So who's giving up the lotto in October?

[Gecko1978]

MartG said:

TTmonkey said:

The thing about the Lotto is that currently, almost every week, someone wins the jackpot.

When they fek around with the odds like they are going to do, that will no longer be true.

Its likely that someone will win it every 2-3 weeks, or longer.

When it first started, and each weekly jackpot was at least £7million ( and at £1 a ticket that meant well over 7 million tickets sold ), then rollovers were rare. These days, even at £2 a ticket, it's rare to see a jackpot over £2.5million unless it is one of the now frequent rollovers, thanks to declining sales.

Fewer tickets being sold means less chance of the jackpot being won, hence more rollovers.

This changing of the odds by adding more numbers will make it even less likely for a jackpot win to occur, so will generate even more rollovers. It will be interesting to see what tomorrows jackpot figure is - I suspect it will drop a lot with reduced ticket sales unless Camelot chuck a load of their cash into the pot to bump it up

I always thought the jackpots fell as a result of midweek draws, thunder ball, daily play, scratch cards etc. If you spent £4 a week at the start that was 4 goes on a Saturday. Now you choose wed an sat etc or do you just play the euro etc etc. The pots were spread over a wider pool of games. I suspect this makes camalot more money and maybe even raises more for charity but the core game is never going to recover its big weekly prizes.

Also back in 95 when it started every one played every week work places had syndicates etc. now its lost its charm and thus you have a hard core who play every week set amount and more casual players etc who might buy a ticket a few times a year.

Increasing the odds will result in more roll overs but I suspect the same money for camalot. I for example only play the euro when the jackpoit goes over £30m. No reason other than I can't be bothered to go to the shop etc but the chance to win a huge sum is an incentive to make the trip what 4 times a year etc.

[Disastrous]

HOGEPH said:

More numbers to pick from, greater odds, still £2.

Think this is my chance to opt out since I had the same numbers for years.

I love how 1 in 14 million odds are just too good for you to pass up but any longer than that and you're out!

You've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere, I suppose.

[Medic-one]

Just looked on their website ( https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/ ) and noticed the draw for yesterdays lotto had the exact same numbers as yesterdays hotpicks.



So that's either very very coincidental or maybe a mistake ?

[Jobbo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(Un...
"Lotto Hotpicks uses the main Lotto draw for its numbers but is a different game."

I don't know anything about Hotpicks, but at least you know it's correct!

[Oakey]

Those prizes for hotpicks look better than the prizes for the main lottery?

[youngsyr]

Going back to the "waste of money" argument - another angle that the "Stupidity Tax" superior beings seem to miss is that around a quarter of the ticket price goes to charity.

Remember that amazing Olympics we had in 2012? Many of the winning atheletes (notably the cyclists) were supported by our lottery ticket purchases.

Guardian said:

...with the advent of lottery funding, then the Commonwealth Games of 2002 and the subsequent arrival of Manchester City a few hundred yards away, it became an engine of the success of the elite Olympic team that excelled in Beijing and London and the catalyst for the creation of Team Sky, the wild scenes on the Champs-Elysées last summer and an attendant growth in the grassroots popularity of the sport.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2012/dec/17/british-cycling-other-sports-learn

So, not only do we statistically-challenged spendthrifts get the satisfaction of knowing we have a small chance of winning a fortune, but we also support good causes which ultimately benefit us all.

[Einion Yrth]

Not a cause I would choose to support, and if it were I could.

Argument stands, pathetic special pleading notwithstanding.

[mini me]

4v6 said:

You have more chance of getting hit by lightning than winning any lotto jackpot anywhere

I always here this and wonder, statistics aside lets take the actual facts. Couldn't find the total number of jackpot winners since the lottery began (maybe someone else can find it?) so I had to settle for the number of people who have won at least 1 million. 1 million for £2 invested seems to be a good return to me and you are unlikely to not break even at this amount are you.

Seems that the average number of millionaire winners per year is ~150 compared with an average of 18 lightning strikes per annum in the UK.

So far I've had neither happen. you can make statistics say anything you want but it doesn't mean its always relevant to a real life situation.

[Einion Yrth]

Except it's not statistics, it's probability, and what it reveals is the truth, not open to "opinion".

[turbobloke]

Einion Yrth said:

Except it's not statistics, it's probability, and what it reveals is the truth, not open to "opinion".

Sure, when it comes to seeing the light(ning) there's nothing fishy about Poisson.

[Pablo16v]

A few years ago a friend won £4.3m on the UK lottery, and an ex-colleague won a 'Best of the Best' Aston DB9 after buying a ticket at Gatwick airport. Lucky b*ggers! I don't play every week but I'll continue to pop a line on every now and again.

[Disastrous]

mini me said:

4v6 said:

You have more chance of getting hit by lightning than winning any lotto jackpot anywhere

I always here this and wonder, statistics aside lets take the actual facts. Couldn't find the total number of jackpot winners since the lottery began (maybe someone else can find it?) so I had to settle for the number of people who have won at least 1 million. 1 million for £2 invested seems to be a good return to me and you are unlikely to not break even at this amount are you.

Seems that the average number of millionaire winners per year is ~150 compared with an average of 18 lightning strikes per annum in the UK.

So far I've had neither happen. you can make statistics say anything you want but it doesn't mean its always relevant to a real life situation.

I think you're missing the point.

Have you won the Lottery jackpot? No, I'm assuming.

Have you been struck by lightning? Again, I'm assuming no.

Well, all the statistics say is that in your lifetime, assuming you play the Lottery, you are slightly more likely to be hit by lightning than win.

More than both of those things though, you are much more likely to experience neither. They are both desperately unlikely to occur, albeit one is fractionally less likely than another. Irrelevant, really.

It's much more constructive to look at the Lottery odds in isolation and decide whether 1 in 14 million looks sufficiently attractive to you to spend a pound on.

They seem like good odds to enough people it seems, which I can't fathom, but I think it's ridiculous.

[mini me]

but surely if it were more likely to be struck by lightning than win the lottery, on average per year there would be more lightning strikes than lottery winners?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Knowing my luck, I'll be struck by lightning on the way to pick up my lotto jackpot winnings.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Thursday 8th October 13:40

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Thursday 8th October 13:40

[youngsyr]

Einion Yrth said:

Not a cause I would choose to support, and if it were I could.

Argument stands, pathetic special pleading notwithstanding.

The tone and content of your post says it all. No further riposte necessary.

[Oakey]

Hasn't someone on this forum actually been struck by lightning?

[Disastrous]

mini me said:

but surely if it were more likely to be struck by lightning than win the lottery, on average per year there would be more lightning strikes than lottery winners?

Estimates suggest 240,000 people are injured by lightning in the world each year.

But I'm being disingenuous.


I just don't think it's as simple as saying "more people win the Lottery than get hit by Lightning".

I'd imagine your lightning strike odds change hugely depending on occupation, geographic location etc.

Edited by Disastrous on Thursday 8th October 13:55

[mini me]

really! thats a lot of bad luck. My previous was people killed by lightning, sorry.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.225...

Anyway, injured pfft! thats kinda the equivalent of getting 3 numbers for a tenner isn't it?

How many people struck in the UK per year?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Disastrous said:

Estimates suggest 240,000 people are injured by lightning in the world each year.

But most of those won't have been struck by lightning. Lightning strikes the ground and people nearby get injured.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_6b6Bk6bM8

[Einion Yrth]

youngsyr said:

Einion Yrth said:

Not a cause I would choose to support, and if it were I could.

Argument stands, pathetic special pleading notwithstanding.

The tone and content of your post says it all. No further riposte necessary.

It may, or may not, say something about me as an individual; which requires no riposte. The lack of riposte, or indeed parry, suggests that, at root, the argument with regard to the odds, is made.