110 $100,00 WINNERS !!??

Reply #18

LOTTOMIKE — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 04:23:24 GMT

it'll probably be a long time before this happens again......

Reply #17

Todd — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:45:23 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by JAG331 on April 1, 2005Too bad no corruption, that would've made for a more exciting story.I have to admit that I agree.

Reply #16

JAG331 — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:38:56 GMT

Too bad no corruption, that would've made for a more exciting story.

Reply #15

ayenowitall — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:13:57 GMT

ABC news also reported overnight that the numbers many of those 5+0 winners used came from a particular batch of fortune cookies. That's the simple explanation for what happened. Looks like there was no corruption, conspiracy, or inherent flaw in the game or the way it's run.aye

Reply #14

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:44:45 GMT

fortune cookie numbers come through,cool

Reply #13

jsk2001 — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:34:56 GMT

The winners from TN were Richie and Bobbi Hubbard, who own an auto parts store, where they actually sold the winning ticket to themselves. They did the quick-pick method and haven't decided whether to take the winnings in a lump sum or over 30 years.Doug Orr, marketing director with the West Des Moines-based Multi-State Lottery Association, which operates Powerball, said that as the winners come forward - several winners so far in a half-dozen states - they were revealing that they got the winni... [ More ]

Reply #12

RJOh — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:34:45 GMT

PowerBall having a matrix of 5/53 that paid $100K and a jackpot of $25M, had 110 players hit all 5 winning numbers. Now one would think that MegaMillions with a matrix of 5/52 that pays $175 and a jackpot of $75M could do even better because the odds and the payout are better.RJOh

Reply #11

WannaWinSoon — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:55:40 GMT

Checking the stats on the Powerball site, it seems like something was in the water in AZ and IN. PA, which typically gets the most of everything, should have almost doubled the match-5 count above AZ, using the total wins as a measure. It just barely beat it. Other states with similar overall win figures didn't come that close to the AZ count. I sent a message to the AZ lottery asking if they can reveal if the winners were Quick Pick or self-pick for those tickets. I'll post any reply if I get o... [ More ]

Reply #10

mrmst — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:46:25 GMT

pigskin - interesting take, never thought of it that way. I travel out of state for Powerball tickets so I don't get to hear any marketing ads. I would be curious to see if anyone else reports what you have seen.

Reply #9

pigskin — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:57:20 GMT

I'll point this out one more time. Here in Western Missouri the lottery commissionhas been running radio ads with the message that a $10 mil jackpot is huge and those players who wait for the prize to hit $50 mil are making a big mistake. So what happens? First, a lot of winners of low jackpots, which is pretty much of a rarity. Next, we have an unbelieveable number of $100 thou winners in Wednesday's drawing. This would seem to be an effort to convince players that there are a lot of big p... [ More ]

Reply #8

rundown99 — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:02:44 GMT

One thing is for sure. Powerball will definitely lower their odds

Reply #7

Todd — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:55:12 GMT

I guess we shall see. It would be nice for Mr. Strutt to lets use know the breakdown.

Reply #6

ryanm — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:10:02 GMT

I'm pretty sure most of those $100,000 winners weren't quick picks.

Reply #5

Todd — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:06:42 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by tg636 on March 31, 2005It makes me wonder if the quick pick isn't so random after all. Could it be programmed to pick certain numbers more frequently, thereby leaving more numbers unplayed to increase the chances of a jackpot rolling over? Their little scheme didn't work this time. They need to have computer experts take a look at their random number generator. Yes! That's the point so many of us have been making about computerized drawings - computers do NOT prod... [ More ]

Reply #4

tg636 — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:59:44 GMT

It makes me wonder if the quick pick isn't so random after all. Could it be programmed to pick certain numbers more frequently, thereby leaving more numbers unplayed to increase the chances of a jackpot rolling over? Their little scheme didn't work this time. They need to have computer experts take a look at their random number generator.

Reply #3

four4me — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:27:00 GMT

that's the way the balls bounces

Reply #2

ryanm — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:52:51 GMT

It's the Powerball apocalypse! First the jackpot keeps getting hit every fourth drawing on average, now a drawing occurs when there are 30.1 times as many $100,000 winners as statistically expected! The Powerball game is doomed! Doomed

Reply #1

Denali — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:35:19 GMT

I was struck by the number of match-5's as well. Not even frequently drawn numbers or numbers likely chosen from dates . Statistical aberration.

110 $100,00 WINNERS !!??

mrmst — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:07:52 GMT

What happened? How can there be 110 2nd tier winners on a low jackpot? Something is very strange. If they were self-picks, what did those 110 people know? (Actually 111 since there was a jackpot winner as well). And if they were computer generated quick picks - that is very unlikely as well. I don't recall ever seeing that many winners even on a record breaking jackpot. I'm baffled.