The Lucky Lotteries Mega Jackpot has gone above 19 million now.
There are 200,000 raffle entries to purchase; if someone buys all entries for $1.1 million, that person is guaranteed to get back 316,000 as raffle winnings.
Then that person is also left with a 1 in 47 (or 2.1%) of winning the Mega Jackpot (currently over 19 million ).
If you have a spare 1.1 million, would you take this gamble?
I wouldn't do it with just 1.1 million, but If I had 20+ million in wealth, I would.
Kerry Packer was known by casinos as a whale as he would gamble large amounts - one story being an annoying Texan at the table loudly boasting that he was worth $50M or such - after trying to ignore this for a while, Kerry apparently said to the guy "$50M ? I'll flip you for it" (meaning double your money or lose it)
Kerry was reportedly worth A$6.5B in 2004 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Packer - in which case gambling $50M would be risking less than 1% of his net worth
chuck it all on Nvidia options
Why not just buy the stock?
Options leverage the outcome. Higher returns (and higher losses).
The dopamine rush would be unbelievable if you get up on it
Put options
You'd be crazy to start messing around now. It will swing wildly the next few months until it stabilises, I guess different option spreads could still work. But not naked calls/puts
To be clear, I am 100% joking
You were? Damn. How would one go about getting $800k of someone else's money back in a case like this? Asking for a friend.
You just had to ruin it for the gullible didn't you…
Adjustment of 25% ???
I has a position of 50K when it was at $6 ….
I will at Vegas.
thats pretty bad expected value bet… black or red on roulette even has better payoff.
Horrible odds - nope.
But you should totally do it and update with results.
Better off with roulette odds. $800k would net $28m at odds of 1 in 37.
Hahaha best response I have read in this thread
whats the biggest denomination poker chip these days?
If more than one entry has the winning numbers, does the win decrease?
This is the key item. In the 1990s a consortium bought every combination in a lotto jackpot. They won, but so did several others, ultimately meaning they made a loss (I think, it was a long time ago).
If I recall correctly, they did come out in front - but only just.
The reporting at the time focused on the first division prize only, and based on that there were enough winners that they didn't cover their costs. But if you include all of the other lower prizes they won, it was enough for them to make a tiny profit. Absolutely not enough to consider the whole idea a win though!
@flywire: The one I'm thinking of was in Australia, and was before 1992. My parents owned the local newsagency at the time, and was the only place in town that sold Lotto/Lottery tickets. The story was well known within the industry at the time.
But given the one you've linked to was an Australian group, I'm now wondering if it was the same group that was behind it?
If this is a raffle as it states, I believe that means each ticket is individual, and only one gets drawn out as the 'winner'?
The Jackpot lotteries are a raffle with individual numbers 1-200000. It’s not lotto where you pick x from y. So, there can only ever be one winner of the jackpot
Loteries are a tax for the stupid…. that being said, where do I sign up?
Taxes aren't optional.
Sure they are. You can choose not to pay any tax…. just don't work.
And I was thinking it was more like 'pay up…or else!'
So I can 'choose' to be poor and pay no taxation OR I can choose to not be poor and get taxed?
So where is the choice to have money and only pay a little amount of tax?
Not optional.
@EightImmortals: You could seek out a location with low taxes. But there is a very high correlation with wealth and taxes, so most of the places with low taxes have limited chances to gain wealth.
There isn't any free lunch.
@mskeggs: Maybe, not sure if that true or not. I did come across a YT channel the other day by the Nomad Capitalist so I guess he might know the real situation.
And I suspect it also has to do with population size as well. Back in 2019 we were in China and was talking to the tour guide, IIRC he said the average income tax was around 4% up to around 10% for the really wealthy. You can't tell me that China isn't a place you can make money. :)
Alternatively, you could make money in a wealthy country and then retire to one with low taxation?
Either way, my point was that the lotto is not a tax as it is optional. That was all I said. :)
@EightImmortals: China's gdp is about $13k USD per person.
It must be trickier to make money there than in, say, Australia which is about $65k USD or surely it wouldn't be so low?
I will say it is worth thinking about where that $100k AUD in income goes in Australia, as it certainly doesn't end up in our government's coffers or most of our people's pockets (hint: it is largely sent offshore)
@mskeggs: This is the all taxation is theft because it's demanding with menaces person, you may wish to save your breath
@Crow K: Taxation IS theft and not a single person has been able to prove that it isn't. The best they can do is mumble about 'roads and schools n stuff'. Which is fair enough, I have no problem 'consenting' to some of my money being pinched for things that benefit the community in which I live. As I've explained ad-nauseum it is the WASTAGE and blatant contempt shown by politicians toward the people who actually work to earn money that is my bone on contention. While I have posted long lists of government waste before, mostly to land on deaf ears, here is the latest disgraceful act of contempt by government when it comes to STEALING people's money for non-necessary BS.
"During a housing and cost-of-living crisis, the Albanese Government has shockingly written a $600 million cheque for the NRL to introduce an 18th team based in Papua New Guinea."
Now get pack to work peasants, I'm sure 'your' government has manyy other things they need to piss away your money on.
@EightImmortals: It's fine to dislike not having final say on how your tax dollars are spent, but to then decide that makes it a criminal act is just ignorance.
@Crow K: Ignorance of what? If you take money from the public on the basis of 'schools and roads' but then piss it away on other things then you have misappropriated public funds. Pretty sure that would be a chargeable offence if any non-government agency did it?
@EightImmortals: Yeah, the "on the basis of" stuff is the thing you've made up in your head. And that's where the ignorance comes from.
When you sign your tax return there isn't a section that says "we promise this money is specifically going to roads and schools".
@Crow K: Again, ignorance of what?
Now maybe unrealistic expectations of the integrity of politicians I could accept but I'm not sure what I'm ignorant of.
@EightImmortals: "I don't approve of the way my taxes are spent, this is the crime of misappropriation of funds and by extension taxation is theft, and also the crime of demanding with menaces is being used too" are all examples of your ignorance.
None of those crimes are happening. You are ignorant of the meaning of those words, and your argument based on them is by extension an ignorant one.
This is peak sovereign citizen rubbish, use words in a sentence and suddenly that's the sole meaning of them. They find an 1837 document that mentions "travel" and suddenly their 2001 Corolla doesn't need to pay rego fees any more because now they're"travelling people" and so on.
@Crow K: I never mentioned a corolla.
Otherwise you are just throwing pejoratives around and not explaining why my POV on taxation or government waste is 'ignorant'.
"None of those crimes are happening."
Sure they are, if they weren't then I would be complaining about them. You are just confused because the people committing the crimes are also the ones writing the rules so they use different word for the thing to make it seem like they not committing the crime. And just to reiterate, I am not against contributing to the functioning of society, I am against the contemptuous waste by those who are supposed to be responsible to administer those funds with integrity for the betterment of the country.
"None of those crimes are happening."
Sure they are, if they weren't then I would be complaining about them
Oh, so when a conspiracy theorist complains about Bill Gates using chemtrails to control hormones via 5G, that's something that must be happening as well, because otherwise how else could they be complaining about it?
Like I said before, it's fine to have a problem with the way the government spends money. It's even fine to use the language of crimes as an act of hyperbole - but it's an act of ignorance to then cross the line and assert that the crimes are actually happening. It's the difference between me saying you're an oxygen thief and then doubling down and saying "No, he IS an oxygen THIEF and he's committed the crime of theft".
@mskeggs: Singapore has low taxes and plenty of wealth
America has lower income taxes than us but more wealth for the top quartile of society. Much more wealth.
Most of Australia's taxes goes to helping the poor. That's nice, but it's not conducive to wealth building.
@justworld: I guess you read my comment as being about making a rich person. I was talking about societal wealth, like that found in developed countries, where even the poor people are well off compared to less developed societies.
Saudi Arabia has no taxes and a handful of extremely wealthy rulers. So clearly, the arrangements there must be the best for creating wealth.
And it is, if you are the king of saud.
For everyone posting on this site, the benefits of taxation at a rate that pays for education, social services, roads, hospitals, law enforcement and pensions creates much, much more wealth that you can potentially experience.
But be very clear, if you fancy your chances as becoming the next king of saud (or next Gina or next Elon), I'd strongly urge you to go to one of those low tax places. It is faulty thinking to believe lowering the tax rates here will make your chances of being the king of saud more likely.
The people who have attained lots of money will keep saying it, in the hopes you will believe it - while doing their best to make sure you don't join them on the piles of treasure. They want you to believe low taxes are good for you, because if they capture your vote against your interests, by convincing you that you are a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, they will be able to pay magnitudes less tax.
And it is a great deal for them, they don't need to worry about Casualty waiting times, traffic jams, failing high schools or street safety, because they can trivially buy their way out of any concerns, but following their low tax path massively impacts normal people, who might need the hospital, or don't have a private chopper to avoid traffic, and can't afford a phalanx of body guards.
GST on food necessities goes BRRRR
Not even if I had "20+ million in wealth" would I do it.
Better phrased as “how would you like 98% chance of losing 484,000 dollars out of 800,000”
I have to admit, as the jackpot amount goes up to more and more tens of millions I buy tickets in that lottery.
A spare 1.1mn?
Hold my piggy bank……..
It's a negative EV, why would you do it
Wait until the jackpot reaches $37m.
EV? GASOLINE ALL THE WAY BABY
You would have to be an idiot to do this.
Roulette has a better chance of winning.
Roulette has a 1:36 chance of winning for a return on $800k of $28,000,000 (35:1 payout. or a house edge of about 0.02%)
Put $800k on any number you want on roulette is my suggestion. Better odds and higher payout.
Your gamble is for a 1 in 47 risk for a 23.75:1 return. The house hold on this is almost 2%. That is a REALLY bad bet.
The big number skews people's perspectives on it. But percentages don't lie.
You got the percentages wrong, house edge in roulette is more than 2% not 0.02%.
There's also no way of guaranteeing that you get all entries.
There will be people with auto-purchases, who are processed first.
You'd be mad if you "invested" that much and somebody else won.
If the lotto was profitable then private enterprise would invest in it. They don't, so it's not.
Done any good with Motley Fool? Their spam articles keep saying the opposite of each other. e.g. one minute they will say Nvidia is a great company with a moat and fair valuation. The next article they will say it's overvalued and will eventually loose out.
Not at all. I don't gamble there. It was a lazy convenient link. Ironically, I just noticed that such a suggestion aligns with the current winning poll consideration.
Go figure.
JIN for me.
Lotteries are heavily regulated that's why you have scumbags using the trade promotion exploit. So yes for profit lotteries exist until that loophole is closed.
IVV & IHVV & A200 and a FI product (term dep/savings acc)
How to win
There are two draws to pick the winners. The first draw determines winners of the cash prize levels and consolation prizes. The second draw determines if the jackpot prize is won. If the number drawn matches any of the winning numbers of a cash prize from the first draw, the jackpot prize is won.
So your ticket number must be called out twice to win the jackpot.
Yeah, I don't think the 1 in 47 thing is even remotely correct.
Take it as a given you have bought all 200,000 tickets and have won the ten cash prizes in stage 1.
Now it's stage 2 and they're drawing 1 number out of 200,000 to see if it matches one of the 10 from stage 1.
You have ten chances to win that jackpot, out of 200,000 possible results (which is 1 in 20,000, not 1 in 47)?
There's far more than just 10 cash prizes. There are 10 divisions of prizes with a total of 4218 winners across all divisions. 200000/4218=47.xx
Aha, now I get it, yes, 1 in 47, agreed (because 4,218 total numbers have been drawn by the time they do the jackpot)
Not using a condom is enough of a gamble for me
It's a scam and there is more than 200,000 numbers.
You may as well go to the roulette wheel for better odds
This is risking 800k for a 2.1% chance of 22.5x your money.
In roulette… you have a 49% chance of 2x your money… winning twice is a 24% chance at 4x; three times is 11.7% at 8x; four times is 5.7% at 16x, five times is 2.8% at 32x….
So yea… you have a smaller chance at winning this than simply getting lucky 5x in a row on roulette… PLUS you make more with roulette lol.
This is in no way a good idea… nor does make financial sense, no matter how wealthy you are. I think there's a clear reason why you don't have 800k to spend lol.
P.S.
You could argue that there is a point at which it makes sense to buy a ticket (this is not it)… though, the odds don't increase with more tickets.
No thanks, I would rather bet it all on Trump getting convicted. Made $$$
Easier to win and better odds if you know how the establishment works, how the courts can be stacked due to the district composition, his broken election promises involving the vaccines and so on. He warp speeded those vaxxes!
Trump did not stand a chance, there was no way it was going to be nullified and he can be convicted just on circumstantial evidence!
All normal things to say, you're doing great
You could have just told everyone that you’re a snowflake.
Baccarat, blackjack, roulette etc give way better odds
Only bet what you can afford to lose.
What was that betting scheme that dude here was running? He was super chuffed with himself but was banned from pretty much every bookie and trying to wrangle others in.
I imagine it was arbitrage betting, which is basically where you bet both sides of a two-result event (eg. head to head in a football game) by betting at different times when each is above even money.
If you had 20 million I would hope that you have learnt enough math to know that the return at 47-1 doesn't add up, you have better odds at the race track or casino.
Not if 20 million net worth. Maybe at 100 million.
why? it is basically throwing money away, you could walk into a casino and play roulette with better odds and higher payout. If you want to gamble why would you choose the least likely win with the worst return.
Not a gambling man. Didn’t realize playing the roulette gives better odds. Learn something today. Cheers.
I guess my point was it’s better to be so rich enough that you can take the hit of losing that initial bet money.
my point was that no one that rich would take such a dumb gamble even if they were a gambler. Not just roulette, pretty much every casino game or even the race track has better odds and returns. simple maths really. 47-1 to win 23.75 times your bet, that is truly awful odds and reward. The return is so bad it is basically throwing your money away.
did you factor in corruption?
It's a very bad bet. Why?
You're spending $800k for the chance to win $19M with the odds being 47:1. For you to be guaranteed to break even the total prize money would need to be $37.6M. Why? $800k x 47 = $37.6M. Offering a $19M prize is just 50.5% return on the money to players.
Plus how do you guarantee you'll get all the tickets? How do you stop Aunty Ethel at the local newsagent buying a single ticket and winning, while you hold 199,999 losing tickets?
It does happen that lotteries can have positive EV, but it's very very rare. 99.9999% of the time it's obviously negative EV.
Even a multi millionaire shouldn't take this bet. The maths doesn't change no matter how much money you have.
Lotteries are a lower class tax.
The man to ask would be David Walsh, the guy who created Mona in Hobart. He and his associates have probably won this a few times and are probably purchasing a bunch of tickets now if it mathematically makes sense.
I don't have his number, but you could call Mona and ask for it.
im already risking 200k to make 40 million
GPT's view - To determine whether gambling $800,000 for a 1 in 47 chance to win $19 million is a good bet, we can calculate the expected value (EV) of the gamble.
The expected value is calculated as follows:
[ EV = (Probability \ of \ Winning \times Winning \ Amount) - (Probability \ of \ Losing \times Losing \ Amount) ]
Let's break it down:
Plug these values into the formula:
[ EV = \left(\frac{1}{47} \times 19,000,000\right) - \left(\frac{46}{47} \times 800,000\right) ]
Now, calculate each part:
Calculate the expected gain from winning:
[ \frac{1}{47} \times 19,000,000 \approx 404,255.32 ]
Calculate the expected loss from losing:
[ \frac{46}{47} \times 800,000 \approx 782,978.72 ]
Subtract the expected loss from the expected gain:
[ EV = 404,255.32 - 782,978.72 \approx -378,723.40 ]
The expected value of the gamble is approximately (-378,723.40). This negative expected value means that, on average, you would lose $378,723.40 per gamble.
In conclusion, from a purely mathematical perspective, this gamble is not a good bet since it has a negative expected value.
yeah but you know gamblers have the ability to ignore losses and dream only of winning
one guy happily told me that he'd Won $1000 !
his wife said he didn't tell you that he's lost $10,000 …
The odds stated mean that on average you lose money. It’s better to invest in things that will add money.
I vaguely remember a very long time ago that the cost to fill in all the combinations of the lotto coupon was around $1 million (and the prize was more than $1 million).
That was when you had to fill in the coupon by putting crosses in the boxes so I imagine the logistics of trying to fill in all the coupons should be an issue (and I think they didn't allow computer filled coupons).
Obviously not. Don't ever gamble if you want to win money. You can put it on ETFS and retire off that.
Hypothetically if the jackpot quadripled to $80m then mathematically it would be a interesting to bet $800k consecutive times until you doubled your money.
A 2% chance of a less than 20x increase in your wager?
Maybe think of it like this:
Would you bet $10 on the chance that you correctly identify the card i pull from a standard deck (value and suit).
If you say yes: I'll happily draw a card for you right now.
where is the option "no because there's better ways to blow my money?" those are terrible odds- 1/50 chance to 20x your money.
This question boils down to a simpler "Do you like gambling money or not?" Spending 5% of your total wealth on a big bet in your example of having $20 million is pretty stupid investment wise as you're going to lose money most of the time.
Generally people with money don't throw away money (if they've accumulated it themselves) but there's always exceptions and as you say - 1 out of every 47 will make it big.