POWERBALL odds 1 in 292,201,338
Also remember that, if you play in California, there are no fixed prizes; under California law, each prize except the jackpot is based on a fraction of the number of tickets bought in California and divided equally among all tickets in California that won at that level.
Quote: tringlomaneThis isn't terribly surprising. Lower jackpot odds will drive up the average jackpot size. The biggest sales are easily when the jackpots are huge.
It also increases the probability of a sole jackpot winner as opposed to having to split the jackpot. It's not really considered a "record jackpot" if it's split between a number of people.
Then again, you don't want to make it so hard that pretty much nobody wins. I still think that Powerball should put a cap of, say, $100 million on any single ticket win, with any excess going back into the jackpot pool. (That's not a cap on the jackpot, mind you; if there's a $150 million jackpot split between two tickets, each gets the full $75 million, but if there's only one winner, the winner gets "only" $100 million and the next draw starts $50 million higher than it normally does.)
Quote: ThatDonGuyI still think that Powerball should put a cap of, say, $100 million on any single ticket win, with any excess going back into the jackpot pool.
Only $9100/day* for 30 years? That's barely enough to keep a fellow in new Miatas, much less sports cars. Who is going to buy a ticket if that's all they can win? ;)
*Before taxes, and the annuity payout option.
Quote: ThatDonGuyIt also increases the probability of a sole jackpot winner as opposed to having to split the jackpot. It's not really considered a "record jackpot" if it's split between a number of people.
Then again, you don't want to make it so hard that pretty much nobody wins. I still think that Powerball should put a cap of, say, $100 million on any single ticket win, with any excess going back into the jackpot pool. (That's not a cap on the jackpot, mind you; if there's a $150 million jackpot split between two tickets, each gets the full $75 million, but if there's only one winner, the winner gets "only" $100 million and the next draw starts $50 million higher than it normally does.)
I like the idea but I would do it a little different. Something we have done on large progressive slot machine jackpots is to lower the increment rate of the jackpot and put the difference back into a reserve fund that gets added to the starting value of the next jackpot. For example if 2.5% of the buy-in normally goes to the jackpot meter we may lower it to 1.5% when the jackpot gets to $10 million and put 1% of the buy-in to a hidden reset meter. That way when the jackpot hits instead of resetting to $1 million it could be a larger starting value. If the lottery did that they could make the jackpot only go up half as fast when it gets to a number like $200 million and have the next jackpot starting over $100 million instead of the typical reset amount.
Quote: DieterOnly $9100/day* for 30 years? That's barely enough to keep a fellow in new Miatas, much less sports cars. Who is going to buy a ticket if that's all they can win? ;)
*Before taxes, and the annuity payout option.
I was just thinking the same thing. Poor old me has to settle for an USED (yuck) miata everyday. I blame Obama.
Quote: djatcQuote: DieterOnly $9100/day* for 30 years? That's barely enough to keep a fellow in new Miatas, much less sports cars. Who is going to buy a ticket if that's all they can win? ;)
*Before taxes, and the annuity payout option.
I was just thinking the same thing. Poor old me has to settle for an USED (yuck) miata everyday. I blame Obama.
Yours is the ONLY Miata in which I have ridden. So it has that going for it. lol...squish! Get your foot out of my eye!
Quote: DRichI like the idea but I would do it a little different. Something we have done on large progressive slot machine jackpots is to lower the increment rate of the jackpot and put the difference back into a reserve fund that gets added to the starting value of the next jackpot. For example if 2.5% of the buy-in normally goes to the jackpot meter we may lower it to 1.5% when the jackpot gets to $10 million and put 1% of the buy-in to a hidden reset meter. That way when the jackpot hits instead of resetting to $1 million it could be a larger starting value. If the lottery did that they could make the jackpot only go up half as fast when it gets to a number like $200 million and have the next jackpot starting over $100 million instead of the typical reset amount.
The only problem I have with doing it this way is, it lowers the final amounts if there are multiple winners. Of course, my method would do that as well if it turned out that each winner would have received over $100 million normally, but I think the "full" jackpot needs to be paid out if each individual win isn't too high.
