Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Mega Millions jackpot inched toward a US lottery record Monday as it soared to $586 million amid a frenzy of ticket purchases, raising the possibility that the prize could pass the once-unthinkable $1 billion mark by Christmas Eve should nobody win before then.
I very seldom even bother to purchase a lottery ticket, but does anyone else agree that if the jackpot goes above a certain amount, there should be more than one set of winning numbers chosen? Has the greed virus gotten to the point that winning a million or a few million is not good enough? The odds of winning are so small that picking more than one set of numbers at least gives more people a chance to win and makes the terrible odds a bit more reachable.
That's insane (suggesting that they pick more than one set of winning numbers). It's no different than a person buying two tickets - they have two chances, either way. If people want better odds, then they should either buy more tickets, or not play at all.
The lottery isn't supposed to be reachable, it's supposed to be a tax on stupidity with proceeds going to fund education. It would be nice if the lottery had reasonable odds though, but the payoff wouldn't be as large if that was the case.
Wow, sick, you are one dedicated income redistributor--any time, in any context, regardless of whether the 1%'er got it by being lucky in a lottery, or built it himself.
You win the prize for Most Consistent Poster.
But in answer to your question, I believe they ought to pay out the prizes in accordance with the stated public rules.
I very seldom even bother to purchase a lottery ticket, but does anyone else agree that if the jackpot goes above a certain amount, there should be more than one set of winning numbers chosen? Has the greed virus gotten to the point that winning a million or a few million is not good enough? The odds of winning are so small that picking more than one set of numbers at least gives more people a chance to win and makes the terrible odds a bit more reachable.
I find it funny that you dont equate to taking someones ability to "win" as much as they can, as greedy, which is exactly what you just did..
yes I'm quoting the radical left-wing nutterbutter blog Alternet
That depends..
Since the odds of winning is something like 1 in 212 million, if one had $212,000,000 and could afford to purchase every single possible combination, thereby guaranteeing them a win, and thus returning one would hope to be upwards of $350,000,000 (i.e., $586 million + your $212M in new ticket purchases, and assuming another individual shared the winnings),
this equates to one heck of a return and not at all a sucker gamble..
That's insane (suggesting that they pick more than one set of winning numbers). It's no different than a person buying two tickets - they have two chances, either way. If people want better odds, then they should either buy more tickets, or not play at all.
haha, the fact that this needs explained to some individuals, who happen to be the loudest posters here who try to pretend to explain economics to us, is histerical..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
