When the lotto or Euro millions rolls over to a third week, the potential payout is huge.
To me it seems slightly wrong, even immoral that one person could stand to scoop over £100 million.
So if after two weeks the jack pot isn't won, rather than carry it over for a third week why don't they reduce the number of matching numbers until there are a minimum of say 5 or 10 winners and give more winners smaller amounts?
It might get a few more people out of poverty and create a spending spree which could help kick start the economy. I'd rather see 10 people and their families share £100 million than one winner.
|
Has the Lotto already been capped? I ask because I used to remember the winning amounts varying widely on a Saturday night, from £3million - £8million, nowadays it always seems to be about £4.5million each week.
Either they have a very stable weekly consumer base or whay/why?
least this big winner has a bit of sense, he`s going to go and see Chelsea!!!
|
>> least this big winner has a bit of sense, he`s going to go and
>> see Chelsea!!!
>>
I've always maintained that if you get big money you'll only waste it...... ;-)
Thing is we all would like to see a lot more winners, but by the same token human nature drives us to chase one big prize harder than we would several smaller ones.
Reason for the stability is most are regular players or syndicates. I do mine 5 weeks at a time on-line, saves me the stress of forgetting. Never won more than a tenner but I keep hoping!
|
I agree.
I've always felt I'd like to win a million or two, but no more. That would be more than enough to raise my standard of living beyond anything I could imagine.
I don't think I could handle any more. I haven't been brought up to deal with such large sums of money and wouldn't know where to start.
|
The Euro draw is capped, £166m rings a bell, which might translate to a rounder number in euros.
I believe the number of rollovers in the Lotto is also limited.
It's a sum of money that's hard to comprehend, but Camelot has found there is more interest when the jackpot reaches dizzy hights.
So they like enormous jackpots because it's good for business.
|
>> So they like enormous jackpots because it's good for business.
Exactly. You may all say that you would like to see more smaller jackpots, but the truth of the matter is that the general public dont think that way at all.
A few million does not catch their eye, tens or hundreds of millions does. The proof is the sudden increase in sales of tickets when a huge jackpot is in the offing.
4 million probably wouldn't even fill my lottery garage.,
|
What do folks think of the new "Health" Lotto? is it just a way to get the public to re-fund the things that we used to be funding via our income taxes, or is it a neccesity because of the governments cuts?
Would you prefer to see the 20p from each £ spent on NHS medical things eg new drugs, facilitys etc or as is proposed on "health related (non-NHS) causes"?
I apologise for the thread hijack/drift, but as this thread was sort of on the subject!!
|
Health thing pointless. Office tried to get a syndicate going. A £100k top prize shared between ten people isn't worth the £1 cost of entering.
Only time I play the lottery is through the office syndicate when it's running, which isn't all the time, when the prize divided amongst the winners would be over £5m. It would just be too gutting not to be in on it.
|
|
Good question Devonite re the new Health Lottery. It will be interesting to see how it pans out and as others have said I guess its human nature to go for a larger prize and stick to the national lotto or euromillions even if you stand more chance of winning on the health lotto.
|
>> Health thing pointless. Office tried to get a syndicate going. A £100k top prize shared
>> between ten people isn't worth the £1 cost of entering.
Depends on how greedy you are. £10,000 could make a huge difference to some people, and especially if it only cost £1 to earn it.
|
Never understand why people when fantasising about a lottery win say something to the effect that I wouldn't wan to win too much as I wouldn't know what to do with the money and it would change my life too much.
Seems like poverty of the imagination to me. You can at least fantasise about giving £100 million away if you really can't think of anything to spend it on.
Actually a lot more people than you would think are already millionaires. It only takes a decent sized house in the South East and a reasonable pension, a £30,000 p.a pension is worth over half million, to qualify.
|
You're in the minority. Most winners give away a good chunk anyway and if you could end up sharing you want a decent jackpot as anything under 5 million quid isn't really worth winning if you really want the millionaire's lifestyle. There are plenty of ordinary houses in ordinary places worth close to a million quid. It's not the same million as it used to be.
It's a once in a lifetime event so there's no point winning a small amount! There was that famous jackpot quite a few years ago where so many people won that they got less than the next tier down. Must have been so annoying.
If the money is too much for you then you can always give it away. You are not forced to keep it :-)
Makes no odds anyway as lottery winners are no happier than they were before they win. The level of happiness remains the same.
|
"Makes no odds anyway as lottery winners are no happier than they were before they win. The level of happiness remains the same."
Exactly my point - if you win big and are not happier, then it makes sense to give more people less money and enable them to improve their lifestyle marginally rather than 'ruin' them with a massive win they can't spend in a lifetime.
|
It was capped at 185 mil Euros, but there appears to be some odd rule where each time the cap is hit it's then increased by 5 mil after the jackpot has been won. Not really sure I understand why though.
We have a small office syndicate which only operates when the jackpot is a role over. Its a fairly casual affair.
We were trying to work out how much you would need to give up work. Quite a bit more than most people think. For me I am not sure I could do it on a mil - think I wold need several, although I guess being able to pay of mortgage would reduce my needed monthly income quite a bit
|
>> We were trying to work out how much you would need to give up work.
>> Quite a bit more than most people think.
entirely depends on your age and circumstances,
In effect, my "sum" for giving up work at age 55 was 600,000k
(cash and 20 years pension payment)
|
|
I think they should cap the lottery payouts - but only after I win a 100 million quid!
|
|
I reckon someone has done some research in to the number of sales vs the payout and just guessing here, but the graph would show a significant increase in sales when the jackpot is likely to exceed £50m.
|
It's illogical. The rollover gets more people buying tickets. The other side of the coin is ludicrously long odds - in practical terms, it's impossible to win - it's a waste of money.
The human brain can do probability numerically, but not emotionally. People continue to bet at impossible odds because emotionally, it's much closer to evens - you'll either win, or you won't.
If you think that "impossible to win" is too pessimistic, consider this -
The odds against a UK male aged 55-64 dying in a given year are about 100/1. In a week, about 5800/1. In a day, about 40,000/1. In an hour, about 1,000,000/1.
The odds against him winning the UK lottery jackpot with one ticket are 14,000,000/1.
To make it more likely that he would win the jackpot than die between buying the ticket and the draw, he would have to wait until 4 minutes before the draw - which is impossible, as entries close before then. So, if he only buys one ticket, he is always more likely to die before the draw than win it.
But somebody has to win don't they? Yes, but a lot more people will die. The pernicious thing about the lottery is that, having bought the ticket, we can't rid ourselves of the thought that we might win.
Do you go about your daily life thinking that this might be the week you will fall off the perch? It's MUCH more likely than collecting that jackpot, unless you buy a lot of tickets - which just makes it very very likely that the lottery will make you a lot poorer, not richer.
|
>> There was that famous jackpot quite a few years ago where so many people won that they got less
>> than the next tier down
I got 4 numbers that week: 26 quid prize, about a third of the normal amount.
The lottery is just a tax on the mathematically inept.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Wed 12 Oct 11 at 21:57
|
>>I got 4 numbers that week: 26 quid prize, about a third of the normal amount.
The lottery is just a tax on the mathematically inept.
Your maths qualifications are? ;>)
|
Is this health lottery a commercial operation, thinly disguised as a do good thing?
Their website is not very clear who actually owns the business.
The payouts look poor for the ticket price.
|
>> Is this health lottery a commercial operation, thinly disguised as a do good thing?
>> Their website is not very clear who actually owns the business.
>> The payouts look poor for the ticket price.
Commercial operation owned Richard Desmond's Northern & Shell (ie the Express Group)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15070628
|
>> >> Is this health lottery a commercial operation, thinly disguised as a do good thing?
>> >> Their website is not very clear who actually owns the business.
>> >> The payouts look poor for the ticket price.
>>
>> Commercial operation owned Richard Desmond's Northern & Shell (ie the Express Group)
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15070628
So I was right to be cynical.
Cloaking a privately owned, for profit, gambling business with a thin veneer of respectability.
tinyurl.com/5vk6lpr
|
>>Your maths qualifications are? ;>)
You don't need to be qualified to be ept ;-)
When recruiting an analyst a few years ago, I rejected three maths graduates on the basis of their performances on a numerical reasoning test, having made the mistake previously of assuming that anybody with a maths degree would be reliable at doing sums.
|
My feeling is that the prizes are a bit skewed. When the last lucky couple (The third ticket they have ever bought!!!) won £101 Million the person(s) who missed out on just one number/star got £116K seems a bit of a big gap to me. On 30th Sept the jackpot was £41 million and the second prize was £220K.
I'd be happy if they capped an individual's jackpot win @ £10 Million so there could be 10 winners on a good rollover week. That sum would make anyoe's life better
|
>>
>> The lottery is just a tax on the mathematically inept.
>>
It doesn't matter whether someone is inept or a mathematical genius. The cost to most people is negligible, so you might as well toss your coin into the bin as not.
It's no more inept than giving £1 to a street beggar, a fortune teller, throwing it into a fountain for luck, or buying a magazine you don't need and read in 5 minutes.
Whatever the odds, effectively it's a free entry. It's inept not to enter - I don't because I'm so inept I can't be bothered to find out how to do it.
|
...I can't be bothered to find out how to do it...
Online entry is so easy a child could do it, although I imagine isn't supposed to.
|
ive never bought a lottery ticket or a scratch card.
a friend won £6 million last year and he looks 10yrs younger as he spends his time doing whatever he wants to do
|
I do not gamble, no interest in Horses,dogs, football pools but I do play the lottery.
Nearest I have been to winning a large sum was the £50K a neighbour won in 1995/96.
I just renew the online numbers for the family syndicate every 4/5 weeks and you never know. Mathematically it is highly unlikely / it is a dead loss.........but sometimes !!!!!
|
Ok there will be those who can ill afford it and are deluded into thinking it's a good bet. Clinging on to hope in the face of despair maybe.
For the vast majority though it's just a bit of fun with some loose change and when you win a tenner now and then it's fine and cheers you up.
|
Big lotto rollovers ARE unfair.
Until I win one.
Then they are very very very very fair. But I'll give all members here a share...if they promise not to send any begging letters with their address.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 13 Oct 11 at 13:39
|
Part of the fun of winning would be in playing fairy godmother, giving people's lives a little nudge every now and again, anonymously, just to see how they used the good luck I would seed in their path.
I'd smile to myself when someone I had judged worthy made good use of the small windfall I'd give them. But if I had made a mistake and rewarded someone who turned out mean-spirited, I'd get great pleasure in tripping them up at some point so that they lost it all again.
Then later perhaps I might test them again to see if they had learned the lesson. Those who failed totally to learn would meet sticky ends.
|
|
Your a Pope not a god....
|
Cliff
Sell what you are smoking... Ideal for these grim days.. takes you away in fantasies.
Pope's Promise Pills Provide Paradise.or
Pope's Paradise Pills Promise Plenty.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 13 Oct 11 at 16:41
|
Are big lotto rollovers fair? - devonite
