(no title)
zzanz | 1 year ago
Overall I would consider lotto small next to the scratch cards (our countries version at least). I have never seen a more predatory marketing strategy, and completely swept under the rug next to lotto being berated with anti-gambling campaigning. To be fair, lotto is bad, but scratch cards are much, much worse.
A memory that stuck for me was a customer blowing well over $100 bucks on scratchcards over 20 minutes, just pulling over and over, then getting card declined at the grocery checkouts.
IncreasePosts|1 year ago
Not really?
The odds of winning are the same regardless, because you need to match every number to get a jackpot. Really, there is just an increased chance of splitting a jackpot with another person when the prize gets really large, since more tickets are generally sold. But I imagine EV of a lottery ticket with a $1B jackpot is still higher than the same lottery ticket when the jackpot is $100M.
function_seven|1 year ago
There are also bad number choices and good number choices. 1,2,3,4,5,6 is a terrible selection, for example. Not because it is somehow “less random”, but because you’re guaranteed to be splitting that jackpot with a 1,000 other nerds who were trying to prove a point!
To a lesser degree, choosing numbers under 31, or under 12, will put you in a collision space with other players who like to choose birthdays.
Just use the random pick and don’t think about it. If you do win the jackpot, you have higher odds of being the only one.
jamie_ca|1 year ago
The BC 6/49 lottery (6 balls 1-49, one bonus ball) for example has 53% of the common "prize pool" split amongst all 4-ball matchers, so if you're not hitting the jackpot you get less cash out of a high-demand drawing.
And given the prize pool is something like 18% of net receipts... yeah EV is still well in the negatives.
euroderf|1 year ago
> Not really?
A big jackpot draws more players, and that reduces the payouts at the intermediate levels.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
moduspol|1 year ago