The National Lottery Has Become a Bit of a Joke- IMHO dirty bastard

[alancurvedair]

Thank you for your email. We do not accept numbers that are spread over different lines as winnings numbers, but if you play the same numbers on two seperate lines and win you will win twice. I took your advice and you can see the health lottery peoples reply as above



THIS IS AN EXACT COPY OF THE EMAIL FROM THE HEALTH LOTTERY.

 

[SeagullSongs]

The probability of winning the jackpot is 1-in-13,983,816. So I'd only ever buy tickets if the Jackpot is £14m or more.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

It has been said that the average person who buys a lottery ticket first thing on Monday morning is 2000 times more likely to die before 7pm the following Saturday evening than they are to actually win the Jackpot.

Anyone who's happy picking up 10-1 on three numbers, which is roughly a 55-1 chance, would be better off picking a random horse at 8-1 and another at 7-1 and putting them in a double. At least if they both win you'll get paid at the correct odds.
As for the health lottery, why would anyone would want to help line Richard Desmond's pockets?

However it is not a 55/1 chance to win just £10, what you are failing to take into consideration is that you are also able to win if you match 4 numbers, 5 numbers, 5 numbers and the bonus ball and also 6 numbers from that one ticket in the National Lottery draw so your odds of winning any prize are better than the 55/1 you state

Your £1 entry doesn't just give you a chance of winning £10, but also the possibility of several Million pounds, something you won't get for betting on your horse combination bets

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Pedantic maybe, but I don't see that this is an issue. If the jackpot is cut in half, that's presumably because half as many people are playing - which in turn means the average winner splits the jackpot with half as many people so ends up with the same amount of winnings in the bank.

The total jackpot may be lower - but what are the stats for how much moolah the average jackpot winner actually takes home now compared to the start?

The odds of winning the Jackpot don't drop because less players are playing.

If it pays out according to the projected odds and the odds of winning the jackpot are 14 million / 1 so there should be one winner for every 14 million tickets. If the Jackpot is only £6 million, the odds of winning are still 14 million / 1 (all 14 million combinations of numbers covered once)

Therefore if there was 1 winner on a 14 million jackpot and 1 on a £6 million jackpot, the returns on the £6m draw are less than the precieved odds compared to the £14M draw because it would mean that statistically all the number combinations haven't been covered so the returns should be less

 

[DTES]

The odds of winning the Jackpot don't drop because less players are playing.

If it pays out according to the projected odds and the odds of winning the jackpot are 14 million / 1 so there should be one winner for every 14 million tickets. If the Jackpot is only £6 million, the odds of winning are still 14 million / 1 (all 14 million combinations of numbers covered once)

Therefore if there was 1 winner on a 14 million jackpot and 1 on a £6 million jackpot, the returns on the £6m draw are less than the precieved odds compared to the £14M draw because it would mean that statistically all the number combinations haven't been covered so the returns should be less

I think you may have misunderstood my posts - I completely agree that the odds of winning the jackpot don't change based on the number of people playing.

I'm saying the opposite, that the odds for each ticket are exactly the same regardless of number of players - i.e. ~14m to 1.

What does change though, as a result of those odds, is the average number of winners (as an absolute, not as a percentage of players). If the number of players is cut in half, the number of winners should also cut in half. Therefore, if there are twice as many players, there should be twice as many winners, therefore although the jackpot is twice as big, you're more likely to share it with somebody else and hence still take home the same amount.

I just wonder if you compare how much jackpot winners actually take home, whether it has really dropped or whether it stays the same as it's now being split less ways each time.

(Note only half the entry money goes into prizes, so even when there's a £6m jackpot there's probably >14m entries so you would still expect one winner, similarly 2 winners for a £12m jackpot etc)

 

[pseudonym]

I think you may have misunderstood my posts - I completely agree that the odds of winning the jackpot don't change based on the number of people playing.

I'm saying the opposite, that the odds for each ticket are exactly the same regardless of number of players - i.e. ~14m to 1.

What does change though, as a result of those odds, is the average number of winners (as an absolute, not as a percentage of players). If the number of players is cut in half, the number of winners should also cut in half. Therefore, if there are twice as many players, there should be twice as many winners, therefore although the jackpot is twice as big, you're more likely to share it with somebody else and hence still take home the same amount.

I just wonder if you compare how much jackpot winners actually take home, whether it has really dropped or whether it stays the same as it's now being split less ways each time.

(Note only half the entry money goes into prizes, so even when there's a £6m jackpot there's probably >14m entries so you would still expect one winner, similarly 2 winners for a £12m jackpot etc)

I don't agree that if you cut the number of tickets bought you cut the number of winning tickets in half, i say tickets not people because it's impossible to know how many tickets are bought by an individual, for example take yesterdays draw a jackpot of £10 million & a total prize fund of just over £16 million,there was 343,520 winning tickets, now take a lower jackpot, wednesday 9th nov 2011 for example, a jackpot of £1.8 million & a total prize fund of just over £7 million, there was 387,343 wining tickets.

So a prize fund of £9 million less yet 43,823 more winning tickets

 

[DTES]

I don't agree that if you cut the number of tickets bought you cut the number of winning tickets in half, i say tickets not people because it's impossible to know how many tickets are bought by an individual, for example take yesterdays draw a jackpot of £10 million & a total prize fund of just over £16 million,there was 343,520 winning tickets, now take a lower jackpot, wednesday 9th nov 2011 for example, a jackpot of £1.8 million & a total prize fund of just over £7 million, there was 387,343 wining tickets.

So a prize fund of £9 million less yet 43,823 more winning tickets

I agree in looking at tickets not people, you're right that tickets per person is irrelevant in this - I was thinking of probabilities per ticket not per person.

However your comparison isn't quite fair - the jackpot (and total prize pot) was much bigger last night because it was a rollover.

In general (i.e. if there is no rollover) then 50% of all ticket purchases go into the prize pot. I agree that it won't be precise every draw, but on average you would expect 1 in every 14m tickets to win the jackpot. Wed 9th (to use your example) had a prize pot of 7m players => 14m tickets purchased => on average you would expect one winner. On another (hypothetical) day if the prize pot was 14m (excl. rollover) => 28m tickets purchased => on average you would expect two winners.

 

[pseudonym]

I agree in looking at tickets not people, you're right that tickets per person is irrelevant in this - I was thinking of probabilities per ticket not per person.

However your comparison isn't quite fair - the jackpot (and total prize pot) was much bigger last night because it was a rollover.

In general (i.e. if there is no rollover) then 50% of all ticket purchases go into the prize pot. I agree that it won't be precise every draw, but on average you would expect 1 in every 14m tickets to win the jackpot. Wed 9th (to use your example) had a prize pot of 7m players => 14m tickets purchased => on average you would expect one winner. On another (hypothetical) day if the prize pot was 14m (excl. rollover) => 28m tickets purchased => on average you would expect two winners.

Compare the 23rd of november 2011 to the 9th of nov more or less identical prize funds yet there was 364,807 winning tickets 22,536 less winning tickets and thats on a like for like basis, im not convinced that the number of winning tickets are halfed when half as many are bought.

Yes i understand if there is a rollover money is already in the pool,supposedly more tickets are bought when the jackpots are bigger but on the comparison i gave from yesterday when there was a rollover there was less winning tickets when you would have though there would be more, or are you suggesting that although the jackpot was bigger there may not have been that many more tickets bought than on a usual wednesday i would'nt be surpised if that was the case because there are to many games and people do not have the money to play all the games every week.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

I agree in looking at tickets not people, you're right that tickets per person is irrelevant in this - I was thinking of probabilities per ticket not per person.

However your comparison isn't quite fair - the jackpot (and total prize pot) was much bigger last night because it was a rollover.

In general (i.e. if there is no rollover) then 50% of all ticket purchases go into the prize pot. I agree that it won't be precise every draw, but on average you would expect 1 in every 14m tickets to win the jackpot. Wed 9th (to use your example) had a prize pot of 7m players => 14m tickets purchased => on average you would expect one winner. On another (hypothetical) day if the prize pot was 14m (excl. rollover) => 28m tickets purchased => on average you would expect two winners.

Statistically only sound if every entry was a random lucky dip. So, as they don't its not a robust argument. Punters buy tix based on non random events I.e. 123456 is bought 60,000 every week & birthdays are 'numbers' 1-12 & 1-31 so it is the numbers that come out that determine the outturn of winners.

 

[DTES]

Compare the 23rd of november 2011 to the 9th of nov more or less identical prize funds yet there was 364,807 winning tickets 22,536 less winning tickets and thats on a like for like basis, im not convinced that the number of winning tickets are halfed when half as many are bought.

1.3% bigger prize pool, 6% more winners. Pretty much what you'd expect. It's never going to be exact, of course it's not - but on average I think it will be.

You can't use one draw and expect it to be precise (for the reasons [MENTION=14118]Vegas Seagull[/MENTION] gives) - I'm not claiming that it will work exactly for any one given draw. But over time it will balance out that on average - given that each ticket has a 1 in 14m chance of winning the jackpot - roughly 1 in 14m tickets will win the jackpot. I really don't see that as complicated or controversial.

Yes i understand if there is a rollover money is already in the pool,supposedly more tickets are bought when the jackpots are bigger but on the comparison i gave from yesterday when there was a rollover there was less winning tickets when you would have though there would be more, or are you suggesting that although the jackpot was bigger there may not have been that many more tickets bought than on a usual wednesday

No, sorry you've misinterpreted my point here about rollovers. Nothing to do with whether extra people buy tickets or not.

My point was simply that the prize pot figure : expected number of winning tickets ratio doesn't work on a rollover as the prize contains money that didn't come from the tickets bought for that draw (i.e. the jackpot that wasn't won on Saturday and so is lumped on top of the Wednesday one).

Rollover or not, on average, 1 in 14m tickets will win the jackpot. If it's isn't a rollover you can use the prize pot to work out the number of tickets bought, if it is a rollover you can't. That's all.

 

[DTES]

Statistically only sound if every entry was a random lucky dip. So, as they don't its not a robust argument. Punters buy tix based on non random events I.e. 123456 is bought 60,000 every week & birthdays are 'numbers' 1-12 & 1-31 so it is the numbers that come out that determine the outturn of winners.

Very true, though over a long period of time the common-numbers and rare-numbers will balance each other out. Again, I'm only talking about averages not one specific draw.

Having said that, I think when you go back to the original point that started this debate, it still holds. The point was that the lottery is less popular and half as many tickets are bought now as were at the beginning. Surely if roughly 60,000 people played 1 2 3 4 5 6 when it was twice as popular, there's probably roughly 30,000 people playing it now? So the point still stands?