Canada ought cap lottery jackpots to $9 million CAD, like Japan.

scherz0 May 20, 2024 at 07:07 2250 views 10 comments
I picked $9 million CAD, in view of Japan†. I picked Canada, as I want to retire there. LottoMax's jackpot is $80 million, 6/49's $68 million. Giant jackpots worsen wealth inequality, and are unjust.

Better to LOWER lofty jackpots, but RAISE the probability of winning jackpot. LottoMax ought offer MORE chances of winning SMALLER slices (of the same pie). Rather than one winner hoarding $70M, $70M ought be fairly distributed, for example as $2M to 35 people. Koreans agree with this standpoint.

The biggest jackpot in the history of the game fell in 2003. After a couple of rollovers, the sum had reached approximately 70 million US dollars. The lucky drawing produced 13 top-prize winners. Each one of them went home 5.4 million dollars richer. When this massive jackpot came into existence, Lotto 6/45 was subjected to massive criticism. According to opponents, such serious sums were to lead to lotto fever, making many people spend excessive sums of money on the acquisition of tickets. At the time, the price of the ticket was approximately 2 dollars. Due to the serious social pressure, the ticket price was reduced. This is how the prize pool decreased, as well, preventing the game from producing such massive jackpots again.



I'm aware of lotteries with smaller jackpots + (scantly) higher probabilities of winning, such as Daily Grand. But they are a red herring.

-----------------------------------------------

†Japan caps at $9M CAD. 1¥ = $0.01 CAD.

The top prize starts at a ¥600 million and can roll over until it caps at a staggering ¥1 billion (approx €8.5 million)- the largest jackpot offered by any lottery in Japan!


New Zealand caps at $41.6M CAD. NZ$1 = $0.83 CAD.

As soon as the First Division prize hits NZ$50 million, the next draw referred to as a ‘Must Be Won’ game where, if no one wins the jackpot, the money rolls down to be shared amongst the ticket holders in the next winning division.

Comments (10)

180 Proof May 20, 2024 at 07:51 #905453
Reply to scherz0 An alternative that would be easier to implement, it seems to me (here in the US), is to generate more than 1 set of numbers for each drawing so that it is more likely there are (e.g.) 2-6 possible winners to share the jackpot. Maybe add 1 extra set of numbers per $50m so that (e.g.) a $300m jackpot would consist of generating 6 sets of numbers, potentially sharing the jackpot 6 ways (besides duplicate winners) for that drawing. No other changes to the lottery would be necessary to accomplish a more egalitarian (distributed) outcome. All non-jackpot winner prizes are not shared (except for duplicates).
javi2541997 May 20, 2024 at 08:36 #905458
Quoting scherz0
Better to LOWER lofty jackpots, but RAISE the probability of winning jackpot. LottoMax ought offer MORE chances of winning SMALLER slices (of the same pie). Rather than one winner hoarding $70M


Quoting 180 Proof
2-6 possible winners to share the jackpot. Maybe add 1 extra set of numbers per $50m so that (e.g.) a $300m jackpot would consist of generating 6 sets of numbers


I disagree. Those eventually rules are contradictory to the aim of the lottery. People get attracted to play even different sets of numbers to increase the possibility of winning one and a unique number out of the rest. If the jackpot is shared with another set of numbers, the players will not be motivated enough to play the lottery because they know they have to share the jackpot with others. This should not be called a 'lottery' because the randomness of the prize fades away. We would not feel the same feeling of 'uncertainty' (commonly in gambling) if the rules establish that the same jackpot will be shared with other participants.

The main point is to only be just one winner, and this is why an important number of people get very addicted to these games.

My advice? Stay away from lotteries, dice, cards, and gambling. They could be your bankruptcy!
javi2541997 May 20, 2024 at 08:46 #905459
Reply to scherz0 By the way, what if two or even four sets of those numbers lie in the same winner/person? :smirk:
unenlightened May 20, 2024 at 11:08 #905468
The whole idea of a lottery is to create, normalise, and popularise inequality. Hence the term "winner". How about an anti lottery, where a random multi-millionaire is selected each week and his entire fortune is divided amongst the population?
scherz0 May 20, 2024 at 19:49 #905575
Reply to javi2541997 You ought have tagged 180 Proof.

Vera Mont May 21, 2024 at 02:56 #905666
Reply to unenlightened
Now there is a brilliant idea!
Instead of seducing the poor into wasting their meager resources on a pipe-dream, scare the living crap out of the rich. Maybe let them buy their way off the eligible list with charitable donations.
180 Proof May 21, 2024 at 05:38 #905682
Reply to javi2541997 It happens occasionally with the current lottery setups.
unenlightened May 21, 2024 at 06:07 #905692
Quoting Vera Mont
Maybe let them buy their way off the eligible list with charitable donations.


Yes of course. The price being to reduce their wealth by charity to below the threshold.
Sir2u May 21, 2024 at 18:26 #905820
Quoting scherz0
I picked $9 million CAD, in view of Japan†. I picked Canada, as I want to retire there. LottoMax's jackpot is $80 million, 6/49's $68 million. Giant jackpots worsen wealth inequality, and are unjust.

Better to LOWER lofty jackpots, but RAISE the probability of winning jackpot. LottoMax ought offer MORE chances of winning SMALLER slices (of the same pie). Rather than one winner hoarding $70M, $70M ought be fairly distributed, for example as $2M to 35 people. Koreans agree with this standpoint.


I don't really think that giving one person every month getting the $68 million dollar is going to make much of a difference in the overall distribution of wealth. That would be 12 people a year in a population of about 40 million people.

And from what I have seen, a lot of them blow it all away in a couple of years.

If the winners were smart they would use the money to create a business that spread the profits to more people, thus lowering the inequality.

But if we really want to look at inequality we should be looking at the companies that run the lottos. The owners of these thing are richer every day which increases the inequality because most of the money comes from people that cannot afford to be spending the money buying tickets.
Vera Mont May 22, 2024 at 04:18 #905942


Quoting Sir2u
If the winners were smart they would use the money to create a business that spread the profits to more people, thus lowering the inequality.


Quoting Sir2u
I don't really think that giving one person every month getting the $68 million dollar is going to make much of a difference in the overall distribution of wealth. That would be 12 people a year in a population of about 40 million people.

It would, if every jackpot sere that big and every jackpot had a winner. That would be $816,000,000 put back into circulation, rather than being spirited to off-shore bank accounts or tied up in overpriced pictures and jewellery and boats.
Quoting Sir2u
And from what I have seen, a lot of them blow it all away in a couple of years.

That's okay, as long as they're blowing it on goods and services that provide jobs to people.
Quoting Sir2u
If the winners were smart they would use the money to create a business that spread the profits to more people, thus lowering the inequality.

Yet another small business soon drowned by big business would do no more for inequality than taxing big business and investing in public infrastructure.
Quoting Sir2u
But if we really want to look at inequality we should be looking at the companies that run the lottos.

They're actually governments.
The Interprovincial Lottery Corporation, constituted in 1976, currently has as its shareholders the governments of the 10 provinces of Canada. It conducts 3 national lottery schemes: Loto 6/49, Super-Loto and the Provincial. These national lotteries are managed by the 5 provincial organizations within their respective territories.

Incidentally, they also run a bunch of casinos and racetracks. The revenue, after reimbursing retailers and services, goes to local communities, charities, health and sports organizations.
Quoting Sir2u
The owners of these thing are richer every day which increases the inequality because most of the money comes from people that cannot afford to be spending the money buying tickets.

Yup. The irresistible lure of the golden ticket. 'Twas ever so. At least they get some of it back in the form of social services and help.