Has playing the National Lottery lost it's appeal?
Discussion
I was discussing with a colleague the fact that you can't buy a lotto ticket until you are 18, compared to 16 when I was younger.
It then got me thinking about the lottery (and I'm encompassing lotto. Thunderball, Euro's etc here) and how there's no longer a buzz about it. Granted the buzz probably died out years ago, but I can recall how a lot of people you used to discuss the lottery, talk about what they'd do with a windfall, say stuff like "when I win the lottery I'm going to do such a thing."
I remember seeing people queuing up in supermarkets to play or collect prizes (I know that online sales will have made that slack off), yet many people I speak to now say they either don't play it at all, put the odd line on when in a paper shop or gamble in other ways like betting on horses.
There is sometimes a general talk about it when the Euro Millions climbs higher than £100m, but other than that nothing.
One aspect I feel has led to fewer people playing are the ticket prices and the increase in numbers to choose from. I understand the main lotto odds went from around 15m to 1 to 40m to 1.
It then got me thinking about the lottery (and I'm encompassing lotto. Thunderball, Euro's etc here) and how there's no longer a buzz about it. Granted the buzz probably died out years ago, but I can recall how a lot of people you used to discuss the lottery, talk about what they'd do with a windfall, say stuff like "when I win the lottery I'm going to do such a thing."
I remember seeing people queuing up in supermarkets to play or collect prizes (I know that online sales will have made that slack off), yet many people I speak to now say they either don't play it at all, put the odd line on when in a paper shop or gamble in other ways like betting on horses.
There is sometimes a general talk about it when the Euro Millions climbs higher than £100m, but other than that nothing.
One aspect I feel has led to fewer people playing are the ticket prices and the increase in numbers to choose from. I understand the main lotto odds went from around 15m to 1 to 40m to 1.
I agree with the OP
It's no longer exciting.
One of the issues was the media around the running of the lottery, and it became apparent they wanted a higher profit margin. Feels like no connection to good causes.
The fact Branson was allegedly going to run it at no profit and didn't win the contract tells you somewhere behind the scenes a percentage of the money is going to some rich entity without this being made clear to the players.
However I still play it. I know I won't win but I'm buying a small dream.
It's no longer exciting.
One of the issues was the media around the running of the lottery, and it became apparent they wanted a higher profit margin. Feels like no connection to good causes.
The fact Branson was allegedly going to run it at no profit and didn't win the contract tells you somewhere behind the scenes a percentage of the money is going to some rich entity without this being made clear to the players.
However I still play it. I know I won't win but I'm buying a small dream.
tight fart said:
It’s a tax on hope, friend of mine is obsessed with it, he’s 65 and skint but spends £50 a week on it.
The prize structure is wrong, make a 100 x million pound prizes not one hundred million.
With apologies to fellow PHers who play the game, I regard it as a voluntary tax for fools (usually poor ones who can't afford it).The prize structure is wrong, make a 100 x million pound prizes not one hundred million.
A few months after the lottery started I had a dream in which I won £4M. Taking this as a portent of victory I 'invested' £5 on tickets. Lost the lot. f
k that!Yes I think there are more people ticking the no publicity box (as I certainly would do) so you don't get to here about the big wins as much.
Hearing that a single ticket holder has won xxx million is not as enticing as hearing Bob from Wakefield has won xxx million and this is how it changed his life.
Also agree that more lower value prizes would be better but for some reason, a £100m jackpot gets more people playing, like a regular £5m jackpot wouldn't be enough!
Hearing that a single ticket holder has won xxx million is not as enticing as hearing Bob from Wakefield has won xxx million and this is how it changed his life.
Also agree that more lower value prizes would be better but for some reason, a £100m jackpot gets more people playing, like a regular £5m jackpot wouldn't be enough!
Simpo Two said:
tight fart said:
It’s a tax on hope, friend of mine is obsessed with it, he’s 65 and skint but spends £50 a week on it.
The prize structure is wrong, make a 100 x million pound prizes not one hundred million.
With apologies to fellow PHers who play the game, I regard it as a voluntary tax for fools (usually poor ones who can't afford it).The prize structure is wrong, make a 100 x million pound prizes not one hundred million.
Yes, totally lost its appeal.
The odds are even more ridiculous than ever, and its not cheap now.
Also, nobody else has mentioned it, but there are literally masses of ways to gamble these days. Lotto, scratch cards, bookies, online bookies, casinos, bingo etc. Casting my mind back to when lotto started nearly 30 years, granted, I was only 13/14 or so, but I don't remember anywhere near as much accessibility to gamble.
The odds are even more ridiculous than ever, and its not cheap now.
Also, nobody else has mentioned it, but there are literally masses of ways to gamble these days. Lotto, scratch cards, bookies, online bookies, casinos, bingo etc. Casting my mind back to when lotto started nearly 30 years, granted, I was only 13/14 or so, but I don't remember anywhere near as much accessibility to gamble.
President Merkin said:
The jackpot odds are about 45,000,000/1. If you walked into Betfred & backed that horse, you'd be laughed out the door.
It could be you. It won't be though.
I still play. But I don’t do it for the chance to win tbh. It could be you. It won't be though.
I see it as a low effort way to give a bit to charidee as a weekly recurring spend.
You could say that there are better ways to give to charities and there are but I also know that if I didn’t play the lottery I probably wouldn’t actually get round to giving anywhere near as much in other ways.
So whilst it’s not perfect and the logic might be somewhat flawed, I do it so that when I see a sign saying national lottery funded, I can take a tiny amount of smugness and say “I did that”. I.e all those athletes winning gold medals
Like Andy a couple of posts above says there's so many more options now & they don't all have such long odds. What would you spend it on a house & car probably? & there's plenty of options for raffles / lotteries (Omaze, BOTB etc etc) for those specific things these days so you can see why people "short circuit the lotto win" by going straight to those alternative sites instead. I occasionally play from my app on the phone but I genuinely can't remember buying a ticket this year.
I play the Euros once a week. Odds there are about 1 in 130,000,000 so I guess I should really switch to the UK one. Or hell, even thunder ball.
Work syndicate on Euros if it goes over £100m.
I view it as paying £2.50 a week to dream. I’m not willing to spend more than that though, so only play the Friday draws.
Back when I was a shop worker, it was mad how much some people spent on the lottery. They couldn’t all be just running a works syndicate.
Work syndicate on Euros if it goes over £100m.
I view it as paying £2.50 a week to dream. I’m not willing to spend more than that though, so only play the Friday draws.
Back when I was a shop worker, it was mad how much some people spent on the lottery. They couldn’t all be just running a works syndicate.
Edited by Jawls on Thursday 21st December 10:23
It has lost its appeal as odds changed with more numbers introduced and price hiked. Really it should be a cheap bet with the high odds. So keep it to a quid. Prizes always a bit skewed where the jackpot is massive but if you narrowly miss it you get relatively little. Would be better with more significant prizes and lower jackpot to make it more enticing.
Tom8 said:
It has lost its appeal as odds changed with more numbers introduced and price hiked. Really it should be a cheap bet with the high odds. So keep it to a quid. Prizes always a bit skewed where the jackpot is massive but if you narrowly miss it you get relatively little. Would be better with more significant prizes and lower jackpot to make it more enticing.
Was reading an article with Camelot and they said this approach was tried in other countries, but it reduced sales. It’s always high jackpots that sell the most tickets, which is why they engineered Euromillions to generate large jackpots and single winners. Like many others, I sometimes buy a ticket if the jackpot exceeds 100m. I’d totally ignore the lottery otherwise.Edited by wyson on Thursday 21st December 10:58
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff