Your chances of being struck by lightning are greater than your chances of winning the lottery. Every time we get a thunderstorm i stand on my roof with a metal pole. I reckon if i can get struck by lightning a few times it will increase my chances of winning the lottery! (to bad I don't play it, I make the government work to take my money)

 

Yep, the chance of winning is pretty durn slim....on the other HAND (capitals because I want to ) You can't win if you don't play

I play a little, not very much though. I usually buy a ticket and hand it to the wife telling her she can retire now. That usually accompanies rolling of the eyes, but SOMEBODY has to win it

 

There was a pious man, who lived his life doing the Lords work.. gave all he earned to the poor and sick, lived in destitution himself to help others. And when he finally died, he was called before the Lord, and the Lord praised him for his good deeds and selflessness, and the pious man said " God, I tried my whole life to do your work and spread your word, and in return I asked only one thing.. to win the Lottery, so that I could help that many more.. Every day when I prayed to you, the only prayer I ever gave for myself was to win the Lottery.. and it never happened.
Why Lord? why? why couldnt you let me win?"
and God looked a the man and said...........

"why couldnt you buy a ticket?"

I drop enough change here and there that spendign a buck or two a week on a lottery ticket isnt gonna hurt nothing....I just dont count on ever getting the money back....

 

Wolfeman had it right but a little confusing. The "jackpot" is based on the 20 year payout. If you elect to take the lumpsum it is much less than the "jackpot" sort of like a reverse mortgage or loan. You pay 40K for your truck but by the time you pay off the loan with all of the interest it really cost you 100K (just throwing numbers here). When getting something the bigger the better but when paying, the lower the better so that's the way it is always presented.

My question is, where is all of the $$ that are suppossed to go to our schools from the profits? I always see the signs in the windows of the retailers that claim "this store contributed X millions of $ for our public schools". I know there are far more retailers than schools so why are school systems still having to cut budgets and cry for more $$?

 

Not sure about all states but here in TX they implied that the money was going to schools and in some ways this is true. In actual fact the money goes into the general budget and is then divided up accordingly.
Not sure about other schools but our local schools have yet to cut their budget. To the contrary they've continued to increase it yr after yr. They're constantly building new schools and and every few yrs having a bond election requesting more money. I've voted no every time!!
It's not that I don't want the schools to have the funds they need to educate our children. It's the fact that they always ask for money to fund Unnecessary things. One of the bonds that passed funded 2 elementary schools, one middle school, added classrooms to the high school a football stadium that looks like something a major university would build and a new basketball arena that looks like something you'd see the Mavericks or Lakers play in. This would be great but it's seldom more than 1/2 full.
To make matters worse they left out a set of pull out bleachers because they ran out of money.
As soon as they finished building the arena they started pushing another bond election 50+ million for more schools and such. The part that really bent me was that they put the coaches out their telling the parents that they needed the election to pass so they could finish the bleachers in the arena. It backfired. We (all parents) were steamed that they had the nerve to use such a ploy! We organized and struck down this bond with big numbers thus sending a message to the school district. The new bleachers were completed within a month of losing the bond election. Hmmm where did they get the money??
The next bond election was passed but for less funds and with a lot less waste.
My point is that school districts are govt. bureaucracies and tend to always have their hand out and preach gloom and doom if they don't get what they ask for. Wasteful spending breeds more wasteful spending...I'm not going to condone it!

 

Well I always wondered why people go for lump sum to begin with. Are they afraid something like an Enron would happen to the lottery and the money would just be gone? I mean if it was say, a few million I'd probably take the lump. But with a jackpot over at at least a hundred mil you're getting about 5 million a year, right? I've seen so many stories where people have blown lottery winnings of more than 50 million with nothing to show after a couple of years. How in the heck do you do that!?!? Not to say you can't do the same thing with a yearly payout, you could get all kinds of debt and stuff but I think it'd be nice to know you'll be getting a cool several million bucks a year for the next 20 years.

As for the schools, I hear ya on the stadium stuff.....my g/f's school system she went to spent at least a few million on theirs. It looks like it belongs on a college campus, not next to a high school. Yeah it's nice, but I bet those dollars could have gone to something better......like, paying some teachers a little more money....if that's an option.....

Sorry I was on pms the other night, didn't mean to be rude to you.

 

Not for me.
I'm not a gambler but from what I'm told from friends who go, the indian casinos skim your winnings off of the top before you get them.
As we all know a casino is profitable enough since the odds are always in favor of the house. taking a percentage of the players winnings is way out of hand.
Since I find smoking a disgusting habit I have no need for a smoke shop.

 

That is not true at the Casino I work at. If the Jackpot is big enough they will automatically take the taxes out but skimming they do not.

 

I truely hope thats not meant as sarcastic and belittling as it sounds......
lets keep this civil shall we?

 

I would take the lump sum early. You can invest the money and earn a far better return than taking the 20 year annuity payments.

 

What was belittling or sarcastic?


I think pointing out that the casinos (At least some in OK) take part of your winnings as a fee for gambling in the casino is informative and civil.
Now I don't remember for sure how it was explained to me. It was either a fee for each hand of poker, blackjack or what ever game or it was a percentage of the winnings. Either way these casino were getting more money that just their winnings. I don't find it fair to be charged a fee to go lose money. Unless you're the house the odds are against you. Very few people come out ahead. You may win big this week but the majority of those who gamble often are always in the hole if they add up all of their gambling excursions.

 

Absolutely!!
I'm definitely better at investing than the govt.!!

 

For poker usually they take 2 bucks out of the pot. Since poker is not against the house they want a cut of that pot since they are letting you play in their house. As for blackjack usually on the super low limit tables like $1 min tables there will be a 50 cent commission on each hand since the house wont make that much on the $1 table they charge a commission. These lower tables attract people who don't know how to play so they are willing to pay the commission. The people who konw blackjack stay away since they know its a wast of money. Pai-gaow charges a commission since there is a lot of pushing between the player and the house. The house charges a commission so that they can make Money off of the game. Baccarat has the 5% commission on the banker bet because the banker has better odds for the gambler then the player bet so the house wants to to get their share of that also.

All of these commissions are in print and in plain view on the table somewhere.

Wow sorry about the essay lol. I am a Table Game dealer at one of the local Casinos in San Diego just thought I would explaine a little the reason behind the commissions

 

Yea the blackjack tables are usually accomodated with "sucker bets", a mandatory 25c 50c or $1 bet that plays a side game. Pretty much consider it a fee to play a low priced blackjack game.

Here its $5 a hand minimum unless you go to one other casino, then they offer you $2 blackjack with a mandatory $.50 side bet. So you essentially play $2.50 to hope to win $1.50.

Crappy odds.

 

Yea I understand that. They're not being sneaky they're just taking more than I'd ever be willing to give.
It's bad enough that the odds are in their favor but then to take even more is too much for me.
Folks who enjoy gambling may be ok with that.
Of course I'm quite biased...the couple of times that I hit a casino I felt like I would have had as much fun piling up a couple of hundred bucks and having a small campfire.
I just don't enjoy it and paying more to lose my money makes it even less enjoyable.