Hope this isn't too late a bump since the last post (it's normally 30 days on the other forums I use), but I fancied having my say.
Looks to me so far like the redesign has been a disaster.
I was thinking tonight about grabbing a line, but then I thought to myself, what's the point? £2 for one line? And one measly entry in the Lotto Raffle? No thanks.
Since the redesign the lottery jackpots haven't noticeably increased. Wednesdays are still around £2m and Saturdays around £4m, despite the price increase.
And there are actually around 50-150,000 LESS winners on each draw, even with the Lotto Raffle included.
All of which suggests that far less people are actually playing, and their attempts to rejuvenate Lotto have so far failed.
It's all a bit of a mess really.
The prize for 3 numbers may have increased, but that's surely been pretty much offset by the price of a ticket doubling. What's the point of winning 2.5 times more than you used to if the price of a ticket has doubled and you can afford less entries?
Meanwhile the prize for 4 numbers has seen no obvious increase, while the prizes for 5 numbers and 5 + the bonus ball have DECREASED markedly.
Personally, if I'm going to enter a Lottery and I match 5 out of 6 numbers, or 6 out of the 7 (including the bonus ball), then I want to win some serious money. :cool:
The Lotto Raffle is meant to offset this decrease by guaranteeing 50 winners of £20k (ie. a pot of £1m); except that the total number of people getting 5, 5 + the bonus AND the 50 winners of the Lotto Raffle amounts to around the same number (or less) than were winning larger sums with 5 or 5 + the bonus before the introduction of the Lotto Raffle.
So what's the benefit of the Lotto Raffle, exactly?
In effect, they've taken £1m from the prize pot for those that get 5 or 5 + the bonus, in order to give the same number, or less, people LESS money in prizes.
And all for double the price. >:(
So I just don't bother with Lotto anymore; unless it's a rollover, in which case it's worth a punt.
Instead, I put the money I used to spend on a few lines on Saturday and/or Wednesday and buy an extra couple of Euromillions entries.
Since the number of people playing Lotto (and thus the Jackpots too) haven't increased since the redesign, it's only a matter of time before sales decrease even further and they have to do another redesign.
Of course, the smartest thing to do all along would have been to drop a Wednesday draw altogether (therefore focusing Lotto players' money back on the Saturday draw); or relaunch Thunderball or a new game as a Wednesdays only draw.
Instead they tried to reinvent the wheel and, surprise surprise, nobody's buying it.
I agree with the above 100%. Now I only play rollovers over 8 million and euro millions over 30 million and only 1 line at that. So I am spending about £2 a week. I don't expect to win, but if I do it might as well be a worthwhile sum.
£2million, £50million, £100million? Why should that make a difference as to whether you play or not? The outcome is always the same - you loose . This time you get to loose even more money than before.
£2million, £50million, £100million? Why should that make a difference as to whether you play or not? The outcome is always the same - you loose . This time you get to loose even more money than before.
£2million, £50million, £100million? Why should that make a difference as to whether you play or not? The outcome is always the same - you loose. This time you get to loose even more money than before.
Looks like its not just the price of a ticket thats doubled
I know they put in the "estimated" disclaimer when declaring jackpots, but I've noticed a number of non-rollover Wednesday draws that continue to say "Estimated £2.2m" jackpot right up until entries are closed only to find the next day that the jackpot is only around £1.5m - that's quite a difference in my view.
Surely they know by the final few hours before the draw is made that the jackpot is not going to reach £2m. If they say "estimated jackpot" does that absolve them of any come-back if the actual jackpot falls well short of that?
In our lotto work syndicate, we ran out of spare (old) prize winnings to subsidise keeping the weekly price at £1.00 per line, several weeks ago.
Out of 21 members, 4 have decided to share a line (2 pairs) so they keep at £1.00 per week. Everybody else has paid the increased amount, including me.
We've had some impressive wins as well, including a number of £25.00's, and 2 weeks with 4 numbers, the last of which, 2 weeks ago, was £175 on one line, and we got £25 on another.. The earlier one was the first week of the price increase, and we got £90 that week.
Never spend more per week than i did before price increase. play 1 line Sat, only buy 1 ticket on wed if a rollover.
Camelot will obviously claim it's a success, success for who though, certainly not the public which should be the priority. they have ruined the lottery for millions, they should loose the lottery and any right to sell the scratch card and other games, their main responsibility was the lottery but they took players cash by offering so many other games at the expense of the lottery.
The Irish lottery is so much better to play. You can choose to only have three numbers if you wish but if your three numbers come up out of the 6 you win £650!
But the odds are much longer than getting 3 numbers if youre picking 6 numbers on your ticket, i.e. your 3 numbers are much less likely to come up when you pick 3 than when you pick 6.
I know they put in the "estimated" disclaimer when declaring jackpots, but I've noticed a number of non-rollover Wednesday draws that continue to say "Estimated £2.2m" jackpot right up until entries are closed only to find the next day that the jackpot is only around £1.5m - that's quite a difference in my view.
Surely they know by the final few hours before the draw is made that the jackpot is not going to reach £2m. If they say "estimated jackpot" does that absolve them of any come-back if the actual jackpot falls well short of that?
The size of the jackpot is determined by the number of lower value prizes. So, the more three number winners, the lower the jackpot. As this can never be predicted with any great accuracy, a "best guess" is all you are going to get.
When the price increased I stopped my "done them like forEva" 2 lines. Am wondering who else (who has also stopped) would be up for a thread in 9 months time where you put your old numbers into their "have I won" calculator thing on their website then compare how much you could have won with how much you saved by not playing ?
When the price increased I stopped my "done them like forEva" 2 lines. Am wondering who else (who has also stopped) would be up for a thread in 9 months time where you put your old numbers into their "have I won" calculator thing on their website then compare how much you could have won with how much you saved by not playing ?
Yes, cant resist thinking if the old numbers would have come up. at first i was a bit hesitant to check now it dosen't bother me. i used to spend a min of £6 a week on the old lottery. afaik, i would of won just £25, i actually had a little smile that week, saved far more than that over the months.
It does amuse me that so many people are unhappy with a £1 increase. Surely the vast majority were putting more than 1 line on anyway, so just half the number of lines if you're bothered. You're only paying for the dream of winning anyway, you're not suppose to take it seriously.
Also LOL at people that can't be bothered playing when the jackpot is only 4m
The size of the jackpot is determined by the number of lower value prizes. So, the more three number winners, the lower the jackpot. As this can never be predicted with any great accuracy, a "best guess" is all you are going to get.
Ah I see, I thought it was more or less based on ticket sales.
It does amuse me that so many people are unhappy with a £1 increase. Surely the vast majority were putting more than 1 line on anyway, so just half the number of lines if you're bothered. You're only paying for the dream of winning anyway, you're not suppose to take it seriously.
Also LOL at people that can't be bothered playing when the jackpot is only 4m
Well I can think of many words to describe paying double for something that returns far less.
Amusing is not one of the words I was thinking of.
The total cost to the vast majority of people is far more than 1 pound.
The only people who haven't got a problem with the increase are the people who don't understand when you pay double the price for something you expect the return to be double not less or a maximum increase of 25%, it's called value for money.
It does amuse me that so many people are unhappy with a £1 increase. Surely the vast majority were putting more than 1 line on anyway, so just half the number of lines if you're bothered. You're only paying for the dream of winning anyway, you're not suppose to take it seriously.
Also LOL at people that can't be bothered playing when the jackpot is only 4m:)
That's what amuses me also. With 4 million I could give up work, buy a huge house and live comfortably off the rest until my dying days, so why the big deal when there's a rollover, or when the Euromillions reaches £100 million? I would rather win £4 million than £100 million and spend the rest of my life running and hiding from the press/nutters etc.
Yes, cant resist thinking if the old numbers would have come up. at first i was a bit hesitant to check now it dosen't bother me. i used to spend a min of £6 a week on the old lottery. afaik, i would of won just £25, i actually had a little smile that week, saved far more than that over the months.
I think I could be ok if my missed-out-on winning was up to £1000. I'd be sure, but not suicidal. Maybe up to £6000 and I could be "well at least I've got my health and there's someone is the darkest corner of a war torn country who lives on ants and dust who is worse off than me. But £10,000+, well then I'd be psd. >:(
And as for someone's "why can't they can just 1/2 the number of lines they buy can not be bothered" puzzlement - if they've been buying the SAME numbers for 10+years then methinks their botherment about stopping 1/2 of them is understandable.
I think I could be ok if my missed-out-on winning was up to £1000. I'd be sure, but not suicidal. Maybe up to £6000 and I could be "well at least I've got my health and there's someone is the darkest corner of a war torn country who lives on ants and dust who is worse off than me. But £10,000+, well then I'd be psd. >:(
And as for someone's "why can't they can just 1/2 the number of lines they buy can not be bothered" puzzlement - if they've been buying the SAME numbers for 10+years then methinks their botherment about stopping 1/2 of them is understandable.
As you say people get less tickets for their cash. so you you actually have less chance of winning since prices have doubled .It's not a raffle, the fact that less people play does not increase your chances of winning, it only decreases the reward when you win, the mathematics are exactly the same.
the chances of winning the jackpot are millions to 1,we know this is a mathematical fact.
before you paid £1 to win say £2 mill on a wed. now you pay £2 to win roughly the same amount, yet the mathematical chances of winning are exactly the same.
It's not about prize distribution either, the prize distribution could have been changed years ago to stop millions from stopping playing and we would now be playing for £4 mill for a pound and far more than a tenner for 3 numbers.
Comments
Looks to me so far like the redesign has been a disaster.
I was thinking tonight about grabbing a line, but then I thought to myself, what's the point? £2 for one line? And one measly entry in the Lotto Raffle? No thanks.
Since the redesign the lottery jackpots haven't noticeably increased. Wednesdays are still around £2m and Saturdays around £4m, despite the price increase.
And there are actually around 50-150,000 LESS winners on each draw, even with the Lotto Raffle included.
All of which suggests that far less people are actually playing, and their attempts to rejuvenate Lotto have so far failed.
It's all a bit of a mess really.
The prize for 3 numbers may have increased, but that's surely been pretty much offset by the price of a ticket doubling. What's the point of winning 2.5 times more than you used to if the price of a ticket has doubled and you can afford less entries?
Meanwhile the prize for 4 numbers has seen no obvious increase, while the prizes for 5 numbers and 5 + the bonus ball have DECREASED markedly.
Personally, if I'm going to enter a Lottery and I match 5 out of 6 numbers, or 6 out of the 7 (including the bonus ball), then I want to win some serious money. :cool:
The Lotto Raffle is meant to offset this decrease by guaranteeing 50 winners of £20k (ie. a pot of £1m); except that the total number of people getting 5, 5 + the bonus AND the 50 winners of the Lotto Raffle amounts to around the same number (or less) than were winning larger sums with 5 or 5 + the bonus before the introduction of the Lotto Raffle.
So what's the benefit of the Lotto Raffle, exactly?
In effect, they've taken £1m from the prize pot for those that get 5 or 5 + the bonus, in order to give the same number, or less, people LESS money in prizes.
And all for double the price. >:(
So I just don't bother with Lotto anymore; unless it's a rollover, in which case it's worth a punt.
Instead, I put the money I used to spend on a few lines on Saturday and/or Wednesday and buy an extra couple of Euromillions entries.
Since the number of people playing Lotto (and thus the Jackpots too) haven't increased since the redesign, it's only a matter of time before sales decrease even further and they have to do another redesign.
Of course, the smartest thing to do all along would have been to drop a Wednesday draw altogether (therefore focusing Lotto players' money back on the Saturday draw); or relaunch Thunderball or a new game as a Wednesdays only draw.
Instead they tried to reinvent the wheel and, surprise surprise, nobody's buying it.
That's why it matters. ;-)
Looks like its not just the price of a ticket thats doubled
Surely they know by the final few hours before the draw is made that the jackpot is not going to reach £2m. If they say "estimated jackpot" does that absolve them of any come-back if the actual jackpot falls well short of that?
Out of 21 members, 4 have decided to share a line (2 pairs) so they keep at £1.00 per week. Everybody else has paid the increased amount, including me.
We've had some impressive wins as well, including a number of £25.00's, and 2 weeks with 4 numbers, the last of which, 2 weeks ago, was £175 on one line, and we got £25 on another.. The earlier one was the first week of the price increase, and we got £90 that week.
Camelot will obviously claim it's a success, success for who though, certainly not the public which should be the priority. they have ruined the lottery for millions, they should loose the lottery and any right to sell the scratch card and other games, their main responsibility was the lottery but they took players cash by offering so many other games at the expense of the lottery.
But the odds are much longer than getting 3 numbers if youre picking 6 numbers on your ticket, i.e. your 3 numbers are much less likely to come up when you pick 3 than when you pick 6.
The national lottery is crap now, and its an inconvenience having to check the bloody 'raffle' that comes along with it.
Biggest PR failure ever putting it up to £2 IMO.
The size of the jackpot is determined by the number of lower value prizes. So, the more three number winners, the lower the jackpot. As this can never be predicted with any great accuracy, a "best guess" is all you are going to get.
Yes, cant resist thinking if the old numbers would have come up. at first i was a bit hesitant to check now it dosen't bother me. i used to spend a min of £6 a week on the old lottery. afaik, i would of won just £25, i actually had a little smile that week, saved far more than that over the months.
Also LOL at people that can't be bothered playing when the jackpot is only 4m
Ah I see, I thought it was more or less based on ticket sales.
Well I can think of many words to describe paying double for something that returns far less.
Amusing is not one of the words I was thinking of.
The total cost to the vast majority of people is far more than 1 pound.
The only people who haven't got a problem with the increase are the people who don't understand when you pay double the price for something you expect the return to be double not less or a maximum increase of 25%, it's called value for money.
That's what amuses me also. With 4 million I could give up work, buy a huge house and live comfortably off the rest until my dying days, so why the big deal when there's a rollover, or when the Euromillions reaches £100 million? I would rather win £4 million than £100 million and spend the rest of my life running and hiding from the press/nutters etc.
And as for someone's "why can't they can just 1/2 the number of lines they buy can not be bothered" puzzlement - if they've been buying the SAME numbers for 10+years then methinks their botherment about stopping 1/2 of them is understandable.
the chances of winning the jackpot are millions to 1,we know this is a mathematical fact.
before you paid £1 to win say £2 mill on a wed. now you pay £2 to win roughly the same amount, yet the mathematical chances of winning are exactly the same.
It's not about prize distribution either, the prize distribution could have been changed years ago to stop millions from stopping playing and we would now be playing for £4 mill for a pound and far more than a tenner for 3 numbers.