£108m lottery winner a furious BNP supporter

[Pickman's model]

I wouldn't want to be the person deciding who can and can not have life-changing amounts of money. I don't want to be the guy who's suddenly very different to his social circle and the guy that everyone knows is minted beyond belief.

You don't have to believe me, of course, but maybe the fact that I've never cashed in on this site - particularly earlier on when there was talk of a lot of money being on the table - should maybe give you some idea of my conviction here.

if i won the lottery, even this vast £100m+ size, i don't think i'd be a multimillionaire for long as there are a huge number of deserving causes who could use the money more than me.

 

[Pickman's model]

He really does have a kind of fash look about him. He's even got a black shirt.

Hopefully now he's gone public he'll have no end of 'friends' to help him spend it. With menaces.

ffs who hasn't at some point worn a black shirt?

 

[Dr. Furface]

I'd make it a million top prize, so loads more people could win what would be enough for just abut anyone to make their life considerably better.

Personally I agree with you - although I think I'd make it £2m - but it's well known that more people play lotteries the bigger the prize money gets. You can think what you like about that but the point of a lottery is to get as many people playing as possible to generate maximum revenue for the greater good. I totally agree that £108m is far too much for a single winner but it's wins like that and the publicity they generate that keep people playing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Personally I agree with you - although I think I'd make it £2m - but it's well known that more people play lotteries the bigger the prize money gets. You can think what you like about that but the point of a lottery is to get as many people playing as possible to generate maximum revenue for the greater good. I totally agree that £108m is far too much for a single winner but it's wins like that and the publicity they generate that keep people playing.

yeh labour will want that sort of money to get out of their dire financial position

 

[Pickman's model]

He really does have a kind of fash look about him. He's even got a black shirt.

Hopefully now he's gone public he'll have no end of 'friends' to help him spend it. With menaces.

are refs fascists?

 

[editor]

if i won the lottery, even this vast £100m+ size, i don't think i'd be a multimillionaire for long as there are a huge number of deserving causes who could use the money more than me.

Maybe you would. Maybe you wouldn't. Money can turn people in quite funny ways. Either way, you'd be changed forever.

 

[Spymaster]

I don't want to be a multi millionaire.

So give it all away.

Ffs, even if you just chucked the lot at Oxfam the day you got it you'll have done more good than most people do in a lifetime.

 

[Gromit]

if i won the lottery, even this vast £100m+ size, i don't think i'd be a multimillionaire for long as there are a huge number of deserving causes who could use the money more than me.

I could see me setting up a charitable foundation with it and running that foundation.

I'd rather me have the money and me run the charity and know for a fact that the £100mil is doing some good for those that really need it most than 100 random people having a million each.

I'd rather be dishing it out than the government or the many charities seemingly run to ensure fat cat salaries for directors.

 

[editor]

So give it all away.

I don't want to be the person who decides who gets what and who gets nothing. Can't you understand that?

 

[Spymaster]

I could see me setting up a charitable foundation with it and running that foundation.

I'd rather me have the money and me run the charity and know for a fact that the £100mil is doing some good for those that really need it most than 100 random people having a million each.

I'd rather be dishing it out than the government or the many charities seemingly run to ensure fat cat salaries for directors.

This, pretty much.

My new career would be doing the most amount of good with it whilst making sure no individuals or political parties got their mitts on any of it.

 

[Spymaster]

I don't want to be the person who decides who gets what and who gets nothing. Can't you understand that?

Not really, no.

I think it's quite a selfish perspective actually. By not accepting it you make it highly likely that it'll go to some individual who'll jolly it up for the rest of his life, when you could have changed the lives of many thousands of more deserving folk.

Never mind though, at least you didn't have to make any tough decisions.

 

[editor]

Not really, no.

I think it's quite a selfish perspective actually. By not accepting it you make it highly likely that it'll go to some individual who'll jolly it up for the rest of his life, when you could have changed the lives of many thousands of more deserving folk.

So I'm selfish in not throwing my money at the lottery every week on the microscopic chance I'll win something? Right. Gotcha.

 

[8ball]

I don't want to be a multi millionaire.

Would be a big step down from your current web tycoon status.

 

[thriller]

I'd make the top prize £2 million and increase the lower prizes. A few hundred thousand for 4-5 numbers. 3 numbers increase from what £10 presently? to £80 or whatever. It can be done and still make sure the good causes benefit as all you are doing is sharing the top prize more widely among the players.

Of course, people may say by increasing the 3 number payout all you will be doing is creating more lotto addicts.

 

[editor]

Would be a big step down from your current web tycoon status.

That's true. It took me a long time to become the Baron of the Browsers, and it's a position I'm not going to give up lightly.

 

[Spymaster]

So I'm selfish in not throwing my money at the lottery every week on the microscopic chance I'll win something? Right. Gotcha.

Ha, nice swerve.

You said you wouldn't want to win that amount of money. Doesn't matter where it came from.

If you don't want to do the lottery, don't. I don't very often, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome the opportunity to spread £100 million around, given the chance.

The selfishness is in the attitude that you'd choose to help nobody to avoid making decisions.

 

[Corax]

I don't want to be the person who decides who gets what and who gets nothing. Can't you understand that?

You could set up some sort of lottery so you didn't have to.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'd make the top prize £2 million and increase the lower prizes. A few hundred thousand for 4-5 numbers. 3 numbers increase from what £10 presently? to £80 or whatever. It can be done and still make sure the good causes benefit as all you are doing is sharing the top prize more widely among the players.

Of course, people may say by increasing the 3 number payout all you will be doing is creating more lotto addicts.

it went up recently from £10 to £25

 

[8ball]

I'd make the top prize £2 million and increase the lower prizes. A few hundred thousand for 4-5 numbers. 3 numbers increase from what £10 presently? to £80 or whatever. It can be done and still make sure the good causes benefit as all you are doing is sharing the top prize more widely among the players.

Of course, people may say by increasing the 3 number payout all you will be doing is creating more lotto addicts.

I'd go with complete equality - give me a quid and you'll definitely get 35p back. Every time. With 2p going to good causes too!

 

[ffsear]

They need to shorten the gap between the actual odds and the payout for the smaller prizes.

e.g getting 4 numbers, the actual odds are 1031/1 but the payout its in the area of 75/1 (for your £2 stake) Daylight robbery really!.

 

[WouldBe]

I wouldn't want to win that kind of money.

It would keep the server fund going for quite a while.

 

[8ball]

They need to shorten the gap between the actual odds and the payout for the smaller prizes.

e.g getting 4 numbers, the actual odds are 1031/1 but the payout its in the area of 75/1 (for your £2 stake) Daylight robbery really!.

See - much better returns with my lottery.

 

[redcogs]

We lose Bob Crow and Tony Benn yet this piece of shit wins a lottery? i used to believe in hope and light at the end of the tunnel.. Even the wholemeal loaf i've just pulled out of the breadmaker has failed to rise.

The good lord seems to be a free marketeering fascist faced arsehole.

 

[likesfish]

Well as your not going to win the small prize and " improving" your chance to 1 in 10 million
Rather than stupid amount of cash and 1 in 1000 million

I'd take the false hope of a truly stupid amount of cash.

 

[Pickman's model]

We lose Bob Crow and Tony Benn yet this piece of shit wins a lottery? i used to believe in hope and light at the end of the tunnel.. Even the wholemeal loaf i've just pulled out of the breadmaker has failed to rise.

The good lord seems to be a free marketeering fascist faced arsehole.

you think yer man will be made happier by this money. it is quite possible it will be the bane of his life. but even if it does make him happy, sometimes good things happen to shit people and shit things happen to good people. there's no reward, ultimately, for being good as we all feed the worms in the end.

 

[redcogs]

That's very reassuring Pickman.

The end is nigh, tis nigh on the end.

 

[Spymaster]

The good lord seems to be a free marketeering fascist faced arsehole.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

People are wankers. They can appreciate the difference between £10m and £1m, but not between a 1:116,000,000 chance of winning (current Euromillions odds) and a 1:11,600,000 chance of winning.

Plus it's much harder to market - "You previously had fuck-all chance of winning, but now you've just got sod-all chance"

 

[Gromit]

People are wankers. They can appreciate the difference between £10m and £1m, but not between a 1:116,000,000 chance of winning (current Euromillions odds) and a 1:11,600,000 chance of winning.

Plus it's much harder to market - "You previously had fuck-all chance of winning, but now you've just got sod-all chance"

When did the odds change?

I thought the odds had always been 1 in 116,531,800. Or 2 in 116,531,800 if you buy a second ticket.

The odds of sharing the jackpot change every week (depending on how many other people play and how many tickets they buy) but the odds of winning the jackpot are determined by the number of winning combinations there are. That is set by the number of balls and the number range of those balls. That has never changed as far as I was aware.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

I mean if there's a choice between increasing the jackpot by a factor of ten, or increasing the chance of winning by a factor of ten (by increasing the number of winners) - increasing the jackpot will always win as it's a much more tangible concept than increasing your odds which ware fuck all anyway.