PH Euro Lottery syndicate one-off: let's do this!

[Bluedot]

ReaderScars said:

Would it be worthwhile considering a different approach for these multi-rollover high value jackpots?

As in, once the £100mil threshold is passed, we bite the bullet and buy two, maybe three tickets each on the first drop and increase the chance of winning from miniscule to tiny?

Given an average of 175 PH participants, that would be 350 tickets played in one game (at x2 purchases each), instead of the 175 over two rollovers:

- we increase the chance of winning
- we pay the same,
- Tater isn't viewed as an addict and gets (some of) his life back

What's the flaw in this genius scheme?

Edited by ReaderScars on Thursday 28th September 13:25

I don't really understand it
So the first draw for over £100 million we pay for two tickets 'theoretically'
And if there is another rollover we don't then buy any tickets but rely on the winnings from the first ? (The forum will demand a reload at this point )
And if there is another rollover ?

[ReaderScars]

I have to be honest, I haven't given much/any thought to further rollovers, just to increasing chances of winning - but, that increase might be so comparatively small it might not be worth it.

What if we ignore all high value jackpots from, say Jan to August, then the next one which comes up we buy four tickets each?

700 tickets played and no dilution - that's from an estimated 175x4 PH participants. Any statisticians want to comment on the futility of it all?

[Bebee]

Any one got Carol Vorderman's email address?, I'll forward the above.

[jurbie]

I think a better idea would be to accept it for the bit of fun it is and was always meant to be and try not to overthink it too much.

[silobass]

ReaderScars said:

Would it be worthwhile considering a different approach for these multi-rollover high value jackpots?

As in, once the £100mil threshold is passed, we bite the bullet and buy two, maybe three tickets each on the first drop and increase the chance of winning from miniscule to tiny?

Given an average of 175 PH participants, that would be 350 tickets played in one game (at x2 purchases each), instead of the 175 over two rollovers:

- we increase the chance of winning
- we pay the same,
- Tater isn't viewed as an addict and gets (some of) his life back

What's the flaw in this genius scheme?

Edited by ReaderScars on Thursday 28th September 13:25

The only flaw is if we don't win. Can't see that happening with 700 tickets though

Anyhoo, I've paid for Friday.

[BoRED S2upid]

silobass said:

Anyhoo, I've paid for Friday.

Has spud confirmed he's running it then?

[dom9]

Jim1064 said:

if there are (say) 150 participants, you would gain 1/150th of the total win, regardless of your cash contribution.

Do you mean that the total prize fund is pro-rated to your contribution to the total number of tickets (e.g. 150) i.e. in that example someone buying one ticket's worth gets 1/150 and someone buying 4 tickets worth gets 4/150 of the winnings?

I don't mind that idea (especially as I buy my own, on top, anyway) and can see how it might mean we end up with more tickets and a higher chance of winning - I just think the administration might get a lot more complex, tracking everyone's exact contribution etc.

It's not a binary answer to the question of "has someone contributed" anymore; it's more "how much did each individual contribute, exactly". And to make it easier, I guess you should probably buy in ticket multiples i.e. £2.50 minimum and then £5, £7.50, £10 and so on and so forth.

I really don't think anyone should be sending Paul any money yet! It's probably putting him under a bit of pressure to do it and he hasn't emailed!

[sc0tt]

dom9 said:

Jim1064 said:

if there are (say) 150 participants, you would gain 1/150th of the total win, regardless of your cash contribution.

Do you mean that the total prize fund is pro-rated to your contribution to the total number of tickets (e.g. 150) i.e. in that example someone buying one ticket's worth gets 1/150 and someone buying 4 tickets worth gets 4/150 of the winnings?

No.

dom9 said:

if there are (say) 150 participants, you would gain 1/150th of the total win, regardless of your cash contribution.

"Regardless of your contribution".

[alorotom]

This is getting excessively complicated for little reason ... there is nothing wrong with the £2.50 each for an equal share of he pot and if you want to pay lore feel feee but it’s no obligation and has nil effect and share - an acknowledgement of Paul’s time only

[sc0tt]

alorotom said:

This is getting excessively complicated for little reason ... there is nothing wrong with the £2.50 each for an equal share of he pot and if you want to pay lore feel feee but it’s no obligation and has nil effect and share - an acknowledgement of Paul’s time only

Correct. - As stated - Spud hasn't even sent an email.

[dom9]

sc0tt said:

dom9 said:

Jim1064 said:

if there are (say) 150 participants, you would gain 1/150th of the total win, regardless of your cash contribution.

Do you mean that the total prize fund is pro-rated to your contribution to the total number of tickets (e.g. 150) i.e. in that example someone buying one ticket's worth gets 1/150 and someone buying 4 tickets worth gets 4/150 of the winnings?

No.

dom9 said:

if there are (say) 150 participants, you would gain 1/150th of the total win, regardless of your cash contribution.

"Regardless of your contribution".

That last quote wasn't me. I was thinking he can't really mean "regardless of your contribution" as people who pay more get 'less' back.

It is too complex.

[Captain Smerc]

jurbie said:

I think a better idea would be to accept it for the bit of fun it is and was always meant to be and try not to overthink it too much.

This , all the way . It's about the journey , not just the destination , or something ...

[Bluedot]

Captain Smerc said:

jurbie said:

I think a better idea would be to accept it for the bit of fun it is and was always meant to be and try not to overthink it too much.

This , all the way . It's about the journey , not just the destination , or something ...

Agreed

[sc0tt]

dom9 said:

sc0tt said:

dom9 said:

Jim1064 said:

if there are (say) 150 participants, you would gain 1/150th of the total win, regardless of your cash contribution.

Do you mean that the total prize fund is pro-rated to your contribution to the total number of tickets (e.g. 150) i.e. in that example someone buying one ticket's worth gets 1/150 and someone buying 4 tickets worth gets 4/150 of the winnings?

No.

dom9 said:

if there are (say) 150 participants, you would gain 1/150th of the total win, regardless of your cash contribution.

"Regardless of your contribution".

That last quote wasn't me. I was thinking he can't really mean "regardless of your contribution" as people who pay more get 'less' back.

It is too complex.

Yes I broke the quoting.

If spud sends the mail i’m game for a ticket.

[Mr-B]

The email states no multiple entries, keep it simple. As above, its just a bit of fun. Likelihood of winning would go from 1 in a million to 1 in half a million if we all bought 2 tickets anyway, i.e fk all chance to bugger all chance.

[furtive]

Mr-B said:

The email states no multiple entries, keep it simple. As above, its just a bit of fun. Likelihood of winning would go from 1 in a million to 1 in half a million if we all bought 2 tickets anyway, i.e fk all chance to bugger all chance.

It's actually 1 in 140 million

Edited by furtive on Thursday 28th September 17:48

[Mr-B]

furtive said:

It's actually 1 in 140 million

Edited by furtive on Thursday 28th September 17:48

Correct but with 140 tickets which it usually is.

[Lazadude]

In again if spuds up for it.

[Gibbyo]

Happy to reload too........this time next week we'll be............!!

[PoleDriver]

......just as hopeful?