The odds were reasonable? Are you kidding me? You would think that a guy who is a business professor from a college like Washington and Lee would be better at math than that. But no, he paid the stupid tax anyway.
What can you possibly say to this? It’s a sucker’s bet under the best of circumstances. Yet our esteemed professor chose to buy one anyway, of his own free will. The dupe is the person that buys the ticket.
Now THAT is a good racket right there. If I don’t win the top prize I simply sue for the value of the remaining tickets. Why didn’t I think of that?
Keep scratching those tickets, sucker. Because remember, if you don’t win the state must be cheating you out of your rightful prize.
Morons, one and all. Who seriously thinks that they, and they alone, are going to win the lottery? These people act as if they are entitled to win. Oh, they’re entitled to a chance of winning. Here’s your chance, Einstein:
Odds of winning the top prize: 1 in 200,000 (Cite)
Good luck. Even if the prize were still out there, you’re not going to win it. I’ll bet $1,000,000 on that.
I do not share your outrage. While I agree that buying lottery tickets is a losing business proposition, I can understand that selling tickets that have no chance of winning a big prize is misleading. Of course, there are smaller prizes to be had, but if I buy a scratch ticket (which is rare to never), I’d want an equal shot at hitting the big money.
Yeah, what tdn said. It’s misrepresentation; even if the chance of winning the jackpot is infinitesimal to begin with, it still isn’t zero. If it DOES become zero, the lottery should be required to disclose that.
You approaching this too rationally, Dave. A lottery ticket isn’t an investment, its a license to fantacize. So long as there is any chance, however slender, that you might get lucky, you can dream on it, until it becomes clear that you no longer can. Which is pretty good for a buck, I do it fairly frequently.
But if even that is denied you, you’re being screwed.
That would be nice, of course, but the whole point of buying a lottery ticket is to win some “prize X”, which is greater in value than the face value of the ticket.
If someone was selling fake lottery tickets, from which there could be no winners of any sort, then I might agree. But since (as you mentioned) buyers can still win an assortment of other prizes, this is pretty silly.
I don’t think that article says what you think it says.
He isn’t suing because he didn’t win, or because he had a tiny chance of winning. He is suing because at the time of ticket purchase there was an exactly zero chance of winning the $75000, since apparently only one person can win this, and at the time of purchase the prize was already allocated to someone else.
If the state was still advertising the potential to win $75000 yet knew that it was mathematically impossible (not unlikely, impossible) to win $75000 then I actually think his case is reasonable.
Also, the article is poorly written so it is not explicit, but I don’t think he was asking for $85million for himself. This was the proceeds from the tickets where there was zero chance of winning, so it makes sense that the state would have to in effect give the money back.
I’m not saying in any way that lottery tickets are a sensible purchase. But ultimately the state has to provide what you paid for: a chance to win some money.
Sure, but the tickets aren’t sold based on the thought of winning that exciting $1,500.00 404th prize. You think Cowboys fans buy season tickets because they can’t wait to see the team win a division title and flame out in the playoffs?
I agree. The lottery needs to be run in the fashion defined in the fine-print. I’m a little unclear if there was some random number generator that gave the grand-prize a certain stated p of winning the grand prize printed off a small run of tickets and never happened to print a grand prize which the lottery should have supposedly known or if it was something more nefarious. From what I’ve gathered from the article, it seems like the former, so it’s okay with me.
It comes down to the specifics of the advertising. If the state advertised the possibility of winning $75000 then there must be a possibility of winning that $75000. It doesn’t matter if you could win a smaller amount, the state cannot advertise that $75000 is available when it is not.
I very often see updated printouts of which games have which prizes still available. Many convenience store owners keep 'em taped up right next to the rack of tickets. It’s not like this is some great secret.
If we discount the fact that scratch-offs are a losing proposition, then the big idiocy here is the thought that if the top prize is gone, then the game is worthless. Hell, I’ve bought 'em a few times in my life, and I never expected to win 100 grand or anything close to it. Handing over a ticket and getting back 500 bucks makes for a very nice day indeed…
If I’m understanding how it worked, it was something like this:
The state printed up 50 bajillion tickets, one of which was the grand prize.
Someone bought the 10 bajillionth ticket, which turned out to be the grand prize.
The state continued selling tickets after this point.
I’m conflicted. Really, any ticket has either a 100% chance or a 0% chance of being the winning ticket. The person who bought the 9 bajillionth ticket and the person who bought the 11 bajillionth ticket had exactly the same chance of winning: 0%, since theirs wasn’t the 10 bajillionth ticket. The difference between them isn’t that Ms. 9bajillion has a chance of winning where Mr. 11Bajilion doesn’t: the difference is that Mr. 11Bajillion has the opportunity to know that he’s not going to when, whereas Ms. 9bajillion doesn’t. In other words, lottery players gain MORE information about the odds, not less, once the grand prize is won.
There are a couple of problems with stopping sales once the grand prize is won. First, it means that a lot of secondary prizes won’t be awarded. Second, it’s probably a logistical nightmare. Third, and most importantly, this is an education lottery, right? If it turns out that the grand prize is won in the first ten tickets, it’ll mean the state’s schools lose tremendous amounts of money.
I can understand the dismay in finding out that you could’ve known before purchase that a given ticket was one of the 0% chance of winning tickets–but that dismay should be directed at yourself, for not gathering all the information available to you.
Here in the UK, a number of media companies have been running telephone competitions.
Folk were making their calls, in the hope of going into a draw and having a chance of winning.
In a huge number of cases, the draw itself had closed, anyone entering after this time were not informed, and had no chance of winning.
The money coming in was huge, £millions and millions.
Some of the phone-ins were actually votes for tv shows such as big brother, however these votes didnt count as the results had been determined sometime before the polls closed.
The one thing in common, was that the public were duped into paying for something they were not getting, even though they were given the clear impression that they were.
Put simply, this is fraud, misleading anyone into purchasing something that does not resemble the product they have been led to believe they are getting is fraud, it doesn’t matter if its fridges, cars, or chances to win a prize.
In this case, I suspect that our learned gentleman probably had a good idea something was amiss, and decided to do something about it.
If they sell tickets and advertise the fact that there is no big prize, then fine but that’s not what happened.
There’s not really any “advertising” involved, though, outside of the fact that the lottery tickets were still being sold. It’s not like the store had a separate sign up saying something like, “Hey you! You could still have a chance to win this $75,000!” Sure the ticket probably said something like that, but the ticket has no idea someone has already won the big prize.
I would bet that it’s possible to find out if the big prize had already been won for a particular lottery (e.g., by contacting the coordinator of the lottery or something). If people are so concerned about maximizing their chances of winning, then they should probably keep track of things like that. (Or, be like me, and just look at it as a simple game, and be happy if you win at all.)
Anyway, nobody (well, not me) is saying that if the top prize is gone the game is worthless. We’re saying that if the top price is gone some of the incentive is gone, which is why said fact should be clearly disclosed. If it was, then bully for that lottery agency. Otherwise, bully for Mr. suity-pants.
ETA: It seems like this is your lottery, so I’ll take your word for it regarding the convenience store notification.
Exactly. Sure, if I buy a $1 scratch ticket and win anything, then is was (retrospectively) a wise investment. However, I wouldn’t make the decision to buy it if I knew the top payout was $10. The deal I’ve struck with the state is that I’ve paid $1 for the chance to win $75,000. Even if it’s a lousy investment, it’s what I’ve contracted for.
Are you talking about the guy in the CNN article? If so, why would he think something was amiss?
I don’t see why the lottery has any obligation to keep its players up-to-date with the latest odds. If they’re interested in the up-to-date odds, I would bet (heh) that they’re available - just not on the ticket.
The thing is, though, your actual odds of winning are in no way affected by whether the prize has been picked up elsewhere. You either hold the winning ticket in your hand, or you don’t. The only difference it makes when the prize has been won is that you have MORE information about whether you’re holding the winning ticket.
Folks supporting this lawsuit: how do you propose that such multi-prize contests should be run, once the grand prize has been won?
What if it was $15? Do you think the store needs to keep - and publicize - a list of the currently available prizes? How often is that list supposed to be updated? What if someone wins the big prize, and the list isn’t updated “soon enough”?
Unfortunately, no. The deal you struck with the state is that you’ve paid $1 for the chance to win something.