« Topics
1234567
bilky asko5,696 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Set for Life looks great at first glance, but you look at the lower prize levels and they are just pittance.

£5 to £250 are the lower levels and then we take the biggest leap from £250 to £10,000 a month for 12 months.

They really need to sort out the lower levels, as the wins are pathetic - Match 4 numbers and you only get £50, whereas on Lotto match 4 you win £140 and on Thunderball Match 4 you win £100 - Set for Life is really pathetic compared to those levels.


It's not just Set for Life that needs a rethink of the lower prizes, EuroMillions does as well. There's some weeks when the lowest prize (2 numbers) has been less than the ticket price!

Euromillions has the problem of being linked with other countries, which causes problems too. The prize levels always change from draw to draw, so with the vast amount of money Euromillions has, they should have set prize levels.


Except all the prizes in the main draw (not the raffle and the equivalent extras in other countries) are set in Euros, so they're always going to be affected by the exchange rate.
1
Cando gave kudos
Brekkie34,004 posts since 4 Jan 2003
HTV Wales Wales Today
Set for Life looks great at first glance, but you look at the lower prize levels and they are just pittance.

£5 to £250 are the lower levels and then we take the biggest leap from £250 to £10,000 a month for 12 months.

They really need to sort out the lower levels, as the wins are pathetic - Match 4 numbers and you only get £50, whereas on Lotto match 4 you win £140 and on Thunderball Match 4 you win £100 - Set for Life is really pathetic compared to those levels.


It's not just Set for Life that needs a rethink of the lower prizes, EuroMillions does as well. There's some weeks when the lowest prize (2 numbers) has been less than the ticket price!

And at the beginning of the month the prizes were restructured to make the lower prizes even lower and the jackpot bigger - the opposite of what they did with Lotto not that long ago. The Millionaire Raffle has also recently been reduced back to one winner a draw rather than two, though think they supposedly have multi-winner draws.


Do we know if sales of the main Lotto draw were impacted much from losing the Saturday broadcast slot?
Stay Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives.
bilky asko5,696 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Set for Life looks great at first glance, but you look at the lower prize levels and they are just pittance.

£5 to £250 are the lower levels and then we take the biggest leap from £250 to £10,000 a month for 12 months.

They really need to sort out the lower levels, as the wins are pathetic - Match 4 numbers and you only get £50, whereas on Lotto match 4 you win £140 and on Thunderball Match 4 you win £100 - Set for Life is really pathetic compared to those levels.


It's not just Set for Life that needs a rethink of the lower prizes, EuroMillions does as well. There's some weeks when the lowest prize (2 numbers) has been less than the ticket price!

And at the beginning of the month the prizes were restructured to make the lower prizes even lower and the jackpot bigger - the opposite of what they did with Lotto not that long ago. The Millionaire Raffle has also recently been reduced back to one winner a draw rather than two, though think they supposedly have multi-winner draws.

Do we know if sales of the main Lotto draw were impacted much from losing the Saturday broadcast slot?


To ring in the changes, the first and second draws had 20 winners on the Raffle and a Superdraw Jackpot (not sure which order) - they said that the changes would mean more Superdraws / Event Draws.

I think they've got it about right - EuroMillions for those who want a chance at the biggest lump sum possible, Lotto for people who think the EuroMillions jackpot is obscene and just want a million or two (with the guaranteed £1m tier), and Set For Life who think they'd squander a large lump sum.
Hatton Cross3,448 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Central (West) Midlands Today
I did like the Lotto raffle -

Whooa - That's something I never expected to read.

I belong to the 'Players Panel' run by a market research company for Camelot, and 'we' (as, in me and other like minded regular players of Lotteries range of draw and scratchcards) pretty much got Lotto raffle ditched, due to our hatred of it.

You were forced to play it, and, except in some 'stunt' draws, wasn't actually a raffle, mearly a sequence match exercise, because there were no smaller prizes on offer for matching less.
It was the £1 million or £10,000. A true raffle would have offered smaller prizes of around a tenner if you matched the colour, and the first four or five numbers in the sequence. Yet it was all or nothing.

Interestingly, when it was introduced, it was the same time as the play per line went up from £1 to £2. Camelot claimed it was technically £1.50 for the lotto and £0.50p for the raffle. Notice when the raffle was dropped, the price didn't fall 50p lower per line.

For balance, other things some suggested which were took on board were having fixed prize payouts for matching the correct number of numbers, and a limit to the amount of rollovers, and the 'rolldowns' to all prize tiers if a 'must be won' jackpot wasn't won.

That innovation meant anyone matching 3 numbers on the Christmas Night Lotto draw, won £116 instead of £30.

I agree that the lower Set For Life prize tiers need seriously looking at. I notice there's been a ramping up of POS advertising for the draw in recent weeks - a sign that draw sales for this game are lower than expected. One quick win to gain a bit of 'excitement' is to offer a free go if you match 1 main number and the life ball.
Readers are warned that this post contains some flash photography
Johnr568 posts since 6 Apr 2004
I enjoyed when the Lotto had a raffle, my uncle actually won £20,000 on it but then sadly had a heart attack and died 3 months later proving the best wealth you can have is your health!
Brekkie34,004 posts since 4 Jan 2003
HTV Wales Wales Today
Yes, thought the Lotto Raffle which I think initially was 20 prizes of £20k was quite lacking and unnecessarily confusing with them having to list 20 prize codes.

I do wonder with the Lotto changes whether it has encouraged people to just play once every 5 draws. The rolldown helps but I do think they should still give a bit more to the second tier and guarantee that at £2m rather than £1m. Overall though I think the £1m Bonus Ball prize is better than the raffle, but can still be some situation where surely they can't pay it out. Wasn't there a draw where the winners of 5+Bonus ended up with less than those who had 5 numbers due to the high number of winners.

Set for Life is an odd one - I'm convinced they set up these things so you have a greater chance of winning something when you start playing it (I won a few times playing after it launched), and somehow the appeal of £10k a month for 30 years drew me in more than a £4m prize for Lotto ever does (especially as it's for 30 years - prizes where you win an amount every month for the rest of your life would have you looking over your shoulder for a hitman all the time!). I also think despite the issues at the lower level the second tier prize is appealing in it's own right, which helps.


The main Lotto though has never recovered from the increase from 49 to 59 numbers just destroying the odds of winning anything, never mind the jackpot. I think that had a bigger impact than increasing the cost to £2 and was just something that never made sense as apart from at the 3-ball level the prizes didn't increase to reflect the change in odds - and in some cases became smaller.


Bringing it back to television though and to BBC1 Saturday nights and although some of the quizzes weren't great (In it to Win It was particularly awful, yet I think the longest running) I do think they have left somewhat of a hole in the BBC schedules. They may not have been the most innovative shows but they appealed to a core section of the BBC1 audience.
Last edited by Brekkie on 21 February 2020 8:51pm
Stay Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives.
1
JamesLaverty1925 gave kudos
RDJ2,916 posts since 25 Oct 2003
Central (South) Midlands Today
Duncan seems to be very pleased the lottery updates are going!





Also... I've found that the BBC are still uploading the results on their website even though they're not advertising the website anymore, albeit very strangely as a set of images tucked away in the depths of their Lottery page.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/9JzWg92Gwwn0nqLPndsC5c/latest-results
Central News South
January 9th 1989 - December 3rd 2006
1
Lewismpsmith gave kudos
Hatton Cross3,448 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Central (West) Midlands Today
Well, since you asked - the last one.
Obviously ticket sales were low, so the organiser gave out prizes if you had the first two number of the three digit number on the ticket.
And the bottle of alcoholic sugar cane juice from Cuba (ticket 23-), and a box of 'poncy' Chocolate buscuits from Mr Marks and Mr Spencer (ticket 40-) was a very nice addition to the Christmas booze and nibbles on the sideboard last year!

My point being, the lotto raffle was a nasty forced all or nothing racket, which given there must have been 5-6 million lines played each draw - only produced just 42 winners across both the bi-weekly draw (1x£1million and 20x£20,000).
A truly terrible return.

Camelot argued that you are playing for smaller prizes in the lotto, and the raffle is a 'add-on'. But those were also added into the odds of winning a prize in the lotto draw.

Much fairer (and more winners of lower value prizes which would have made raffle far more attractive) to actually check the winning sequences, would have been - win the £1million/£20,000 for the full sequence. Then say £25 or £50 for a match of the colour word and the first 5 numbers in the winning top prizes sequence. I.e Puce 96495_

I'd have been happy getting £25 back every 6-8 weeks from Mr Patel's Mags and Fags Lotto till down the road winning on the lotto raffle. Not having to pay for something the odds of winning were too high to get excited about.
Glad it's gone. Now they need to put the Euromillions raffle out of our misery.
Readers are warned that this post contains some flash photography
Johnr568 posts since 6 Apr 2004
I noticed on ITV tonight there was an insert during an ad break from Mulhern ‘sorry we can’t bring you the lottery numbers tonight’ which seemed a bit odd, was there an issue with the draw perhaps?

Coincidentally my app isn’t showing if I’ve won or not yet which it usually does by 9:30pm