• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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.
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.
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
And I voted to let Vivi have the $52. He did the legwork and deserves something for his effort.
Click to expand...
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 said:
Why would you impose a limit?

More people + more $ = higher possibilities?

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

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.
 
AmdEmAll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
jpeyton said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do people think about that?

You pay $20, you have 2 'shares'?
 
ViviTheMage said:
What do people think about that?

You pay $20, you have 2 'shares'?
Click to expand...
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.
 
jpeyton said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

AmdEmAll said:
I say 200 is good and has to be same $ from everyone otherwise there will be problems.
Click to expand...

How would there be problems?

ViviTheMage said:
What do people think about that?

You pay $20, you have 2 'shares'?
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
ViviTheMage said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top