If you have to drive 10 miles to buy a [lottery] ticket, you are three times more likely to be killed in an automobile accident on the way than to win the jackpot."
Everyone knows this and no one would ever call lottery players price sensitive, yet even government lotteries have worked to find an optimal takeout level - they know returning more to the lotto players increases sales and revenues.
A proven strategy for lotteries across the country to generate additional funding for their beneficiaries has been to increase prize payouts. Higher payouts generate more winning experiences for players. This makes the games more entertaining and increases sales dramatically. Every lottery in the U.S. that has increased prize payouts has increased sales.
Two of the poorest performing lotteries, California and Louisiana, have a limited prize payout of only 50 percent of ticket sales.
The Massachusetts State Lottery is the most successful lottery in the nation. It also has the highest prize payouts in the nation ranging from 60 percent to 79 percent of ticket sales. With a population of only 6.4 million, compared to California's population of over 35 million, Massachusetts out-produced California in 2002 total revenues by approximately $1.3 billion.
OK, years ago Massachusetts decreased lottery takeout to (in some cases) 21% and they are kicking some major butt; including beating a state with a population 5 times more than they are. They have given "more winning experiences to players" and they are being rewarded.
Why in heavens name does a lottery have less of a takeout than your average trifecta? Why when HANA asks racing to decrease takeout to give "more winning experiences to players" and grow our sport is it considered like asking for something radical? Will someone from racing respond here and tell us why a lottery decreases takeouts to grow, but you can't?
Is your goal to "not" grow?
h/t to Equidaily.com for the news story and Chickenhead for the article.