I'm not easily shocked...................
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
I'm not easily shocked...................
I'm not easily shocked, but this shocked me to the core.
Camelot paid out 572 quid for 5 correct numbers on Feb. 26th's Lotto draw.
Which works out at odds of 285/1 for a 2 quid stake,so what? you might say.
Well,do you know what the real odds of getting 5 correct numbers are?
1,000/1 wrong!
10,000/1 wrong!
30,000/1 wrong!
50,000/1 wrong!
The real odds are a truly astonishing 55,000/1! (a little bigger than 285/1!)
I think I've bought my last ticket!
Camelot paid out 572 quid for 5 correct numbers on Feb. 26th's Lotto draw.
Which works out at odds of 285/1 for a 2 quid stake,so what? you might say.
Well,do you know what the real odds of getting 5 correct numbers are?
1,000/1 wrong!
10,000/1 wrong!
30,000/1 wrong!
50,000/1 wrong!
The real odds are a truly astonishing 55,000/1! (a little bigger than 285/1!)
I think I've bought my last ticket!
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
That is shit.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
It's the lottery. What did you expect?
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
5 numbers is not the only way to win though.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Anyway, it's like me going to the bookie's and putting a bet on Damon Hill making a comeback this year and winning the F1 world championship at 2/1. And then complaining about the odds after I win. Surely I should have got 1,000,000 to 1 at least! Well, whose fault is that?
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
If you're shocked by the odds in a lottery then truly you are easily shocked. Or completely lacking in understanding of probability and/or lotteries.
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
That is an appalling payout tbf. Were there an unusually high number of winners or something, and if so was there an obvious reason for this?
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Certainly seems an unusually low payout for 5 numbers.
4 numbers regularly pays out only about £60, on odds of over 1000/1.
No wonder the lottery has been described as a tax on stupidity.
4 numbers regularly pays out only about £60, on odds of over 1000/1.
No wonder the lottery has been described as a tax on stupidity.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
It's a rip-off. This is not news, this is not shocking. Did you not get round to looking at the payouts from the first twenty years of its existence?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
For most of those twenty years it would have been £1 a pop, not £2, and even then I think five numbers was generally £1k-£2k, I doubt very much it was ever anywhere near as low £300, let alone less. So it's quite a big difference tbf and perfectly cromulent to highlight.Ian Volante wrote:It's a rip-off. This is not news, this is not shocking. Did you not get round to looking at the payouts from the first twenty years of its existence?
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Still a huge rip-off either way, just more so now. The new odds have been pretty well publicised too since the price increase, and when proposed a year ago or so. Not news!Jon Corby wrote:For most of those twenty years it would have been £1 a pop, not £2, and even then I think five numbers was generally £1k-£2k, I doubt very much it was ever anywhere near as low £300, let alone less. So it's quite a big difference tbf and perfectly cromulent to highlight.Ian Volante wrote:It's a rip-off. This is not news, this is not shocking. Did you not get round to looking at the payouts from the first twenty years of its existence?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/play ... Sequence=0
It depends. If the sole way to win the lottery was to get at least five numbers then 196 people would have shared £7.9m and got over £40,000 each. I believe half the money goes to good causes, so if the odds are 55,000 to 1 this is a poor week, but not ridiculously so. The numbers look as if they might be 'popular' ones. I don't know how the prize fund is allocated, but it seems pretty obvious that there are pretty large steps in what you get for each extra ball, with a heavy emphasis on getting all six, and that the huge numbers getting £25 for three takes a massive chunk of the prize fund.
It depends. If the sole way to win the lottery was to get at least five numbers then 196 people would have shared £7.9m and got over £40,000 each. I believe half the money goes to good causes, so if the odds are 55,000 to 1 this is a poor week, but not ridiculously so. The numbers look as if they might be 'popular' ones. I don't know how the prize fund is allocated, but it seems pretty obvious that there are pretty large steps in what you get for each extra ball, with a heavy emphasis on getting all six, and that the huge numbers getting £25 for three takes a massive chunk of the prize fund.
Last edited by David Williams on Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
It's not like some evil overlords are profiteering from people's stupidity, is it? All the proceeds go to good causes.
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
From here (or pen and paper), the probabilities of matching the required numbers are roughly:Jon Corby wrote:That is an appalling payout tbf. Were there an unusually high number of winners or something, and if so was there an obvious reason for this?
3 1/57
4 1/1000
5 1/55,000
5+B 1/2,300,000
6 1/14,000,000
Using David's link above we can get rough expected returns per ticket broken down by numbers matched:
3 0.439
4 0.059
5 0.010
5+B 0.014
6 0.114
So significantly more of the payouts are apportioned towards the extremes of matching 3 and matching 6. I'd guess because funding the jackpot is what draws people to the lottery, and also rewarding well those that win most often (3 numbers) encourages people to continue playing. Beyond these two criteria, people will be very poor at intuitively judging just how more unlikely it is to match 4 or 5 numbers than 3, or that 5 numbers and the bonus is only 6 times more likely than winning the jackpot yet receives a prize 50 times smaller.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
20% I thought.Jon O'Neill wrote:It's not like some evil overlords are profiteering from people's stupidity, is it? All the proceeds go to good causes.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
It was actually £634 and 399 people matched 5 numbers, so a total of £252,966 was paid from this prize category, or about 1.5% of the total amount paid out in prizes, according to this. I don't really know how the fund is carved up but I suppose that percentage must go up and down depending on how many people win the guaranteed prizes, the £25 for three numbers must take a massive chunk some weeks.Steven M. McCann wrote:I'm not easily shocked, but this shocked me to the core.
Camelot paid out 572 quid for 5 correct numbers on Feb. 26th's Lotto draw.
Which works out at odds of 285/1 for a 2 quid stake,so what? you might say.
Well,do you know what the real odds of getting 5 correct numbers are?
1,000/1 wrong!
10,000/1 wrong!
30,000/1 wrong!
50,000/1 wrong!
The real odds are a truly astonishing 55,000/1! (a little bigger than 285/1!)
I think I've bought my last ticket!
- Adam Gillard
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
- Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
I'll have the £572 if you don't want it :p
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Apparently there's 10,000 people who do the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6, every draw,going by Conor's figures, they'll struggle to get their 2 quid back if they manage to get five correct!
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
The classic case was a week back in the 90s where there was a large rollover, but all the numbers came in pretty low, netting the hundreds (about 300 IIRR) of jackpot winners something of the order of a few thousand pounds each. Somewhat disappointing I'd say.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
http://lottery.merseyworld.com/archive/Lott009.html
133 winners shared £16.3m, receiving £122,510 each. This was one of the very early draws, when the lottery was still big news. I remember thinking at the time that there must have been 133 people who thought they were multi-millionaires for a few hours. I still think it was remarkable, because to my eyes the numbers are nothing special. 7 17 23 32 38 42. Why would so many people pick those exact six numbers?
133 winners shared £16.3m, receiving £122,510 each. This was one of the very early draws, when the lottery was still big news. I remember thinking at the time that there must have been 133 people who thought they were multi-millionaires for a few hours. I still think it was remarkable, because to my eyes the numbers are nothing special. 7 17 23 32 38 42. Why would so many people pick those exact six numbers?
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
It was all about the 7s
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
And the meaning of life.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Ah yes - not quite as disappointing as I'd remembered, but still, not quite as life-changing as they may have expected!David Williams wrote:http://lottery.merseyworld.com/archive/Lott009.html
133 winners shared £16.3m, receiving £122,510 each. This was one of the very early draws, when the lottery was still big news. I remember thinking at the time that there must have been 133 people who thought they were multi-millionaires for a few hours. I still think it was remarkable, because to my eyes the numbers are nothing special. 7 17 23 32 38 42. Why would so many people pick those exact six numbers?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Jim B., It was actually the Feb 26th draw that I was referring to, the numbers were
3,10,11,24,25,35.
The Jackpot wasn't won which makes the small amount of 572 quid won by the 192 players who got five correct, even more puzzling.
Bookmakers Daily 49's numbers bet offers odds of anything up to 150,000/1 for a player lucky enough to get 5 numbers correct out of 5 in their 49 ball 6 number draws, or if you prefer to perm any 5 numbers from 6, it still works out at odds of 25,000/1.
3,10,11,24,25,35.
The Jackpot wasn't won which makes the small amount of 572 quid won by the 192 players who got five correct, even more puzzling.
Bookmakers Daily 49's numbers bet offers odds of anything up to 150,000/1 for a player lucky enough to get 5 numbers correct out of 5 in their 49 ball 6 number draws, or if you prefer to perm any 5 numbers from 6, it still works out at odds of 25,000/1.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
What on earth is going on? only 374 quid for five correct tonight and a poxy 11,390 for five correct+bonus!
It seems like they have doubled the stakes and quartered the prizes!
It seems like they have doubled the stakes and quartered the prizes!
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/playe ... lation.ftl
If you'd just read this and think about it you wouldn't be so shocked.
If you'd just read this and think about it you wouldn't be so shocked.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Harlow
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Yes, as less than half the money taken is paid to prizewinners, you should only expect to win half as much as you paid in
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
I have just had a nasty surprise, care of Camelot & their poxy Thunderball game, last night I managed to Match 3 & the Thunderball (I always do 8's & 5 for the Thunderball), for some reason, I was under the impression I had won 100 quid, turns out, it was only 20.
Never again, I have learned my lesson!
Never again, I have learned my lesson!
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Unlike last time!Steven M. McCann wrote:I have just had a nasty surprise, care of Camelot & their poxy Thunderball game, last night I managed to Match 3 & the Thunderball (I always do 8's & 5 for the Thunderball), for some reason, I was under the impression I had won 100 quid, turns out, it was only 20.
Never again, I have learned my lesson!
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Ian, it was the main Lottery I stopped doing, ironically enough I started doing the Thunderball because I thought it was better value!
- Adam Gillard
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
- Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Steven, I get the impression that you are easily shocked.
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
In hindsight, maybe "disgusted" might have been a better word than "shocked"!
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Saturday May10th, since it went to £2, these have got to be the worst payouts so far, only £208 for 5 numbers and just £25 for 4 numbers (the same as 3 numbers!).
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:02 am
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
The lottery is awful. If you play it thinking you're going to win the jackpot at some point then dream on. You'd be better off going to the bookies and spending that money on a sport you know abit about
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Saturday June 21st. Lotto 3, 7, 13, 17, 27, 40. Bonus 19
The "prizes", including only £164 for 5 Balls & £28 for 4 Balls are a little disappointing to say the least!
That's what happens when you pick 7's & 3's in your selections!
The "prizes", including only £164 for 5 Balls & £28 for 4 Balls are a little disappointing to say the least!
That's what happens when you pick 7's & 3's in your selections!
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
There's going to be a lot of pissed off "winners" tonight! (Aug 13th)
All sorts of records have been smashed £15 for four balls! £105 for five balls! £8,211 for five balls plus the bonus!
The numbers were 5,9,11,20,23,30, Bonus 45.
All sorts of records have been smashed £15 for four balls! £105 for five balls! £8,211 for five balls plus the bonus!
The numbers were 5,9,11,20,23,30, Bonus 45.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:02 am
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
Steven M. McCann wrote:There's going to be a lot of pissed off "winners" tonight! (Aug 13th)
All sorts of records have been smashed £15 for four balls! £105 for five balls! £8,211 for five balls plus the bonus!
The numbers were 5,9,11,20,23,30, Bonus 45.
Fuck sake, thought I could retire in my early 20's too
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1786
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: I'm not easily shocked...................
‘Me and my husband Arthur wanted to go to France this weekend, but now we’re off to Skegness.’Mark James wrote:http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/15/outrage-a ... s-4833701/
Of course, if four numbers had been worth £50 or so, they'd have had three weeks in Cannes. C'est la vie...
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles