Why it is no longer worth playing the Lotto ?

ken_w

Hi,
Seems something has been missed here
It seems the change to more numbers etc had only benefited Camelot not only in the more unlikely chance of winning but if you look at results each week something over two million "free" tickets are issued and guess what this week Camelot took over 3 million from winning pool which i guess it keeps for itself..

HappyMJ

dealer_wins wrote: »

With a return of under 50%, lotto is a terrible way to gamble.

Even online slots return 90-95% and some offer jackpots in the millions!

The problem with a 95% slot though is it takes on average 6 seconds (from experience including bonus rounds) for each £1 spin. A £1 spin is required to get a reasonable sized JP. Me personally I play 1 penny at max lines of 20p or 25p. To get the same entertainment value as a £2 weekly lottery ticket you'd need to play through at least £20 spinning the wheel 20 times over 2 minutes. In both cases you lose around £1 on average over many thousands of spins or draws.

Bingo in a club although mind numbingly boring to me is actually a cheap way of spending a few hours. You can buy a strip of 6 tickets for around £5 and get at least 2 hours of entertainment value and you can socialize at the same time. You also get cheap food and cheap drinks.

If you play the slots for 2 hours at £1 every 6 seconds you'd turn over £1,200 losing "on average" £60...if your money lasts that long.

Malthusian

Another way to look at it is that since all gambling loses you money, the "best" form of gambling is whatever loses you money the slowest. The lottery is a very good form of gambling in that regard.

HappyMJ wrote:

If you play the slots for 2 hours at £1 every 6 seconds you'd turn over £1,200 losing "on average" £60...if your money lasts that long.

Sorry, not correct. That would be the case if you played a single £1,200 slot with a 95% chance of winning. Because you are repeatedly inserting money into something with a 95% payout, the average loss is much much bigger than that.

If you insert £20 into a £1 95% slot then on average, after 2 minutes you will have £19. Then you insert that £19 into the slot and 1 minute 54 seconds later you'll have £18.05p. And so on... Based on HappyMJ's figures, if you bet £20 on £1 online slots it would take on average 38 minutes and 3 seconds before you lost the lot. (That is, you couldn't even afford a £1 spin.) Obviously it might take you less than this and it might take you longer - hell, you might even be up by bedtime. But this is the average.

By contrast, I'm guessing it would take a pretty hardcore lottery addict to spend £20 on the lottery, even playing all the draws twice a week. So it takes a week to lose on the lottery what takes less than 40 minutes to lose on slots. In that respect it is a good way to gamble, because it takes quite a lot of effort to lose your shirt on it.

HappyMJ

Malthusian wrote: »

Another way to look at it is that since all gambling loses you money, the "best" form of gambling is whatever loses you money the slowest. The lottery is a very good form of gambling in that regard.



Sorry, not correct. That would be the case if you played a single £1,200 slot with a 95% chance of winning. Because you are repeatedly inserting money into something with a 95% payout, the average loss is much much bigger than that.

If you insert £20 into a £1 95% slot then on average, after 2 minutes you will have £19. Then you insert that £19 into the slot and 1 minute 54 seconds later you'll have £18.05p. And so on... Based on HappyMJ's figures, if you bet £20 on £1 online slots it would take on average 38 minutes and 3 seconds before you lost the lot. (That is, you couldn't even afford a £1 spin.) Obviously it might take you less than this and it might take you longer - hell, you might even be up by bedtime. But this is the average.

By contrast, I'm guessing it would take a pretty hardcore lottery addict to spend £20 on the lottery, even playing all the draws twice a week. So it takes a week to lose on the lottery what takes less than 40 minutes to lose on slots. In that respect it is a good way to gamble, because it takes quite a lot of effort to lose your shirt on it.

You're right £20 should last about 40 minutes and £60 should last about 2 hours at £1 per spin and 6 seconds per spin. Over the 2 hours an average punter would have turned over £1,200 and be left with nothing from the initial bank of £60. An unlucky punter would have busted out around 30 minutes into the session. A really unlucky punter would bust out in 6 minutes not having one win at all (very unlikely) and a lucky punter would have some money left over at the end of the 2 hour session.

I take advantage of slot bonus offers online with a 20x wager requirement (i.e £60 bonus with a £1,200 wager requirement) and about 1 in 10 sessions I am left with something at the end of the 2 hour session. I have a huge spreadsheet showing me session profits and losses.

mickaveli2001

Lottery is a poor mans tax

paddyrg

There's another school of thought that the best gambling session is the one where you lose the lot on your first time, and learn from it! Coming out ahead simulates your reward centres and skews your attitude to the risk where winning becomes the 'normal' making you more likely to chase losses.

Hermione_Granger

Malthusian wrote: »

Another way to look at it is that since all gambling loses you money, the "best" form of gambling is whatever loses you money the slowest.

All gambling does not always lose you money. If someone was to buy one lottery ticket and win more than their stake then decided not to play again, how have they lost money?

specialboy

ken_w wrote: »

Hi,
Seems something has been missed here
It seems the change to more numbers etc had only benefited Camelot not only in the more unlikely chance of winning but if you look at results each week something over two million "free" tickets are issued and guess what this week Camelot took over 3 million from winning pool which i guess it keeps for itself..

Camelot (owned by a Canadian teachers pension fund since 2010) can on profit 0.5% of the income.

Malthusian

All gambling does not always lose you money. If someone was to buy one lottery ticket and win more than their stake then decided not to play again, how have they lost money?

All gambling loses you money in the long term, or on average. It wasn't necessary to explicitly state the second part within the context of the thread, which is about odds and payouts.

On average the person who buys one lottery ticket has lost about 54p. (22p if he is happy with all the Lottery's various charitable causes and doesn't consider that part a loss.)

no1catman

I prefer the Euromillions - because not only is there a possibility of a huge prize, but also I can get consolation small prizes - e.g. 2 balls is the lowest, then 2 + 1 star etc.


The main advantage with the Lotto/Euro is that it allows you to dream - what would do if you did win. It takes you away from the stresses you may have at work, while in your head, you plan where you next will live, how many bedrooms etc.
The 'fantasy' was all sometimes that kept me sane!


In the early days, the press would splash the news and gossip about the latest winner, but not these days - something to be thank full for at least.


So, I may do the Lotto, but only when there's a 4+ rollover!! Even, with the Euros I don't do the £10m one only the following ones.