When the lotto was first implemented there was a 50 ticket limit, this was raised to 1000 and eventually raised to 10k. This was done because we decided that people should be able to play bigger lottos. Someone mentioned this already, but lottery is for the rich, the rich will dominate the lotto, and it will always stay that way.
Illogical because you are assuming that the player is the only one who buys tickets. Its somewhat safe to assume that if people buy 1000 tickets, then others will also buy tickets as well in order to have a chance to win the money.
If you are saying that theres a 10k cap per person, then thats impossible to get because theres not even that much money in the economy itself. Even with the 1000 ticket limit, you dont see people going out and buying 1000 tickets. At most ive ever seen throughout the months that ive played ecc, ive seen the highest as about 300 ticket wins. Most people will not buy over 50 tickets, and even if they do, theyll most likely win anyway
Take a look at http://lottery.radthorne.com/?biggestwins And then look at http://lottery.radthorne.com/?top1ticketwins You can clearly see that people play lotto big, a lot, and you can also clearly see that small players winning big happens fairly often. There's no need to change things, small players play away their money because they want to. Big players play away money because they want to, too. If you don't want to play against big players or if you think it's unfair then simply don't play at all. Lottery is a huge risk and will always be a huge risk.
Firstly there is more than 10m in the economy. Secondly as a lotto player myself I can say that I would prefer buying 500 tickets in a 500k pot, lowering my profit but with 50% chance to win. I can tell you now most lotto players don't think about profit when they snipe, they think about chance.
I'm not assuming anything. If someone buys 1 ticket, their expected average win is 850, regardless of how many tickets anyone else buys. I'm not saying they will win 850, just that if you were to do the drawing many times, their average over those drawings would be 850. That is what an "expected" result is - an average result, not the actual one.
False. Having 500 tickets in a 500k lotto doesnt amount to 50% its more like 85% Then again, you also hit a stalemate with the net flow of money to yourself and the lotto
However if there are enough tickets purchased so that the overall amount is over 85% of the amount that a player pays, then theyre profit is not 85% of what they win.
Its not at matter of unfairity, its a matter of having an attempt to make the lotto more approachable to all, because if most people see a limit, then theyll purchase more tickets. Maybe we can have a test run.
Assuming that more people wont buy, you will still gain money because then youll still get 85% of what you paid because there was already 500k in
You are confusing the actual result with the expected (average) result. If a player has 1 ticket out of 1000, then in 999 possible outcomes, he loses. In 1 possible outcome, he wins 850k. You add up the winnings from each possible outcome and divide it byb the number of outcomes: 850,000 / 1000 = 850. If you did the drawing many times, his winnings would average out to 850, or 85%. If a player buys 100 out of 1000 tickets, there are 900 possible outcomes where he loses. There are 100 possible outcomes where he wins 850k. Add up the possible outcomes and divide by the total tickets: 100 * 850,000 / 1000 85,000,000/ 1000 = 85,000 If you did the drawing many times, he would be expected to win 85,000 on average, or 85%. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you.
I think you don't really understand how humans think. People's chances of winning will change. Your idea may affect the lottery positively for roughly a week, after that people will have adjusted and the people who play lottery will realize they have less chance of winning, therefore they'll play way less because they can't put enough tickets in the lotto to get a good chance of winning. This will, in the end, affect the lottery in a very negative way.
True. The lotto should not be limited. Kukelekuuk00 is right because the lotto is for the rich, and also because humans do realize that they have a lesser chance of winning over time.
Ill use your example of 1 ticket. 1 ticket out of 1000 is .001. That means the player has a .1% chance of winning 850k, which is profit. 100 out of a 1000 tickets is 10%. I have no clue how to make that clearer to you. Saying that he keeps doing the drawing many times assumes that he constantly uses the same amount of tickets, same amount of tickets overall, and of course, he constantly wins. Keep in mind all the constants.
How can you assume this? No disrespect intended, but do you have any education into the mind? We dont know how this could work out, it could work out well, it could work out worse. Either way, i think that a test will be in order
