Talk:Lottery jackpot records

Sorting by annuity vs cash value
Should we sort the list of jackpots by the actual jackpot cash values and not the inflated annuity amounts to be more honest about the actual size of the prize pool? Obviously we should also list the annuity or advertised jackpot amounts.... but since they are manipulated by the lotteries by changing the payout length or adding inflation adjusted payouts, plus the effect of the interest rate at the time of the prize, this is like comparing apples to oranges. We should sort primarily by the size of the prize pool...and then state how many winners split the pot... and provide the annuities amount with a footnote explaining the payout structure in effect for that drawing... and whether the player elected that option... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.134.180 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the jackpots should be sorted by cash value first. The annuity value is misleading. Almost every (if not every) lottery winner chooses the cash option since it is financially wiser. Other editors, please chime in about making this change.


 * —Massmediazealot (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It should be by cash value. The annuitized value is a marketing ploy and is based on the interest rate at the time of the drawing.  I think almost all winners take the cash value and of course can create their own annuity by how they invest it. 2600:1700:9580:A0E0:F0EC:8E2:24E7:F114 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Too many..
Why do we need to care about 61 winners? It just seems like an unnecessary list to keep adding on to.

It's for the highest jackpots, not all jackpots over a certain threshold.

We can do the top 50. We don't need 61.

I want to see the top three marathon runners. I don't care if the 317 runners came in under 2 hours and 30 minutes.

Just my opinion. 🤷

Carry on. Jnickholds80493 (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well I missed that part, obviously. So I'll just wish it wasn't based above a certain threshold. Jnickholds80493 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I like that the list includes all jackpots "of $300 million or more (annuity value)." A top 10, 25, 50 cut-off seems too arbitrary. There is currently 64 wins in the list, which span the last 23 years. The lowest cash amount is $146m, which is still high compared to lottery records outside the US.
 * —Massmediazealot (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "A top 10, 25, 50 cut-off seems too arbitrary"
 * But "$300 million or more (annuity value)" is not too arbitrary? 104.12.34.41 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Since this is a page about records, perhaps it should record the record amounts based on time? I'd be more interested in knowing how large the jackpots were in the 90s than knowing the 20th highest in the 2010s. Belltower (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

'TBA' jackpot should not be in the table
The table in the United States section is labeled:
 * List of U.S. lottery drawings of $300 million or more (annuity value) with at least one jackpot-winning ticket (dollar amounts in millions):

and references lists of Mega Millions and Powerball winners. As the current Powerball jackpot does not yet have "at least one jackpot-winning ticket", it is inappropriate to list as "TBA" in this table. --198.44.200.254 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title of the section is inconsistent with there being a TBA listed. So, I have changed the title to just "List of U.S. lottery drawings of $300 million or more" sans "with at least one jackpot-winning ticket". I think this is the appropriate way to do it, as the TBA still falls within the purview of the article. It is a lottery jackpot record, even if it is subject to future change. Internetronic (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

units
The jackpots in the united states section are written like $2,040 and above is specified (dollar amounts in millions), while the jackpots in the europe section are written like €371.1m. Suggest to also write the jackpots in the united states section like $2,040m and remove the "(dollar amounts in millions)". 91.180.161.252 (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable for consistency. The reason that they're expressed as they are, as far as I can tell, is because writing values over one billion in a "$2,040m" style is rare. I'd think going for "$2.040B" would be even better. Also, use capital M for "Million", as is the proper metric prefix (Mega) and is more easily distinguished from m for meters. oknazevad (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I made the change now to $2.04b. I agree that metric prefixes are the most clear, but I didn't see this anywhere else on wikipedia when talking about money so I went with the small b. Across the rest of wikipedia is super inconsistent btw. I wonder if there is a style guide for this... 91.180.161.252 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)