National Lottery is a big con and BBC should pull out
hyperstarsponge
Posts: 16,662 Forum Member
✭✭
Why should a greedy people get airtime by the BBC who knocked up the price to £2. Its stupid and the BBC should withdraw their lottery content.
0
Comments
Anyway, it's a game of chance with astronomical odds and huge payouts for those lucky enough to beat those odds. I don't think it deserves all the razzle-dazzle it gets. But we still need to know the results.
Where I do agree though is that it's a replacement for direct funding for good causes. I'd much rather see funding made direct without Camelot taking a slice of the pie.
How exactly is it a con, it's not like they're being nefarious and using underhand means to force you into participating is it? Besides, wasn't it Camelot themselves who put the price up to £2, not the BBC?
No it doesn't, the odds are exactly the same
Look at the difference between the Wednesday and rollover prize funds. 4 or 5 numbers on a Wednesday can net you a far smaller prize than on a rollover because there is more in the pot.
So twice as much for a ticket that could net you a smaller prize - where do I sign up?
It's a different set of adds that change. Fewer players means a smaller spread of number combinations being picked. You're less likely to share a prize, and there's a greater chance that no one will win at all.
How can they be the same. the less people who purchase a ticket means that there is more of chance for those that do. I may be using the wrong word odds but clearly if someone is not "in it to win it" then someone else has more of a chance?
No, that's not how it works. If you were the only person playing it you would be no more likely to win than if 5,000,000,000 people were playing it.
You still have to get the winning numbers, it's not like a lottery where they pull the winning ticket out of a hat and someone must have the matching counter foil. You could be the only one in it and the odds against winning would be the same.
It doesn't matter how many people play, or how much each go is. The odds of getting it right stays the same. 1/216.
In a fashion, that's how the lottery works.
Camelot was initially ruled out but successfully challenged the ruling and then won the license, supposedly because their proposal would generate more money for the good causes even with a big slice taken for profit, despite outstanding "issues of propriety" according to Hilary Blume who resigned from the National Lottery Commission in protest.
It's a lottery, not a raffle. There are no guaranteed winners in a lottery.
Actually, the odds wont change as there are still the same amount of balls and same amount that have to be picked. Less people buying a ticket would just mean that the higher prize amounts would go up.
More people playing would just mean more people would win but win less, less people playing means less people win but win higher amounts.
In other words if no-one picked 1, 4, 14, 18, 23, 37 then that exact combination of balls could not be dropped by the machine. Which is of course impossible if the machine is truly random.
But of course the machine has no knowledge of the tickets sold so picks a random selection of six balls and it is pot luck if they happen to match a ticket. And the odds of that are no way dependent on how many tickets are sold.
Believe it or not but the BBC actually pay Camelot for the rights to broadcast the Lottery show.
But there are strict rules such as the BBc do not pay for the draw sections of the show
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-national-lottery
The Lottery Operator is responsible for the costs of running and administering Lottery draws and the provision and maintenance of all necessary equipment. Apart from the draw section of the show, the BBC must pay all programme costs. All content for Lottery shows must be agreed by the BBC. However, for National Lottery events held at outside venues which are covered by the BBC - such as the National Lottery Awards - the event may be funded by the National Lottery, but all broadcast costs must be met by the BBC and the content of the event must also be agreed with the BBC.
The lottery is not a con because you are not obliged to buy a ticket as such, but I do agree about the BBC.
There is no way that the National Lottery should be on the BBC IMHO.
A £1m doesn't go that far these days, especialy if you wanted to buy a house in London, you'd probably get an ex council flat for that in some areas.
Not many people would play if it were capped at 1 million, look what happens when there is a mega draw record ticket sales, also look at the pools sales pretty much collapsed when the lottery came along with larger prizes.