[DonQ]

I don't suppose this man is representing anyone but himself. He evidently has enough smarts to try to improve his odds and is willing to bet his entire nest-egg to do it. Certainly betting a whole lot of different numbers in just one drawing is better odds than just one number in a lot of different drawings. But I am not sure that he has reduced the odds to 50-50. Weeks go by without anyone hitting the big prize in that lottery, so he could find out that none of his tickets win ... and neither did anyone else's. He's improved his odds but he's still taking a big risk.

[toddst]

He's improved his odds but he's still taking a big risk.

What you say is true. However, the lottery is based on participation by the small buyer participants. If they are discouraged from playing because of these large block of tickets players, revenue will decrease.

I support placing an upper limit on the number of tickets purchased in a block, or I won't play.

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

$10 million and the odds were only 50-50? Not good enough. About 10 years ago, a group of investors figured out a way to make the Virginia lotto a sure thing. They hired accountants and about 100 ticket buyers, set up 7-11 stores in advance, and waited until the jackpot got big enough; then they bought about 7 million tickets and won the $47 mil. jackpot; it shows it can be done.