No, not necessarily: https://thetech.com/2012/08/01/cashwinfall-v132-n30 https://thetech.com/2012/08/01/cashwinfall-v132-n30 Specifically https://www.mass.gov/

No, not necessarily: https://thetech.com/2012/08/01/cashwinfall-v132-n30 https://thetech.com/2012/08/01/cashwinfall-v132-n30 Specifically https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/vv/lottery-cash-winfall-letter-july-2012.pdf https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/vv/lottery-cash... >Based on the documents reviewed by the OIG and the interviews described above, I have concluded that Cash WinFall was a financial success for the Lottery . It generated about $300 million in ticket sales, with nearly $120 million of that going to Lottery operations and the pool of funds distributed to cities and towns. The high -volume bettors were a financial boon to the Lottery, collectively buying roughly $2 million in tickets for a typical roll -down drawing – 40 percent of which the Lottery would keep to redistribute to cities and towns. Cash WinFall was designed to attract a huge influx of betting by distributing a windfall to bettors whenever the jackpot reached $2 million. The emergence of individuals and groups buying large volumes of tickets was legal and financially advantageous to the Lottery . As long as the Lottery announced to the public an impending $2 million jackpot that would likely trigger a roll -down, an ordinary bettor buying a single ticket or any number of tickets was not disadvantaged by high- volume betting. In short, no one’s odds of having a winning ticket were affect ed by high- volume betting. Small bettors enjoyed the same odds as high- volume bettors. When the jackpot hit the roll -down threshold, Cash WinFall became a good bet for everyone, not just the big -time bettors . However, the unique structure of the game created unprecedented enforcement challenges for the Lottery.