| Oct 18 - 01:03:26 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 2 [ > - >>> ] |
| Revert the Lotto | Started by: SnidelyWhiplash on Oct 12, '13 02:34 |
|
I'm going to keep this one pretty simple, as it's quite self-explanatory. I'd like to see the MR Lotto go back to a single winner. From what I've gathered, the ONLY reason it was split into two winners was because users were bitching that people could buy the pot... Now the problem I have with that complaint is that in real life, you technically COULD buy out the lotto, with enough money. I think people just got sick of not winning, and wanted a reason to whine. There's a huge gaping flaw in having two winners, one that personally is the sole reason I refuse to play the Lotto at all. Say I put in $5,000,000 and combined the rest of the site put in $3,000,000... Now, never mind the small percent the game takes out of it, we'll go with a flat $8,000,000 pot. With a split pot, I'd only be winning $4,000,000 and practically handing out a mill free for NO GOD DAMN REASON. What kind of incentive is that to want to play the Lotto? I've already been told that with enough support that we can get the Lottery back to a single winner....So, what do you all think? |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
|
1 winner sounds like a good option as splitting the pot always did strike me as weird.
There's my support. |
|
| Reply by: Eddy at Oct 12, '13 02:39 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I agree with you Snidely. I see no point in splitting the pot. It makes no sense to me. I am for bringing the Lotto back to one winner. | |
| Reply by: Whippie at Oct 12, '13 04:14 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Couldn't agree more, two winners sucks. | |
| Reply by: No at Oct 12, '13 05:25 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I see your logic jailbird.
It makes sense. |
|
| Reply by: Condemned at Oct 12, '13 05:40 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
"jailbird" hahah, lol. |
|
| Reply by: fred-the-bread at Oct 12, '13 15:31 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| As last week's winner, I support this idea. I spent 200,000 to win 3.8 mil. That means somebody (or somebodies) paid in a BUNCH. I like the idea of one winner. | |
| Reply by: JonnyBeRed at Oct 12, '13 16:59 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I disagree. With 1 winner it goes back to particular people possibly buying the pot again. |
|
| Reply by: JadedButterfly at Oct 12, '13 17:34 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| And what's the problem with that? Theoretically as stated, you could do the same in real life. If someone's earned the money to spend, they should be able to do whatever they want with it. How is it fair to anyone for it to be HIGHLY possible that they'd win less than they put in? | |
| Reply by: SnidelyWhiplash at Oct 12, '13 17:36 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Thats a risk you take when you stick in that much cash. I personally like the split. That is my own opinion. |
|
| Reply by: JadedButterfly at Oct 12, '13 17:38 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Could the split NOT be 50/50? A first place, second place, even third place? So I put in 3 mil. A bunch of other people put in some, bringing total pot to 8 mil. First place gets 5, second gets 3, something like that? | |
| Reply by: JonnyBeRed at Oct 12, '13 17:40 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Not a terrible idea, though I still like my original better. Or maybe perhaps even having two lotto's, one with a split pot and one with one giant winner?? Thoughts??? |
|
| Reply by: SnidelyWhiplash at Oct 12, '13 17:43 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I would have to agree with Jonny. A different split pot would be a good idea, possibly 75/25. That would stop people "buying the pot" and still have a good incentive to play. |
|
| Reply by: Ragnar_Lothbrok at Oct 12, '13 17:46 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Another idea is to switch (or add new) types of lottery. The current system could be called a raffle. We could keep the raffle, or we could change it. Other types of lottery could be some sort of "pick 6" type thing, or even a "scratcher" mini-game like hte felonies. I kind of like the "true" lotto idea of picking numbers. Thoughts? Also, since the current system is a raffle, the "buy the pot" idea is even more clear to me. It is completely possible for somebody to buy all the raffle tickets from some boy scout and win all the prizes. One just has to decide if the cost of the tickets is more or less than the cost of the prize. |
|
| Reply by: JonnyBeRed at Oct 12, '13 18:07 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Oh I like the scratch off mini game. That would be so fun and cool. I'd definitely play lotto if it were that way. Good thinking Jonny :) | |
| Reply by: Whippie at Oct 12, '13 20:43 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
the scratch games, i'm not so big on. But i'd be cool with a pick some numbers option. buy your ticket, pick your numbers, win or lose. maybe have two or three levels? a 5k ticket, 1 50k ticket and a 100k or 250k ticket. thus you can play for what level you wish, and the big rollers with the big cash can fight it out. |
|
| Reply by: Philli_stein at Oct 12, '13 21:46 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I kinda like your idea Philli, but I think I like Jonny's more because it seems to me like Izzy wants to make MR sorta like more interactive what with the lockpick and safe Felony games. The scratch off mini game can really be like scratching off the black (or grey) spot till the number shows like a real ticket. | |
| Reply by: Whippie at Oct 12, '13 21:50 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
"And what's the problem with that? Theoretically as stated, you could do the same in real life. " Yeah, cause the lottery only pays out to one person all the time. Oh wait... |
|
| Reply by: EricNorthman at Oct 12, '13 22:26 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Bad statistics. You can't buy the pot. You can give yourself a high probability chance of winning... but you will always lose in the end because the house takes a 10% cut.
People got mad and made it change before the odds evened out on the people that were "buying the pot" back in the day. All it would have taken was one person throwing in 50k and winning 180 million for the whole uproar to have died down. |
|
| Reply by: Drunky at Oct 13, '13 20:58 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I've seen people toss in less than 250k and win 5+ mill... Personally out of what I've seen thus far; I think either having two lottos, one with a split pot, and one with a single winnner is a good idea. Or the idea of picking 4-5 numbers, having a bot randomly select them each day/week (a daily one would be fucking AMAZING) and it could roll over if nobody hits it... The scratch off idea also is worth a look at too, since it is more interactive which seems to be something the admins are going for lately. |
|
| Reply by: SnidelyWhiplash at Oct 13, '13 21:02 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1 2 [ > - >>> ] |
Minimum $20,000
