I think the problem lies in the fact that the odds of getting a 3+2 are not as high as many people would assume.
It's tempting to look at it as 'I was only 2 balls short of the jackpot', but the fact is that you are almost 10,000 times more likely to get a 3+2 result that to win the jackpot.
Last Friday, there were 2,906 winners of the 3+2 prize - even if they were given £1,000 each this would be a huge chunk out of the jackpot, which was only around £12m. Higher jackpots probably sell more tickets than increasing 'smaller' prizes.
In my opinion, it would actually be better to remove some of the lower prize categories (e.g. 2, 2+1, 1+2), which have very low payouts per ticket, but very high prize funds due to the number of winners. This money could then be redistributed slightly higher up. The disadvantage is that this would significantly lengthen the headline 'odds of winning a prize' (1 in 13). Also, from a psychological point of view, giving away more smaller prizes probably makes more people feel like they are 'close' to winning big, and also helps them to justify future ticket purchases.
If you were to win massive on the euromillions (im talking 150mil) would you buy Charlton??
id like to think id give the club some money for a player/players on the condition it was Powell’s to spend BUT by the time you sort out family and friends I’m not so sure it'd be that high on my to do list
Best thing to do with Lottery's is to put the money in a tin every week. At the end of the year you will have a minimum of £52 which is more than £42, plus you wouldn't have to moan about Euromillions.
Comments
Match 3 + 1 star = £6.30
Match 3 = £6.50
Eh!?
Totally different from getting 5 numbers.
All I know is that 5 balls drawn out of the machine were on my ticket, and to recieve £42 for that is derisory.
My point is that instead of having ridiculous first prizes (over 100 million etc.), why don't they filter some of that money down the prize scale.
It's tempting to look at it as 'I was only 2 balls short of the jackpot', but the fact is that you are almost 10,000 times more likely to get a 3+2 result that to win the jackpot.
Last Friday, there were 2,906 winners of the 3+2 prize - even if they were given £1,000 each this would be a huge chunk out of the jackpot, which was only around £12m. Higher jackpots probably sell more tickets than increasing 'smaller' prizes.
In my opinion, it would actually be better to remove some of the lower prize categories (e.g. 2, 2+1, 1+2), which have very low payouts per ticket, but very high prize funds due to the number of winners. This money could then be redistributed slightly higher up. The disadvantage is that this would significantly lengthen the headline 'odds of winning a prize' (1 in 13). Also, from a psychological point of view, giving away more smaller prizes probably makes more people feel like they are 'close' to winning big, and also helps them to justify future ticket purchases.
id like to think id give the club some money for a player/players on the condition it was Powell’s to spend BUT by the time you sort out family and friends I’m not so sure it'd be that high on my to do list
SORTED!
Like it says above, it ain't compulsory.
Smiley faced thing, cos I ain't being nasty!