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).

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 — scherz0

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 — 180 Proof

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!

By the way, what if two or even four sets of those numbers lie in the same winner/person? :smirk:

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?

You ought have tagged 180 Proof.

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.

It happens occasionally with the current lottery setups.

Maybe let them buy their way off the eligible list with charitable donations. — Vera Mont

Yes of course. The price being to reduce their wealth by charity to below the threshold.

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. — scherz0

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.

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. — 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. — Sir2u

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.

And from what I have seen, a lot of them blow it all away in a couple of years. — Sir2u

That's okay, as long as they're blowing it on goods and services that provide jobs to people.

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. — Sir2u

Yet another small business soon drowned by big business would do no more for inequality than taxing big business and investing in public infrastructure.

But if we really want to look at inequality we should be looking at the companies that run the lottos. — Sir2u

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.

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. — Sir2u

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.