| Oct 18 - 02:06:53 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: [ <<< - < ] 1 2 |
| Revert the Lotto | Started by: SnidelyWhiplash on Oct 12, '13 02:34 |
| I like Snidely's last post. I agree with it. I think we should work towards making it a few different things so it is easier for people to find something they will like. | |
| Reply by: JonnyBeRed at Oct 14, '13 00:27 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Agreed! :) | |
| Reply by: Whippie at Oct 14, '13 00:35 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
scratch cards did not originate until the 1970's -- so the era is incorrect and it would ruin the authenticity. |
|
| Reply by: Fiora_Acerbi at Oct 15, '13 10:02 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| That is good to know. Was pick-a-number around? | |
| Reply by: JonnyBeRed at Oct 15, '13 14:55 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
The numbers racket has been around forever, JonnyBeRed. Here in the states sometime circa 1860's. They really took off in the '20's in the poorer communities as you could invest as little as a penny, and that on credit if you wished. The typical payout was 600:1, while the odds on winning were 1000:1. If you crunch that you'll see it was highly profitable for the racketeers.
The one game from that era that intrigues me the most were the "pin ball" games. Not quite what we know of as pinball today, but you could go into your local and try your luck. Perhaps win a bit of cash or a ham.
Back to the lottery; the argument against is that one person with enough money in hand could ostensibly "rig" the outcome, taking "chance" out of the "game of chance" equation. We see this all the time though in modern times. Whether the office co-op or a whole town pooling their resources to try to sway the outcome. To me, I don't have a problem either way. One winner or more makes no difference. The lotto as it is wasn't designed to be fair, but it is just. If you have the available means at your disposal then play to win. What good is throwing your money away on a hope if you can insure a return after all. |
|
| Reply by: vesper at Oct 15, '13 16:47 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Thanks for the information. I think we should bring this thread around to a recomendation. I feel like we are just spinning our wheels and going in circles at the moment. I propose the following recomendation: Keep the lotto the same, but add the following: Another "raffle" style lotto with only one winner, and allow the user to decide which they wish to buy into. Add a numbers lotto similar to that described by the previous poster. I propose a vote up or vote down reply from here on in this thread regarding this recomendation so the admins have something to go off of. That being said, of course further suggestions will be taken into account, but I want to minimize saying the same thing over and over. |
|
| Reply by: JonnyBeRed at Oct 15, '13 16:53 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
the split is good, if you dont want to loose expending more than the prize just dont spend mroe than half pot. If the pot is 1,000,000 then throw 500k maximun this way you wont loose if you win. Thats my opnion though. |
|
| Reply by: Leon at Oct 15, '13 17:52 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: [ <<< - < ] 1 2 |
Minimum $20,000
