please empty your brain below

Looks like very poor promotion indeed.

There has also been a recnet surge in charities creating bingo sites to raise money which would support your theory of people wanting something for their donation or wanting to win but happy to pick the company that gives (more) to chairty.
https://www.bestnewbingosites.co.uk/
https://fundraising.co.uk/2007/05/09/

The national lottery may alocate 78% to prizes and donations but the good causes percentage should be highlighted separately, which is only about 23% if you take the stats from national-lottery.co.uk/life-changing/where-the-money-goes
It wont work, The jackpot isnt big enough
I can see that this is indeed a complicated waste of time for no financial return...

Sorry to point out your typos DG, but...

As if to prove the point, nobody won a £25000 prize in Saturday's draw, nor a £2500, nor a £250.

For example, if the winning number is 123456 then you'd win £2000 for 12345n or n23456, £250 for 1234nn or nn3456, £25 for 123nnn or nnn456 and '3 extra tickets' for 12nnnn or nnnn56. But there are no prizes for 654321, n12345, n23459 or 456nnn.

It's irrelevant really what the numbers are... to coin a phrase "I won't be in it, so I can't win it"
Whether it will work or not, the fact that a Labour Council is engaging with a form of gambling is sad considering how many people are becoming addicted to it.The situation is becoming increasingly desperate for local authorities because The Tory government is deliberately starving local ai=uthorities of funding, and limiting and centralising state finance.
There's a typo in your first typo, Kevin.
Whoever is running a lottery and for whatever the cause, there is no incentive for me to buy a ticket where ANY win doesn't consist of a cash prize, however small.

To me, free tickets are not a prize.

Since the national lottery changed 2(?) years ago, I've not even had three numbers to get the first cash prize (£25), whereas I used to get one on average about every 11 weeks, with the occasional four number line win as well. I've had some two number lines for a free lucky dip, but I don't count that.

I now buy just two lucky dips a week (lottery only, I don't buy euro) and any potential winnings will be shared between three people.

This contrasts with a minimum of four regular weekly lucky dips in the past, plus numerous additional lucky dips that were frequently bought and lucky dips that were bought to accompany birthday and Christmas presents.

To me, Camelot's greed and focus on stupidly high jackpots by cutting down on the amount of cash prizes and making it harder to win any money killed the national lottery. There is no longer the incentive to buy.
I live in the borough and don’t remember it being publicised so that’s why I haven’t entered - and after reading dg’s write-up I think I’ll save my money!
Not exactly well publicised .

I live in B & D and have never heard of it

Not that I would take part anyway.
Perhaps first prize should be a council house.
Why not sack the people who came up with this madness, and use the salaries saved for charitable purposes?
Some sacking might be in order. But the "people who came up with it" should not be the target. How about the councillors who agreed to put it in place?

I used to think the old Methodist idea of treating all gambling as sinful was a bit over the top. Nowadays, I'm not so sure.
For the subset of players who intend to "invest" say £3 (or more) each week in this enterprise, then the value of the "prize" of three free draws is not tiny. It is £3. Provided, of course, that they are strong-minded enough to withhold their own £3 the week after a win.

(But then if they are that strong-minded, they probably wouldn't be playing anyway).
Sticking key phrases from the website into Google reveals a load of nearly identical websites for other places (Broxbourne, Portsmouth, Torbay, "Veggie"(!), etc) so presumably this is an off the shelf service setup at very little cost or risk to the council.

I'm still not convinced that tiny number of ticket sales justifies even the minimum imaginable amount of council officer time, legal advice, etc that must have been required for the council to sign up with this service, especially as none of the money appears to go back to the council.

(also, is helping raise money for local good causes something councils normally do? It seems a little bit outside their remit)
Giving grants to local good causes is something councils normally (used to) do.
Aren’t the odds of an exact match a mere 999,999:1 (not 1,000,000:1)?

If I’ve got the hang of the calculation, the exact odds are:

NNNNNN 999,999:1 (not 1,000,000:1)
NNNNNn or nNNNNN 999,982:18 = 55,554 5/9:1 (not 55,556:1)
NNNNnX or XnNNNN 999,820:180 = 5,554 5/9:1 (not 5,556:1)
NNNnXX or XXnNNN 998,200:1,800 = 554 5/9:1 (not 556:1)
NNnXnn or NNnXnN or NNnXNn or NNnnNN or nnXnNN or nNXnNN or NnXnNN 982,099:17,901 = 54.86…:1 (not 56:1)

where N is a match (×1), n a non-match (×9) and X can be any digit (×10).

The “match-2” case is complicated by the need to count only once matching at both ends while excluding matching 3 or more at either end.
1×1×9×10×9×9 + 1×1×9×10×9×1 + 1×1×9×10×1×9 + 1×1×9×9×1×1 + 9×9×10×9×1×1 + 9×1×10×9×1×1 + 1×9×10×9×1×1 = 17,901

The published odds seem to envisage minor payouts even where "X" matches, provided that the innermost "n" does not match, which is slightly more generous than a literal interpretation of the FAQ. If the organisers don’t in fact treat, say, 123956 as a triple-match for 123456, then the odds are worse with only 1×1×1×9×9×9+9×9×9×1×1×1 = 1,458 chances of winning instead of 1×1×1×9×10×10+10×10×9×1×1×1 = 1,800, giving odds of 998,542:1,458 = 684.8…:1 instead of 554.5…:1 (or, as published, 556:1) for a triple match, and similarly for other tiers.

Well, that turns out to be unexpectedly complicated, so I’ve probably made at least one mistake in all of the above! But I’ve got a strong suspicion that Barking & Dagenham or Gatherwell Ltd have too.

“As for the 20% on "admin and VAT", a bit of digging reveals that VAT on lottery sales is charged at 12%, which means the administrators (Gatherwell) are taking 8p a ticket.”

Your link relates to 12% Lottery Duty and, perhaps ironically, shows that the duty only applies to unlawful lotteries (cf Al Capone) and the National Lottery (paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5 in your Lottery Duty link). Legal local lotteries are exempt (paragraph 2.3).

Lotteries are also exempt from VAT on their ticket sales (VAT Notice paragraphs 4.2 and 6.1). But Gatherwell Ltd, as an external lottery manager, is liable for standard 20% VAT on its administration fee unless they sell the tickets themselves (paragraph 5.2).
@ Rich G

You can select any number from 000000 through to 999999. As there a million numbers from which to choose, then surely the chance of picking the right one (649058 in this case) is one in a million?
@ Gerry

Yes, but aren’t odds conventionally expressed as {chance_of_losing}:{chance_of_winning} not {chance_of_winning_or_losing}:{chance_of_winning}? For example, if the chances were evens, as in a coin toss, the odds would be 50:50 = 1:1 not 2:1. So, with 1 in a million chances of winning the top prize, there are 999,999 chances of losing, giving odds of 999,999:1.
I think you are both right - it depends on the choice of the word: "in" versus "to". You have a 1 in a million chance of the big win, or a 1 to 999999 chance.
However it's written, 1:999999 and 1 in 1000000 are both piss-poor probabilities.
Lottery=(optional) low-level tax on the poor










TridentScan | Privacy Policy