3 ms·
We call this "roll-over", when no-one wins so the pot accumulates. This week's draw doesn't need to be profitable, the overall scheme needs to be profitable.
by soneil 3y ago
We call this "roll-over", when no-one wins so the pot accumulates. This week's draw doesn't need to be profitable, the overall scheme needs to be profitable.
Say $2MM in tickets are sold, putting $1MM in the pot. And no-one wins. So next week, $2MM in tickets are sold, putting $1MM in the pot - which already contained $1MM from last week. Continue this over a few weeks.
After 5 weeks you have $5MM in the pot - and another $5MM in profits. On week 5, $2MM in tickets could buy $5MM in winnings, but that doesn't mean the scheme is negative. It just means this week's draw looks like a good deal.
States love lotteries because the house cannot lose - their share is taken before it goes in the pot, so the pot is never a liability.
- abwizz 3y ago> Say $2MM in tickets are sold what do you think about the format: [scalar] [si-prefix] [unit]
- soneil 3y agoHonestly, I prefer it. But for one reason or another, MM is the accepted suffix when dealing with money (it comes from mille in latin meaning thousand, not million.)
- abwizz 3y agothx any idea how it came to prominence? i guess i has something to do with distancing the field from natural sciences.
- bruce343434 3y ago2 megadollars? Sure, it still beats what my reading voice calls "mumums"
- abwizz 3y agoyea, if we can have mebibytes on our home turf, we should be able to have megadollars in meatspace
- euroderf 3y agoA problem here is that big jackpots increase participation, and this dilutes lower-tier prizes.