Lotteries long for 'jackpot fever'

Comment #63

tony95 — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:21:00 GMT

Just because someone here doesn't understand the odds doesn't mean that most players don't understand. I think more than half of the players have a good idea want the odds mean, but almost everyone knows that when they hear that the odds are going to be raised that it means they are going to have less of a chance of winning. I know my wife doesn't consider the odds, but I am the one that buys the tickets. I think that maybe 25% of the regular players don't care about the odds, another 25% don... [ More ]

Comment #62

tony95 — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:05:35 GMT

Double the ticket price and cut the odds in half and you may accelerate jackpot growth. What will change is people who spend 1 dollar will be forced to spend 2 dollars in order to play and this would speed things up quite a bit. However, what kind of backlash would occur is the big question. If people accept the higher ticket price then the game would be faster paced, if not then the game could remain slow of even be hurt.

Comment #61

konane — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:14:16 GMT

Lotteries need to try proven concepts of creating volume sales to bring in revenue.

Prime examples are Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, Sam's Club and BJ's wholesale mammoth daily sales, continuing to expand locations by offering discounts ... make their money through volume sales of excellent very desirable goods. Stores which don't go belly up.

Lowering odds (hopefully back to original game matrices) effectively creates a fire sale on tickets which will multiply sales exponentially and hold... [ More ]

Comment #60

KY Floyd — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:38:20 GMT

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that halving the odds while doubling the price of a ticket doesn't actually change anything? If you're willing to pay $2 for a ticket if the odds are half of what they are now, you don't need the lottery to change the game.Just buy 2 $1 tickets and you'll get exactly the same results.

Average jackpots are a function of the odds and how much money goes into the prize pool for each ticket sold. If the odds of winning are 1 in 100 million, the... [ More ]

Comment #59

justxploring — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:58:38 GMT

Comment #58

weshar75 — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:54:11 GMT

I did ask the Oregon lottery about future games being available like the game Hot Lotto and they said why would we offer Hot Lotto when we have an in-state game like Oregon Megabucks. Oregon Megabucks gets bigger than Hot Lotto and it's only in Oregon. My comment was directed at the possibility of having a large jackpot game offered through Mega Millions and Powerball in a joint effort. I emailed MUSL last night about having the two lotteries merge and the response I got was their would be a... [ More ]

Comment #57

CASH Only — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:26:18 GMT

Then you should ask the OR Lottery to join MUSL Hot Lotto. (Since New Hampshire has Tri-State Megabucks and Hot Lotto, and it has a smaller population than OR, it certainly should be considered where you live. HL also needs a larger double matrix since there are now nine states plus DC; it started in six states.

While I am not a big fan of OR Megabucks (lump-sum winners do not get the true cash value of the annuity more so than that it's computerized,) the game that needs to be replaced is OR... [ More ]

Comment #56

dvdiva — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:58:21 GMT

If people really want lower odds then they had better get used to the idea of $2 tickets. Lowering the odds and having a $1 price would only result in much lower jackpots and lower sales. Sales are already in a slump for Megamillions. With these states trying to sell their lotteries telling them that what you want is even lower sales isn't going to fly.

If you wanted a $2 price and lower odds that could work. Euromillions has odds 100 million less then Mega but with larger pots.

Odds are... [ More ]

Comment #55

weshar75 — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:02:13 GMT

I would like to see a joint game offered by Mega Millions and Powerball that would sell in each participating states jurisdiction. Keeping the ticket price at $1 and seeing what kind of jackpot all those states could create. For me I would like to have another big jackpot game like Powerball available to me here in Oregon. I do not like to travel the over 4 hour round trip to the state of Washington each time I want to play Mega Millions.-weshar75

Comment #54

KY Floyd — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:24:53 GMT

Those posts are a large part of my reasoning on how well the typical player understands the relationship between odds and the prizes. A large percentage of players have almost no clue about what the odds are and what they really mean. It's simple math, but the numbers are too big to be really meaningful. You say that 1 in 75 milion is much better than 1 in 150 million, but your chances of winning with either is hardly different than if you don't even buy a ticket.

On one level I do bel... [ More ]

Comment #53

konane — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:35:17 GMT

People play online lotteries because it's cheaper per bet to cover the same odds.

Lowering the matrix while maintaining $1 per bet for Mega Millions (and Powerball ) would effectively be lowering price per bet.

Sales of any sort always draw people, and lower prices keep them coming back again and again ..... it's human nature .... which lotteries are exceedingly slow to figure out.

Let them take a gamble on us players instead of dictating what to do and how to do it.

After all l... [ More ]

Comment #52

dvdiva — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:09:43 GMT

There are plenty of low matrix games for those people who want them. Slot machines are proof that people don't really pay attention to actual odds.

I'm assuming that they are talking about US games since Euromillions had record sales last year. It also had two jackpots over $200 million in cash. If US lottery operators would finally raise the price instead of raising the odds then powerball/mega could really take off.

Considering that the actual winnings in the US is only 33-25% of the pos... [ More ]

Comment #51

justxploring — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:39:13 GMT

I agree with Konane, tg636 and many others. Lower the matrix. I mean, even a state game with 1:22 million odds is tough to win. Sometimes I wish I wasn't addicted to my 4 Lotto cards that I play twice a week. Right now any more would be way too much for me to spend, and I'd rather play a game with better odds. If I won $100,000 or even $10,000 I'd be thrilled.

I also would like to see higher second third prizes. A few weeks ago I got 3 numbers and won $5.50 and in over 12 years I... [ More ]

Comment #50

konane — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:07:21 GMT

Well said!! Hype about bigger jackpots is crafted to forcibly extract more $$$$ from players, period.

Comment #49

tony95 — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:36:11 GMT

Now I am starting to get aggravated because this has already been stated twice. The average lottery jackpot amount is a function of the odds, not how many people play. The laws of mathematics do not allow the jackpot to break a record every other turn. Geez, please go back to high school if you dont understand this.

Our state lotto has never paid out more than a million dollars and averages about $300,000.

Comment #48

CASH Only — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:17:39 GMT

In many cases, the in-state jackpot game is very inferior to MM/PB (a number of PB states don't have a classic lotto game.) MM/PB are better than NY Blotto (terrible payout), MA Megabucks/GA-KY-VA Lose for Life/OR Lose for Life (no cash option except for the El Cheapo in VA), and several games (ie Ohio Classic Lotto) where the cash value is fixed at a percentage of the annuity, instead of a (higher) floating percentage.

Comment #47

LckyLary — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:56:02 GMT

The fever starts when the jackpot gets a lot of media coverage. The media coverage starts either because the jackpot is a record or because other news is quiet. Record jackpots are hard to come by because there are more players and thus more often winners before it gets there. The jackpots on multi state games still seem to go up at the same rate so I think this lull at the multi-state level is at least partly an illusion. The slowdown is really in State Lotto sales because States that joine... [ More ]

Comment #46

codmander — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:31:05 GMT

People get tired of being either ripped off , cheated , or odds that are totally ridulas

Comment #45

chasingadream — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:06:19 GMT

are we gonna have a roll or a hit tonight

Comment #44

tony95 — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:10:56 GMT

The odds are long either way, but yes people are smart enough to know that 75million:1 odds are much better than 150million:1. Whether it's rational to play at all is another question altogether. If your suggesting the odds don't matter then why not just up them to 500million:1? You think people would still play? The fact is that odds do matter, but more importantly odds changes matter more. People know when they increase the odds 25 percent that what is really happening is that players are... [ More ]

Comment #43

chasingadream — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:10:37 GMT

well im not going for the jackpot......i wanna get 2nd prize on either game.

Comment #42

tony2222 — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:05:47 GMT

when I worked at 7-11 few years ago I told regular lotttery players that when they came into the store, they could give me 100 bucks and I would guarante they left the store with 50 in their pocket. Thats what masslottery does, it takes money from people and gives back nothing. thats why sales are off 38

Comment #41

tg636 — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:23:28 GMT

I don't think it is as simple as jackpot fatigue - everyone I know thinks $2 million is a huge amount of money, let alone $50 or $100 million. They have to consider the downturn began after they raised the odds and lengthened the annuity length so they could advertise higher jackpots without actually having more money in the pot. People catch on to things like that, people know the advertised amount is pretty much a con and the cash option is far lower and even lower after taxes. Yes, you ca... [ More ]

Comment #40

sirbrad — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:10:48 GMT

The only thing I like about the astronomical odds, is that I take home a hefty prize; and will most likely enjoy it as the sole winner. I would rather that than splitting a $100,000 with 5 people. Low tier prizes do nothing for me, except lower the cost of playing. But I don't wait until the jackpot is $100 million before I play. Honestly I would not mind the $5 million in cash, or whatever it is; as it is about as anonymous as I will get. Especially after a record jackpot winner.

People see... [ More ]

Comment #39

KY Floyd — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:59:24 GMT

They could increase the price to $2 a ticket and cut the odds in half for all prizes. The Buy-In to Payout ratio would remain the same but people would win twice as often.

The buy-in to payout ratio will remain exactly the same, while people will have to spend twice as much to win twice as often. Any player with a lick of sense will know that's not any different than buying tickets two at a time with the current setup. The only difference is that people won't have the option of buying a sing... [ More ]

Comment #38

KY Floyd — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:56:55 GMT

Are you suggesting that people are smart enough to know their chances of winning are extremely slim with odds of 1 in 150 million, but will think they've got a realistic chance with odds of 1 in 75 million? Even with smaller games the odds are high enough that the only rational thought is that you won't win. With 1 in 20 million odds spending $1000 a year means you should expect to win once every 20,000 years.

For the most part, the lottery pays out 50 cents for every dollar they collect, an... [ More ]

Comment #37

CASH Only — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:32:05 GMT

IMO Hot Lotto will continue to add states. By the time it comes to Tennessee (if it does) it probably would have longer jackpot odds.

I agree one reason Lotto South was replaced by GA-KY-VA Lose for Life was that the jackpot odds were too low. In fact, Lotto VA was replaced by Lotto South; both games had the SAME 6/49 matrix.

Comment #36

tony95 — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:24:59 GMT

Well, what I meant is that relative to tickets sold, twice as many would be winners which if the complaint is that people never see a winning ticket then this would help that perseption. It's probably a bad idea, because raising the price would meet sooo much resistance and I do think a lot of people would be pissed off and possibly stop playing.

Hot Lotto has something like 10million:1 odds, this doesn't come close to 30million:1 or 50million:1 which I am suggesting as an optional game. A... [ More ]

Comment #35

LOTTOMIKE — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:32:42 GMT

the only fever i'm going to have is if i win the jackpot

Comment #34

MissNYC — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:18:00 GMT

I agree! If you want better odds, play another game, there's certainly plenty out there. I also think it would be a good idea to increase smaller prize amounts as well as odds, but I think the larger odds for the jackpot should remain the same. Maybe increase the number of bonus balls and decrease the general pool of balls? I know I get excited when the jackpots grow, I never really think I'll win and typically play $5 a draw when the pot grows to 100 mil and $10 when it gets to 200. I always r... [ More ]

Comment #33

konane — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:35:03 GMT

Doubling the price of tickets is paying lotteries for their skewed analysis which solves no problem, only buries spurs deeper in our sides figuratively speaking.

Lotteries like governments and politicians need to be put on fiscal diets until they can begin thinking like people who live in the real world like the rest of us.

Comment #32

JimmySand9 — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:13:44 GMT

I wouldn't necessarily say that people will win twice as often, because a lot of people would stop as many tickets with a price increase. But there would be more winners overall for sure, especially if they added more prizes.

And there already is a mini-Powerball, it's called Hot Lotto. Not really the kind of odds you're looking for, but it is played exactly the same way as Powerball.

Comment #31

bobby623 — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:57:32 GMT

I haven't read all of the comments, and this might duplicate what's been said.

I play one, two, sometimes three different lotteries everyday. I have friends who also play regularly.

Just about everytime we talk about the lotteries we play, our success and failures, one complaint always rises to the top - the lottery is run buy a bunch of greedy folks who are trying to increases profits. These folks really believe that us dumb players will continue to play, no matter what they do. They are... [ More ]

Comment #30

tony95 — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:01:09 GMT

People are not getting desensitized to large pots. I contend a threshold has been met and whether the pot is $100, $200, or even $300 million the WOW factor is extremely high for most people. However, people are paying more attention to the deminishing chance of winning anything. Raising the odds has a negative psychological effect on the buyer which cannot be overcome by a slightly higher jackpot amount. This is excerbated by the fact that with higher odds people wait longer to get into the... [ More ]

Comment #29

JAG331 — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:17:23 GMT

I think that people will become desensitized to any jackpot amount, over time. The odds are just about right for a multistate game. Let people play state games if they want an easier target.

I do agree that it's too tough to win a prize. I say, reconstruct the matrix with fewer bonus balls. Increase lower tier payouts a bit. Maybe a 5/69 + 1/15? Or 5/55 + 2/10. They have 168m and 156m combinations, respectively.

Give out $1, $2, $3, prizes for matching a bonus ball or two. If peopl... [ More ]

Comment #28

csfb — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:55:14 GMT

I agree

Comment #27

csfb — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:53:29 GMT

I agree

Comment #26

csfb — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:52:09 GMT

I agree

Comment #25

tony95 — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:50:07 GMT

It sounds like we are getting a pretty good consensus here on the odds being too long. I was very frustrated when I posted a protest thread here before PB raised the odds and some people insisted raising the odds would be good for the game. Apparently, I have been completely vindicated. The odds went up and sales went down.

I keep a spreadsheet of what I would do with the money if I won and when the jackpot starts to get over $100 million I already have every dream fulfilled. When it ge... [ More ]

Comment #24

konane — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:39:24 GMT

If they would toss out the pencil necked number crunchers who sold them an 80's all for me none for you mindset with current matrices and have a whole new campaign bringing back classic Powerball and Big Game ~ NOT Mega Millions ~ then my bet is people would get off their wallets.

Texas rolled back their regular lotto matrix but didn't roll it back to original so are still suffering their folly.

A prime example of ruining a perfectly good game was our previous greedy lottery director end... [ More ]

Comment #23

CCHS13 — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:21:59 GMT

You guys are right on the money and that is evident with the interest that people

have with the raffle drawings as of late. I mean these tickets are $20 most of the time

and people have no problem buying 1 or more of those. They do think the players

are ignorant to the odds and just see the money, but we are not. Most of us anyway

Comment #22

Todd — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:01:10 GMT

This is absolutely correct!

The issue is NOT that the jackpots are too low.

The problem is that the odds are so high that many people rationalize that they are not going to win.

The magic level where people start coming out in droves to buy tickets is a perception level that kicks in when the jackpot is so high that it overcomes their rational thoughts about not being able to win.

That's all it is. It is NOT that people think $100 million is a small amount. No way! It's that the... [ More ]

Comment #21

LOTTOMIKE — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:25:29 GMT

i agree.it quit being fun for me when the matrix changed.i mainly have fun with pick 5 now.i'll take 200,000 dollars just as soon as i would 200 million dollars.

Comment #20

KY Floyd — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:35:24 GMT

If the jackpots don't get quite as high it's because MORE STATES ARE PLAYING and PEOPLE ARE WINNING JACKPOTS MORE OFTEN.

That isn't how it works. How often the jackpots are won is and always will be a function of the odds, but probability is only a trend and there will be variations on both sides of the norm. The more people play the more money goes into the prize pool and the higher the jackpots get. More people playing means more winners, but it also means more money for prizes at the sa... [ More ]

Comment #19

konane — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:30:13 GMT

They've made the matrix too high, odds too long where you spend, spend, spend and get no return.

Mega Millions and Powerball both are no fun any longer due to this. Have covered it ad nauseam in my previous posts.

Do a visual of someone sitting on a donkey, spurs buried in its ribs dangling a carrot on a stick, whomping its rear with another stick. That's exactly how MM and PB are treating players and the only winners have been them to this point.

Now they're feeling self inflicted pa... [ More ]

Comment #18

JimmySand9 — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:56:27 GMT

There are things a lottery can do to overcome so-called jackpot fatigue , some are pretty, some aren't. The first remedy is simple patience. Unfortunately, most states have seemed to put all their eggs into one basket, that being either PB or MM, so waiting may not be much of an option when most of your ad budget is going to a lost cause . There are lot's of things these games can do to get people back, such as add more prizes, increase lower tier prizes, raise the price and lower the odds (bo... [ More ]

Comment #17

MissNYC — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:17:42 GMT

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy winning 10k, all I'm saying is that for the Mega millions or Powerball to entice me over a local lottery, it would have to be a big one, and the bigger the better, sometimes it's just fun to dream big. What was big 5 years ago doesn't seem to get the same attention, so I think they should go a bit bigger if they want that same attention they've had in the past.

Comment #16

mountainman — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:12:42 GMT

What I meant to say is I wouldn't think about complaining.

Comment #15

mountainman — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:11:01 GMT

In GA the jackpot got big for Mega Millions, over 200 millions. I wouldn't think twice about complaining about 5 million, but maybe I'm old school there. The thing to remember about Holywood is that the Paris Hiltons of the world have no concept of money because it was always handed to them.

Comment #14

dphillips — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:45:05 GMT

For clarification, my reference to the $100,000 a year was based on salary, not a particular game or games. People get out of their beds, day-after-day, making less: $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, etc. Yes, there are executives making 6 figures -- and some are not playing the lottery. It seems as if they are content with what they are making. That was my original point

Comment #13

qutgnt — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:37:35 GMT

Because playing a game that has odds of 140 million to one for a 15 million jackpot that is watered down through cash value and taxes to about 4.5 million is hardly a good investment. If you would be happy with 100k why dont you play games that will give you a better chance at winning that than pissing your money down the toliet trying to chase down totally astronomical odds.

Comment #12

dphillips — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:32:31 GMT

Will someone please tell me, what is wrong with our American society that some people don't feel the lottery is worth their time or their money unless it's $200 million or more?

I would be grateful (and the operative word is grateful) to win $15 million. People need to get off their pompous, high horses because...most people don't make $100,000 or more a year!

Now, it seems that some people lust for more and more -- they have become greedy to the extent that even the word greedy is vulga... [ More ]

Comment #11

MissNYC — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:20:37 GMT

I don't think that raising the odds will encourage people to play, I think that larger jackpots will. Yeah there will be a waiting period, but it is also likely that the jackpot will remain larger longer, and despite the odds, if there is a 400 or 500 million dollar jackpot out there, people will be more likely to at least buy 1 ticket. My point is that for better odds and smaller jackpots, I play my local lottery, but I'll only fork over the money for the megamillions when their are mega jack... [ More ]

Comment #10

Prob988 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:20:10 GMT

I play be expectation value, the ratio of the prize to the odds. The long odds have decreased my playing.

But for the lotteries, it comes down to luck, as it does for the players. Long odds do not assure rollovers.

They do make rollovers more probable, but not necessarily large jackpots.

I would try better odds if I wanted to increase sales, but it's hardly my call.

Comment #9

LckyLary — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:07:36 GMT

Here is a LIST of the reasons for the cool down :

-There have been so many jackpots over 100 million. When 50 million was noteworthy it was because it was unusual.

-There is an inflation effect. If you want to buy a house for cash you need to win about 1 million (advertised annuity) or more!

-There are always stories (and TV series) about people who won big but were even more miserable after.

-People are tired of buying loads of tickets and then having hardly any matching numbers le... [ More ]

Comment #8

Badger — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:03:40 GMT

I agree. The big jackpot lotteries have such ridiculously long odds that more than a buck or two on them isn't worth it, no matter what the jackpot amount is.....besides, I don't need a hundred million dollars to retire and live confortably. A couple of million pre-tax would be plenty. I don't have a desire to be that extravagant.

Comment #7

tony95 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:30:39 GMT

I think this is completely wrong and is the misconception that is killing the lotterys. Very few people are saying, I am not playing because $100 million simply isnt enough money. People aren't playing because they don't believe they can win. The year before they raised the PB odds, the lottery went to $200 million three times and somehow that wasn't good enough? When I wrote to officials I actually got a reply that the PB only went to $200 million once, because he didn't acknowledge the tim... [ More ]

Comment #6

tony95 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:14:12 GMT

The mistake lottery officials make is thinking that simply increasing the odds will create larger jackpots which will increase buzz, but that's not how most players think. Jacked-up odds means a much greater expectation of huge pots which creates a loss of buzz during these long build-up periods. It takes about a month for Powerball to get up to a $100 million. Also, with the increased odds PB has fewer winners to annouce each year which hurts them with players. Buzz is not only created by l... [ More ]

Comment #5

tony95 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:08:17 GMT

Agreed, the lotteries have brought this on themselves by ever increasing the odds. Once upon a time 80million to 1 was the Powerball odds, now we are expected to buy in to 145million to 1 odds. People just aren't as dumb as they would like. My suggestion is to drop the odds on the regular powerball to 100million to 1 and add a Mini-Powerball game with something like 30million to 1 odds. This way players can choose from a long shot to a very long shot depending on their personality. Right no... [ More ]

Comment #4

doubledee32 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:05:27 GMT

There's alot of truth to this story, I still play but no more than 4-5$$ a draw $4.00 if it's under 100 million and $5.00 if it's over. I used to play 20-25 a week but the best I ever did was the $3.00 prizes I mean I never won a grand or more. so after all these years I just decided to cut back to 4-5 dollars a draw.

Comment #3

sirbrad — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:46:30 GMT

Rest assured, $50 million is plenty enough for me, I just get sick and tired of never winning most of the low tier prizes; let alone the jackpot. I have been suffering from lottery fatigue for years now. The media hype only comes in now if someone wins hundreds of millions, so it makes anything less than that seem like not as big of a deal. Until you win it.

Comment #2

MissNYC — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:21:24 GMT

I think that people are so desensitized to money as a result of media exposure to celebrity life, that 100 million just isn't as appealing as 300, or better yet, 400. Would I like to win 100 million dollars, you bet, but I would spend more on playing if the jackpot was over 300 million. And it doesn't seem to be helping that the Mega Millions and Powerball Lotteries have rarely seen large mega jackpots in the last year. I think people aren't playing because people are winning when jackpots are... [ More ]

Comment #1

bambini — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:51:48 GMT

I believe the reality of the long odds of winning are hitting home. Once upon a time I played $5.00 a draw, now I play $1.00 a draws. I live in NY state, as far as I know their has never been a MM Jackpot winner outside of New York City. The majority of second place winners, are also in NYC. The why bother factor has kicked in for me. I really see myself this time next year not participating at all in the lotteries.

Lotteries long for 'jackpot fever'

Lottery Post — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:31:01 GMT

To lottery players, $100 million ain't what it used to be.

A seven-month streak of jackpots that were big, but not gigantic, has sent traditional lottery sales plummeting in many states.

In the past six months, Mega Millions sales are down 30% in Texas compared with a year earlier and 38% in Massachusetts. Powerball sales are off 6% in Wisconsin.

The USA is suffering from jackpot fatigue, lottery officials say.

There was a time when $50 million created a stir. Then we needed... [ More ]