Hey, fuck you too.
Duh
They know when it is redeemed
This is where you run into trouble. You are just too fucking stupid to understand my simple suggested change to the scratch off system that DOES correct any possible “unfairness” and possibly INCREASE sales of the game when large prizes have been awarded. This, however, may not be your fault. It could be a result of genetics or the fact that your school had a trailer hitch.
O, and by the way Muttrox, you slack jawed, mouth breathing yokel. Here is what the Viginia State Lottery Commision now says on its website:
So I guess your claims that
are simply bullshit.
Too easy… must resist urge… must keep shred of dignity…
OMG, I called out the wrong person. Sorry Muttrox, I meant for my jibe to be at Dead Cat :smack:
Right, let’s take stock. one vote for Muttrox and DanBlather are idiots, two votes for fuck you right back at Dead Cat, with some bonus slackjawed yokel thrown in.
So, after reading this thread, I have a new appreciation of scratchers tickets. Seems to me that the way they are currently treated, they are actually “fairer” than a typical lottery (in that 21 is fairer than roulette). You can theoretically know when it is best to buy one, by following the statistics posted in places like this. It’s like the State of California is counting the cards for you.
Hmm…a tax for those bad at math indeed…
Nice to know that I can contribute.
Something that does not help any of this from a discussion/debate perspective is that all of the 40+ lotteries in the US ( let alone Europe, Central/South America, Asia ) are all independent Entities. Each with it’s own set of rules and procedures. So we end up with people basing their discussion on what they know, namely the states they live in/border on. Every one of them has their own quirks. We can talk in terms of generalities, since many of them do have rules in common, but when it comes to the advertising, each has it own group of brain damaged marketeers more or less controlled by the lawyers.
They are never perfect. I’m aware of several cases where the marketing went directly counter to things that the lotteries had been informed/warned of, mainly due to the marketing weasels not understanding what they were being warned away from.
A link or a quote would have been useful, but having scanned back through the entire thread, I assume you mean post #102 of this thread, where you said:
What you “fail to see” has been explained - why you even think this is a sensible argument I do not know. Since then you have posted another couple of nitpicking comments that also miss the point. So I think my flame was justified, and your response is not valid.
What, in every scratch-off game ever? As gnome42 points out, each lottery has its own procedures, so we cannot deal in absolutes - anyway, everyone knows that all absolute statements are false. I have been discussing the general point of how lotteries are run; it appears from your later cite that in this particular lottery, the retailers are notified, but that does not have to be the case.
If your “simple suggested change” is to remove all tickets from sale when the top prize is won, then I have no difficulty in understanding this. YOU have difficulty in understanding the problems this may cause. For example, suppose the winning ticket for the one top prize is the first to be sold. The lottery then makes a huge loss. True, this is unlikely to ever happen, but even if it doesn’t, the lottery is almost guaranteed to generate less revenue using your system. Hence most lottery providers do not use it, instead they provide disclaimers in the advertising and freely distribute information on prizes already won.
Well, what a shock that is. So if I throw out a “suck on an octopus brain, the pair of you, you may learn something”, with an extra “your mum is a boneheaded bottom-feeder”, that means I win the argument? Seriously, you both get a B+ for flaming, but an F for actually responding to the points I made. Try again.
Well you started it! 
I assume you must have been responding to something I had written, ergo you must have read what I wrote. Why didn’t you provide the link when you did that? Practice what you preach.
I’ll make it a little simpler. Gnome explained the reality of how lotteries work, which makes all the mathematical/game theoretical arguments pointless. I made a mathematical/game theoretical argument, and explicitly said that it was pointless because of the reality of how lotteries work. Then you decided to jump in for no reason, called me stupid because I was ignoring the reality of how lotteries work, and we’re off to the races. Capish?
I was commenting on your general demeanour on page 3 of this thread, not responding to a specific post you made. I then asked for clarification as your response did not make sense to me when reading back through your posts. Your comment below explains - thanks.
Then why make the pointless argument in the first place, and then follow it up with nitpicking about “win up to”, when that had also been explained previously as legitimate. That is what I called you out for; yes, it was harsh, but this is the Pit.
From what I can gather in this thread, US lotteries seem different to to the UK one.
Or are you all referring here to what we in the UK call “scratch cards”?
If so, I am even more puzzled why people purchase them now. It never actually occurred to me before when I was watching these people holding up the queue in the local newsagent, that the winning ticket for the “draw” they are paying for, might already have gone. ( If it was ever even in there in the first place… ? How does the punter know this? Are all lottery providers trustworthy? ).
I’m sure if I was to mention this in a non-threatening, non-crank kind of way, to these people, they wouldn’t be so keen to part with their money…or then again,maybe they would !!
(or should I say, “Creating the queue?”)
We are indeed discussing scratch cards, and I believe they work the same way in the UK. To save you trawling through the previous posts, the lottery providers do make it public which prizes have been won (this is available on Teletext/Ceefax and the Internet for the National Lottery in the UK), and it is possible to buy a ticket where all the top prizes have already been won. However, the rules of the game make this clear, and the loss of the top “headline” prizes does not usually significantly affect the overall odds or expected value of the game.
In the UK and almost certainly elsewhere, if the company running the lottery is not “trustworthy” it will end up losing its licence to run the lottery.
You didn’t ask for clarification. You just called me stupid and foolish. Why don’t you fess up to it already? It’s OK if you didn’t understand what I wrote (as you just said above). Yet you still continue to jab.
So, why would these people spend a £1, and sometimes a lot more, knowing this, when they could place the money on the real lottery, and know they at least had a proper chance of winning it. Is it something to do with the “reveal and win” thrill, and most peoples inability to deal with probability theory, or something else?
At least with the UK’s 49 ball draw system, there is no way of fixing it…or is there…theoretically?
We seem to be continually posting at cross-purposes. I know that I did not ask for clarification in my first post - that was just a jab at your joining the debate on what I see as the “wrong” side. When I referred to my request for clarification, I meant where I said “A link or a quote would have been useful” (which you had promptly jumped upon as being hypocritical) in response to your post "read my first post, which I found to be a confusing and unhelpful response.
I understood perfectly what you wrote; I now accept that you don’t disagree with me and LHOD in general. I was mainly having a go at your second and third posts, which seemed to me to be inane. DanBlather was the main cause of my irritation, I just threw another name in - but not without justification.
Well, with scratchcards you win instantly, so I guess they’re good for really impatient people. Also, if you are trying to play the lottery for value (inherently impossible, obviously, but some people prefer a large chance of winning a small prize over a small chance of winning a large prize), then scratchcards may be better than the main lottery draw.
I think the main lottery draw is pretty much unfixable, and why would you? Anyone in a position to do so is probably prevented from buying a ticket by the rules anyway (or, more likely, prevented from claiming a prize, which would make more sense).
In the U.S., there is only one lottery provider - the government. More specifically, the state government, as there’s no national lottery. Although there are some multistate lotteries, the most well known is MegaMillions in which 12 states participate. I don’t know of any multistate stratch cards though.
Bear in mind that gambling is predominantly illegal in the U.S. and where legal, closely controlled by the government, which, as I understand it, is pretty different from the U.K.
Fair enough I suppose… not worth beating this dead horse (or cat) anymore.
A slight clarification is in order here.
The only entities that have the ability to charter lotteries in the US are state governments. ( I suppose there could be a national lottery, but good luck getting that off the ground ).
There are only a few lotteries implemented by the chartered entity. The rest contract out the lottery services to a vendor(s).
Online lotteries ( the games with physical drawings of some sort, where you can choose your numbers played ) are supplied by only about three companies in the world. SGI, GTECH, and INTRALOT.
Scatch off tickets are supplied by several printers. SGI, OBERTHER, GTECH, INTRALOT might, I’m not sure, and several others.
States for the most part don’t design the games they have, they buy them.
And to address several questions further up-thread, the suppliers go through major pains to stay clean. The public perception has a nasty habit of believing the games are fixed anyway ( this thread would not exist without this bias ), so they start at a disadvantage from a PR standpoint.
Also, yes, Instant games a printed as a single batch. Not in segments.
His “simple suggested change” wasn’t at all what you think it is, which is rather amusing considering your subsequent reply to muttrox.
I agree with the OP, that the idea of someone feeling “duped” into buying a ticket is incomprehensible, when in all reality they had about the same chance of winning as of being hit by a bus.
However, keep in mind that if a casino in Vegas were in the same position - say for instance, a slot machine that has a registered payout rate of (x) is malfunctioning and paying out at a lower rate, or not at all - the operator would be obligated by the Nevada gaming commission to refund any proceeds affected by the incident.
So there does seem to be some precedent for concern. I would even go so far as to say that it is misleading if a state is selling lottery tickets where the maximum prize amount is actually part of the ticket name (I saw reference to a $1m Explosion" scratch-off game in the cite). It may only be misleading to complete morons who don’t understand the laws of probability, completely ignore the phrase “the lottery should be played for recreation only and not for investment purposes”, and can’t read the fine print on the back of the ticket that says something like “all prizes may not be available at the time of purchase”. But misleading nonetheless.
However, the guy in the cited article still seems like a schmuck. His complaint, combined with his educated background, and the sequence of events, smacks to me of grandstanding - what with the too-pat: “oh, I casually bought a ticket one day, and then after the fact, casually researched if someone had won the top prize prior to my buying the ticket (just lazy weekend reading, mind you), and then, I casually made a FOIA request of the VA lottery ticket sales records, and wouldn’t you know it - I was shocked and flabbergasted, just flabbergasted, I tell you, to find out that I may have been forced into buying a lottery ticket that had no chance of winning the top prize, by those meany poopypants in the lottery commission.”
Besides, I’ve personally known two people that went to Washington and Lee, and they were both douchebags. Since we’re playing fast and loose with statistical probabilities here, I would say that my empirical observations are a good indicator that the complainant - being a professor at W & L - is, indeed, a douchebag. 