Terribly Unimpressed With Camelot

[ukbod2015]

Was lucky enough to have 4 numbers on the Lotto tonight - looking forward to a £100 or so - and imagine my disappointment when 4 numbers is only good for £21, 3 numbers for £25 - I know how they apportion their prize fund but that doesnt take the edge off.

[sandyRoe]

It's harder to pick 4 than 3. The prizes should reflect that.

[sandyRoe]

On the very first draw I had 4 and collected £67.

[Canary42]

That's rather dubious - after all you've got 3 numbers so why not £25 for that ? In fact with 4 numbers you've got 4 different versions of 3 numbers (e.g. with 1 2 3 4 you've got 1 2 3, 1 2 4, 1 3 4, 2 3 4) so should get £100.

[grumpy01]

They should never have renewed Camelots' licence.

[Canary42]

Looks like it Methyl

[Buenchico]

You made the mistake of using lots of low numbers (31 or lower). Those numbers tend to be chosen by people who use birthdays for their selections. So any draw where all 6 numbers drawn are under 32 (as happened tonight) is likely to have far more people with 4 numbers than normal.

There were 14,811 people with 4 numbers tonight.
Going back through the past few week's draws (with the most recent first) here's how many people had 4 numbers:
11,913 (Sat, when more people play, so there are bigger prize funds, £133 payout)
5,232 (Wed, £178)
8,658 (Sat, £211)
9,717 (Wed, £61)
17,025 (Sat, with only one number greater than 31 - proving my point, £70)

As usual, I got no numbers tonight. (I do the lottery, with one line, on both Wed & Sat. I've not had any win for well over a year).

[Buenchico]

>>>Are we saying that in the current National Lottery a 4-number win cancels out all related 3-number wins when you have clearly got multiple 3-number wins?

Apparently so!
https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/results/lotto/draw-history/prize-breakdown/2041

[VHG]

The lottery is a TERRIBLE way to bet.

Odds are awful, so bad a professional gambler would never use the lottery.

Far better putting it in the Premium Bonds.

You are entered in each draw AND you still have your £1 at the end of it

(I know you can buy a £1 premium bond any more).

[saintpeter48]

I think i'd be more upset at winning only £181 for getting 5 numbers last night, as was the case!

[sandyRoe]

Are people betting when they get a lottery ticket or buying a chance to dream for a few minutes.
If you backed a horse you might think you'd a good chance of winning. I can't see many expecting to win a lottery jackpot.

[Gromit]

The prize fund varies if the lottery rolls over. This week you get £21 for 4 numbers, next week it could be £120 for 4 numbers.

The only prize that is fixed is the minimum 3 balls which is set at £25. This mostly works until the numbers drawn give more winners than normal (as Beunchico says, when there are no high numbers). In that instance the prize fund is shared by more people taking the 4 ball prize below the fixed prize 3 ball.

Purely on customer satisfaction terms, that is going to cheese a lot of their customers off.

[Svejk]

Has the main prize(total) ever fallen below the million mark before?
In the blurb they put out when increasing the numbers to 59, they claimed it had gone from strength to strength since they put it up to £2. I can tell you, fairly confidently, that was an out and out lie.

[Gromit]

Yesterday there were 14,000 people with 4 balls so there share was £21.

The previous Wednesday there were just 5,00 with 4 balls so each got £178.

[Gromit]

Should be 5,000

[Gromit]

Svejk

I don't think that has happened before. The fact that the Lotto game is changing again is proof enough that the last game change was a disaster.

The lottery is badly run by Camelot but they have the contract for many years to come. It should be run on a not for profit basis, and all of the money raised should go to prizes and good causes. There should be no profit for shareholders.

[Svejk]

^Quite agree.