount would be far higher; ie. in 30 years, one might need to save upwards of $10,000,000 to reach that milestone.

How realistic is that really? What are the odds of accumulating that much money over a lifetime working low to average paying jobs - most jobs today pay $20 or less per hour, offer very limited benefits. And consider the cost of living is rising far faster than wages.

In short, the odds of accumulating any decent amount of wealth over a lifetime is relatively tiny for most people.

Now at this point, one may think, sure ok, but the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical. And that's true per play, but combined play over a lifetime greatly improves the odds of getting a large payday.

Not talking PowerBall or MegaMillions per se, but rather lottery games, such as Fantasy 5, Cash 5, and 5-digit games (ie. PA's Quinto, DC's DC5, etc) that have high, but not insane odds, such as say between 1 in 100,000 and 1 in 1,000,000. Also, included in that would be instant tickets - many of the higher domination ones have top prizes with odds in a similar range.

Rambling on ... here are some real life examples to consider - all are based on PA Lottery http://www.palottery.state.pa.us/

Cash 5 ... odds of hitting jackpot is 1 in 962,598 with typical payout of $225,000 - $500,000. Cost $1 per play. Play $35 week (5 different sets of numbers per drawing) over 10 years (~18,260 plays) and the combined odds drops to around 1 in 53 ... that's not so impossible.

Quinto (5-digit game) ... odds of hitting jackpot is 1 in 100,000 with fixed payout of $50,000 per $1 wagered. Play $5 once per day on the same number for a $250,000 payout; $35 per week over 10 years (~3,652 plays) and the combined odds drop to around 1 in 27 ... that's very much possible.

$20 dollar instant tickets, such as Casino Cash - http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/dat...1-28/1148.html

Odds of winning $1,000,000 is 1 in 960,000. Play 2 $20 tickets per week; 104 over one year and the combined odds is 1 in 9230. Not so great, but then that's only for one year ...

Also, unlike the number games above, many instant games have relatively high non-jackpot prizes too. I mention instant tickets, because while their top jackpot odds per dollar wagered tend to be worse than numbers games, the overall percentage payout is often better at 70% verses 50% for number games - that can matter for some players who seek a big payout, but are also ok with winning smaller prizes too, and disciplined enough to save those payouts instead of buying lots more tickets.

In summary, contrast the odds of a low income person accumulating $250,000 over 10 years compared to the combined odds of winning a jackpot prize of around $250,000 in the first two examples above of 1 in 53 and 1 in 27 respectively. I'd wager a low income, disciplined lottery player has a far better chance of winning such a sum in the lottery than earning / saving it.

Ron

So you think that wagering $18,000 for a 1 in 27 odds of winning $50,000 is a good bet?

[cooldude7]

i used to play super lotto, but never won anything so, i quit.

[Zorgman]

Originally Posted by bronco67

It's gambling for retards. It's the reason I have to stand in line at the convenience store to buy a newspaper, because some mouth-breather is buying lottery and scratch tickets.

I hate that too, but now I can play online and no have to wait in line.

[Ron Bennett]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

So you think that wagering $18,000 for a 1 in 27 odds of winning $50,000 is a good bet?

Firstly, the 1 in 27 odds is to win $250,000! Please re-read what I wrote - Quinto has a fixed payout of $50,000 per dollar bet ... a person who wagers $5 on the same number could potentially win $250,000. With that out of the way...

Yes, for a low income person, spread out over 10 years, 1 in 27 to win $250,000 is a better wager than the odds of accumulating $250,000 in that same time-span.

Sure there's no guarantee when playing the lottery, but it gives many hope ... and that alone means a lot, in particular, for low income people who have little hope of moving up with the economic odds stacked against them even worse than such lottery odds.

Here's a hypothetical to consider ... say a person earning $30,000 per year who saves 20% of that; $6,000 of that annually ... overly optimistic, but certainly realistic.

10 years X $6,000 = $60,000

Now lets say they invest it all and earn 7% per year (not likely these days, but certainly possible) ... at the end of 10 years, they will have accumulated around $90,000. But that assumes they can afford to save 20% of their income and will earn 7% or so yield on it per year ... possible, but not likely. And more to the point, even in such a rosy scenario, that low income person is still far short of $250,000.

To be clear, one shouldn't rely on the lottery for savings, but treat it as a sizable extra bonus that, admittedly, with small, but over long periods of time, realistic odds could happen; gives people hope.

Ron

[chaze]

My idea is what if you can organize a huge group of people that play the lottery together?

I started a domain http://www.lotteryteams.com

I want to have a way for people to team up with other locals to buy tickets in bulk for the lottery.

[Wizzo]

I buy one ticket, just because mathematically no one should win yet someone always does...

[BestXXXPorn]

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

Perhaps, but then consider what the combined life-time odds are of a low income person accumulating any real meaningful wealth over their lifetime. Note my emphasis above ... I'll get to why in more detail in a moment.

What are the odds of a low income person accumulating $1,000,000, after taxes, etc, in 2011 dollars over their lifetime...

And to make matters worse, one needs to adjust for inflation and dollar devaluation along with taxes that reduce annual yield, so the actual amount would be far higher; ie. in 30 years, one might need to save upwards of $10,000,000 to reach that milestone.

How realistic is that really? What are the odds of accumulating that much money over a lifetime working low to average paying jobs - most jobs today pay $20 or less per hour, offer very limited benefits. And consider the cost of living is rising far faster than wages.

In short, the odds of accumulating any decent amount of wealth over a lifetime is relatively tiny for most people.

Now at this point, one may think, sure ok, but the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical. And that's true per play, but combined play over a lifetime greatly improves the odds of getting a large payday.

Not talking PowerBall or MegaMillions per se, but rather lottery games, such as Fantasy 5, Cash 5, and 5-digit games (ie. PA's Quinto, DC's DC5, etc) that have high, but not insane odds, such as say between 1 in 100,000 and 1 in 1,000,000. Also, included in that would be instant tickets - many of the higher domination ones have top prizes with odds in a similar range.

Rambling on ... here are some real life examples to consider - all are based on PA Lottery http://www.palottery.state.pa.us/

Cash 5 ... odds of hitting jackpot is 1 in 962,598 with typical payout of $225,000 - $500,000. Cost $1 per play. Play $35 week (5 different sets of numbers per drawing) over 10 years (~18,260 plays) and the combined odds drops to around 1 in 53 ... that's not so impossible.

Quinto (5-digit game) ... odds of hitting jackpot is 1 in 100,000 with fixed payout of $50,000 per $1 wagered. Play $5 once per day on the same number for a $250,000 payout; $35 per week over 10 years (~3,652 plays) and the combined odds drop to around 1 in 27 ... that's very much possible.

$20 dollar instant tickets, such as Casino Cash - http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/dat...1-28/1148.html

Odds of winning $1,000,000 is 1 in 960,000. Play 2 $20 tickets per week; 104 over one year and the combined odds is 1 in 9230. Not so great, but then that's only for one year ...

Also, unlike the number games above, many instant games have relatively high non-jackpot prizes too. I mention instant tickets, because while their top jackpot odds per dollar wagered tend to be worse than numbers games, the overall percentage payout is often better at 70% verses 50% for number games - that can matter for some players who seek a big payout, but are also ok with winning smaller prizes too, and disciplined enough to save those payouts instead of buying lots more tickets.

In summary, contrast the odds of a low income person accumulating $250,000 over 10 years compared to the combined odds of winning a jackpot prize of around $250,000 in the first two examples above of 1 in 53 and 1 in 27 respectively. I'd wager a low income, disciplined lottery player has a far better chance of winning such a sum in the lottery than earning / saving it.

Ron

The mathematical probability you use is incorrect... There is no "combining" odds. Just because you play every day/week doesn't make your odds go up in subsequent drawings... if you are purchasing your 100,000th ticket on day whatever the probability that you will win is still 1 in X where X equals the amount of possible unique tickets / numbers. You can not treat a group of events like a single event.

But mainly; accumulating meaningful wealth isn't about luck (although some people do "get lucky"). It is definitely about putting in a LOT of hard work and making smart investments with your money and time. Smart investments do not include lottery tickets ;)

Just about any self made millionaire will tell you it wasn't their first company that succeeded, it was their second, third, or fourth.

[MrMaxwell]

Lotteries in the states are fucked up bullshit. 50% and lower payouts, bad accounting, etc. And exceedingly top heavy payouts.

If they'd pay something reasonable, say 90%, and make it flatter, I'd play. Like this say the prize pool is $100M.. why give 90M of it to one jerkoff?? That is a life destroying amount of money for someone dumb enough to play the lottery in the states.

Raise the payout to 90% and give 100k to 1900 people, instead.

Then I would play because I'd have a snowballs chance in hell and the game would be fair.

[MrMaxwell]

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

The mathematical probability you use is incorrect... There is no "combining" odds. Just because you play every day/week doesn't make your odds go up in subsequent drawings... if you are purchasing your 100,000th ticket on day whatever the probability that you will win is still 1 in X where X equals the amount of possible unique tickets / numbers. You can not treat a group of events like a single event.

But mainly; accumulating meaningful wealth isn't about luck (although some people do "get lucky"). It is definitely about putting in a LOT of hard work and making smart investments with your money and time. Smart investments do not include lottery tickets ;)

Just about any self made millionaire will tell you it wasn't their first company that succeeded, it was their second, third, or fourth.

Considering that the average poor idiot uses any discretionary income buying liabilities or junk that is consumable or has ZERO value (look at a poor persons house full of cell phones and stupid lamps sometime).... they're actually losing nothing by purchasing lottery tickets.

It's kind of hilarious when you consider that even buying something that has a 1:9999,999,999,999,999,999 chance of being worth anything is probably a better investment than whatever else they would have bought (cigarettes, fuzzy dice, hanging balls for their trailer hitch, trailers, meth, etc)

[Slambino]

What you’re talking about is forming a lottery club. They do increase the chances of winning and of course decrease the prize amount.

At one time this was quite popular as well as a good opportunity for both the lottery players and entrepreneurs. Lottery outlets were quite popular offering a player or players (as a club) to shop for lotteries that offered the best odds.

That is until the states began to complain about something that was perfectly legal and good business sense. Well it didn’t take long for some gong ho senator to make a name for himself , in this case turncoat Arlene Specter decided this was illegal gambling and introduced a bill that would make operating lottery outlets or lottery clubs from one state to another a felony. Shortly thereafter then President Clinton signed this farce of a bill and so went the opportunity for people to share in what most considers a good opportunity for all. Reason I know this is because I had a lottery club when all this went down, I think it was in 95 or 96.

[Zorgman]

I have 2 Android lotto apps.

1. Mega Millions and Powerball USA results
https://market.android.com/details?i...attles.uslotto

2. NSW Lotto Australia
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.lottoau.free

Both are free apps.

[chaze]

Originally Posted by MrMaxwell

Lotteries in the states are fucked up bullshit. 50% and lower payouts, bad accounting, etc. And exceedingly top heavy payouts.

If they'd pay something reasonable, say 90%, and make it flatter, I'd play. Like this say the prize pool is $100M.. why give 90M of it to one jerkoff?? That is a life destroying amount of money for someone dumb enough to play the lottery in the states.

Raise the payout to 90% and give 100k to 1900 people, instead.

Then I would play because I'd have a snowballs chance in hell and the game would be fair.

Yep only 50% got to the winning pool. Pretty weak if you ask me.

[Chosen]

My parents do.

[Slambino]

This is what so frustrating about playing the lotto



Came 032 FUCKKKKKKKKKKKK

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by Slambino

This is what so frustrating about playing the lotto



Came 032 FUCKKKKKKKKKKKK

You should have wheeled the numbers, that's what I do when I play the pic 3. I usually hit it a couple times a month too, and you still get the straight pay-out when you wheel em'.

[Slambino]

But that would of cost $6.00 a ticket or $60.00 total which is a little out of my ballpark.
10 bucks is about my max. Oh well tomorrow is another day, if I'm daring enough.

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

Perhaps, but then consider what the combined life-time odds are of a low income person accumulating any real meaningful wealth over their lifetime. Note my emphasis above ... I'll get to why in more detail in a moment.

What are the odds of a low income person accumulating $1,000,000, after taxes, etc, in 2011 dollars over their lifetime...

da da da...

your math is flawed... First, one doesn't need a 1 000 000 plus dollars to have a happy life/retirement. Does it help? Of course it does, but not necessary. Second, the chances of you winning are through the roof no matter how often or how much you play. The chances of you having a good chunk of change to use to either help you retire early, do what you want when you retire or to even just spend it on something fun are almost 100% if you just put that money in some super low risk investments instead...

I'll play here and there because it does involve some excitement, but I know far too many people who use it as a frivolous pipe dream to their future and refuse to come up with their own investment plan instead, which i think is pretty sad considering the odds...

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by Slambino

But that would of cost $6.00 a ticket or $60.00 total which is a little out of my ballpark.
10 bucks is about my max. Oh well tomorrow is another day, if I'm daring enough.

It's 3 dollars to wheel the numbers and it increases your chances of winning exponentially. Just buy 2 or 3 instead of 10 tickets.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

Or, perhaps, your local convenience store should get with the times and get an on-line self-service lottery terminal.

For example, Pennsylvania have on-line self-service units that can dispense instant tickets, number game tickets, and redeem smaller winning tickets.

Ron

Or they could just put a trash can in the corner and a sign saying "Idiots: throw your money here"

[Slambino]

Its $3.00 to wheel a 2 number combo such as 122 (less combinations) but it would be $6.00 for a 3 number combo 123 or in my case 302 although you are right if I combo them at least I would have won something. I think that?s called woulda, coulda, shoulda.

[Emil]

Yes, I play in the stockmarket with bear and bull.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by Slambino

Its $3.00 to wheel a 2 number combo such as 122 (less combinations) but it would be $6.00 for a 3 number combo 123 or in my case 302 although you are right if I combo them at least I would have won something. I think that?s called woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Really? Straight wheel 6-way combination bets are 3 bucks in my state.

[The Dawg]

Originally Posted by Slambino

This is what so frustrating about playing the lotto



Came 032 FUCKKKKKKKKKKKK

Wow, $50k! Fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk is right.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Jarmusch

The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.

Except for the ones that actually win.

[Slambino]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

Really? Straight wheel 6-way combination bets are 3 bucks in my state.

We dont have wheel only combos unless I'm missing something.

http://www.flalottery.com/inet/games-cash3Main.do

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

your math is flawed... First, one doesn't need a 1 000 000 plus dollars to have a happy life/retirement.

Well I'm 42 so about 25 years from retirement. Now if I have $1 mil at retirement in 2036 assuming 2.5% inflation that is only worth $530K in today's money. Say I get 4% yearly on that $1 mil and I assume I'll live another 25 years, that's about $62K per year starting in 2036 which is $33K in today's money and only worth about $17k in today's money at the end of those 25 years in 2061. So a million is really not that much. I guess you can live off 17K a year plus whatever social security gives you( if it exists ). Of course if I live past 92 I'm fucked.

Second, the chances of you winning are through the roof no matter how often or how much you play....

True but if one plays $1 per drawing the Powerball and Megamillions have a combined 208 drawings a year. That's $208 a year. If you were going to piss that $208 away on something else frivolous anyways who cares? At least there is a CHANCE you win. Unlike say spending that $208 on porn or whatever where your chances are 0%.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Slambino

We dont have wheel only combos unless I'm missing something.

http://www.flalottery.com/inet/games-cash3Main.do

It's called straight/box.