News0 min ago
Lottery Millions
Would it be better if we had 56 winners of one million pound each rather than one multimillionaire winning the lot ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have read all your answers and appreciate the problems, however if there was a cap on say the top two numbers couldn't the surplus money be used to pay out say £5 to those at the bottom with two winning numbers.? I know this does not spread the money out at the top which was my first suggestion but it would make the system fairer overall.
The problem with messing with any of the out going prize money does have a knock on effect as to the total amount of cash available to be given out.
The exact numbers i would to work out but it goes something like this .
for every £1 spent on the lottery 1/3 goes to good a good charitiable cause , x amount goes to tax revenue and what is left after running costs "with profits" goes on prizes.
When they work out the winnings amount it is set to averages from the incoming money.
This money is obviously limited by the amount of money coming in for each draw.
and is worked out on the % chance of winning with the numbers and combination of numbers.
Adding more winners " ie a payment for 2 numbers " believe it or not would take out more money than would be generated and therefore there would be people left without a payout because they would Not be enough funds in the " kitty" to pay every winner .
even the simple act of paying the 3 number winners a single £1 extra making pay out £11 instead of £10 could make this possible.
The " jackpot " stake looks like a large amount until you actualy look at the figures involved.
For a jackpot of approx " £10 million" there would have to have been in excess of over 50 million tickets sold to create this single payment and the other lower yeald payments incured.
When you consider this you realise just how little " leyway" there actualy is in changing the amounts that the lottery pays out.
The exact numbers i would to work out but it goes something like this .
for every £1 spent on the lottery 1/3 goes to good a good charitiable cause , x amount goes to tax revenue and what is left after running costs "with profits" goes on prizes.
When they work out the winnings amount it is set to averages from the incoming money.
This money is obviously limited by the amount of money coming in for each draw.
and is worked out on the % chance of winning with the numbers and combination of numbers.
Adding more winners " ie a payment for 2 numbers " believe it or not would take out more money than would be generated and therefore there would be people left without a payout because they would Not be enough funds in the " kitty" to pay every winner .
even the simple act of paying the 3 number winners a single £1 extra making pay out £11 instead of £10 could make this possible.
The " jackpot " stake looks like a large amount until you actualy look at the figures involved.
For a jackpot of approx " £10 million" there would have to have been in excess of over 50 million tickets sold to create this single payment and the other lower yeald payments incured.
When you consider this you realise just how little " leyway" there actualy is in changing the amounts that the lottery pays out.
Any form of " capping " would simply reduce the number of players and in turn generate money for the potencial winners .
As the game is obviously a game of chance with the opertunity of a life changing amount of money to be had by one or two lucky people , this is a way to encourage higher sales and therefore higher prizes as well as higher income for the good causes and tax man.
I know im the one here always putting the idea's down , and im sorry for that , its just that i can see why the idea's put forward " so far " could not work. I wish i could see a way round this myself so i could actualy give a possative answer to this question instead of the current always negative's, but sadly as of yet i am unable to see a viable alternative
As the game is obviously a game of chance with the opertunity of a life changing amount of money to be had by one or two lucky people , this is a way to encourage higher sales and therefore higher prizes as well as higher income for the good causes and tax man.
I know im the one here always putting the idea's down , and im sorry for that , its just that i can see why the idea's put forward " so far " could not work. I wish i could see a way round this myself so i could actualy give a possative answer to this question instead of the current always negative's, but sadly as of yet i am unable to see a viable alternative
How about this for an idea which might avoid many of the problems. Pay out everything as it is now ( possibly with or without a cap ) and then put all surplus money including roll over money into a fund Not Linked to the lottery numbers, a bit like a raffle .
I suppose you could compare it with the Premium bond share out, they keep paying out the prize money until its gone.
I suppose you could compare it with the Premium bond share out, they keep paying out the prize money until its gone.
currently a roll over offers anyone the chance to win when there was no winner and encourages more to play the roll over week hence more income.
any money's not claimed go to the good causes.
again this idea will reduce the income of the lottery for the periods that see extra income coming in " the charities would loose out the tax man would loose out the lotery company would loose out and those who played the pervious week would loose the chance of getting some of that original pot .
sorry something else that would be agreed to by the public , especialy as the idea takes the winnings from one group of people " who paid in " to another group who didnt.
and as this would also take the chance of said unclaimed money away from the good causes where it could eventualy end up . its really a none starter
any money's not claimed go to the good causes.
again this idea will reduce the income of the lottery for the periods that see extra income coming in " the charities would loose out the tax man would loose out the lotery company would loose out and those who played the pervious week would loose the chance of getting some of that original pot .
sorry something else that would be agreed to by the public , especialy as the idea takes the winnings from one group of people " who paid in " to another group who didnt.
and as this would also take the chance of said unclaimed money away from the good causes where it could eventualy end up . its really a none starter
the only system i could think of to pay out any none jackpot wins would be to increase the 4 5 and 5 + bonus ball number payouts on that week..
as the only number payout set in stone is the 3 number win ,, the rest are calculated the week the draw is done.
but even there that would reduce the chance of the extra income the rollover produces and therefore would still not be agreed to
as the only number payout set in stone is the 3 number win ,, the rest are calculated the week the draw is done.
but even there that would reduce the chance of the extra income the rollover produces and therefore would still not be agreed to
I understand what you say except that bit about money going from one group who had paid in to those who had not. The participants in the Prize Draw would be limited to those who had contributed to that days lottery which is fairer than the present system where roll over money does go to people may not have contributed the previous week.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Insurance6 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
