We are the fabulous 122 (AT LOTTO) - WE WON $52

Page 42 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,877
8
81
Thanks for doing this Vivi, it was cool. Thanks also to the ones who entered all the numbers in. If we do it again, I vote to keep it at $5 buy in still.
 

AmdEmAll

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2000
6,699
9
81
I say make it $20 buy in and we need a limit to the people getting in, original 122 get priority.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
And I voted to let Vivi have the $52. He did the legwork and deserves something for his effort.
Ditto

And so long as someone won this one it generally starts at $20mil...not sure if everyone will want to pool for such a small payout...Powerball is not too small right now if I remember right though
 

RossMAN

Grand Nagus
Feb 24, 2000
79,090
457
136
I say make it $20 buy in and we need a limit to the people getting in, original 122 get priority.

Why would you impose a limit?

More people + more $ = higher possibilities?

I agree with the $20 but $10 might have more mass appeal.
 

AmdEmAll

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2000
6,699
9
81
Why would you impose a limit?

More people + more $ = higher possibilities?

I agree with the $20 but $10 might have more mass appeal.

Well there has to be some kind of limit otherwise the returns aren't worth it.. $20 would lower the amount of people though so guess we'll have to see.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
There should be no limit; the more people in the pool, the better our chances.

$20 minimum might limit our numbers. $10 minimum would have better reception; let people double their buy in and double their share of the prize if they choose.
 

ViviTheMage

Lifer
Dec 12, 2002
36,189
87
91
madgenius.com
There should be no limit; the more people in the pool, the better our chances.

$20 minimum might limit our numbers. $10 minimum would have better reception; let people double their buy in and double their share of the prize if they choose.

What do people think about that?

You pay $20, you have 2 'shares'?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
What do people think about that?

You pay $20, you have 2 'shares'?
Sounds like a better idea. That way people who want to pay $20 have an incentive to do so, but you'll cast a wider net with a $10 minimum.

$10 or $20 should be the only options available; nothing smaller or larger. Otherwise things get too complicated.
 

RossMAN

Grand Nagus
Feb 24, 2000
79,090
457
136
There should be no limit; the more people in the pool, the better our chances.

$20 minimum might limit our numbers. $10 minimum would have better reception; let people double their buy in and double their share of the prize if they choose.

Agreed and count me in for $10 x 2. Assuming of course that gives me two shares.

I say 200 is good and has to be same $ from everyone otherwise there will be problems.

How would there be problems?

What do people think about that?

You pay $20, you have 2 'shares'?

Agreed.
 

RossMAN

Grand Nagus
Feb 24, 2000
79,090
457
136
This is true, what is that break point? I think 200 some @ $20 will net us 4,000 tickets, and 1X million payout after taxes?

Only 1x million? I can live with that.

My chances are better in a pool with 4,000+ tickets compared to $5 at my local grocery store.