Talk:National Lottery (United Kingdom)/Archive 1

Lump payment of prizes
"All prizes are paid as a lump sum and are tax-free"

Someone just won the 161 million pound Euro lottery, so there was an article about it in the paper. Apparently, whilst it's tax free, the amount paid out if it is the full sum of the jackpot is 'significantly less' than it is if it's paid out on a yearly basis. There were no details about how much 'significantly less' it was, or what the maximum yearly pay out rate was for a win. Maybe those values (unless I've missed them) could go in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.122.63 (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Error with price fund divisions
If you match 4 numbers on the lottery you do not get 20% of the price fund - if only!--82.68.5.202 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Euromillions
Euromillions really needs to be moved to a separate article. It is not a subsidary of the UK's national lottery, and even if it was, most company subsidaries have their own article anyway. It isn't correct to put it in this article. Gerbon689 16:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC) kujahvskd

(now officially called Lotto, like most of its European equivalents)
The line "(now officially called Lotto, like most of its European equivalents)" isn't really correct. The whole thing (as described in this article) is still officially called the national lottery, but the games have been renamed Lotto, etc as described in sub-sections. I am not changing it myself as I fear it may start an edit war, but I am placing it under fac-ac. 86.133.71.178 (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slight error in reported odds
Hi - I have written most of the Lottery Math article, and, though not really important, there's a slight error in this article's reported odds for 5 balls (and no bonus ball). You say that it's 1 in 55,492 - but I have calculated it as 166474/3 = 55491.3333 recurring (see bonus ball section), which rounds to 1 in 55,491. I am confident I am right about this, because I have calculated all outcomes for this lottery a s fractions, and they add up to 1 exactly (as they should). --New Thought 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not really an error per say, the figures given are the offical ones. It could be that they use different rounding rules, maybe they are required to round up, as rounding down makes the odds look slightly better that they actually are. Regards, MartinRe 10:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha - that would explain it! The odds of a 4-ball match are also rounded up. Thanks for the explanation.--New Thought 15:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Randomness of machines
There seems to be some question over the randomness of the machines and balls: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12977,1374172,00.html

Sequential numbers also seem to appear frequently. We need more references for this though.


 * It's basic statistics.. firstly a combination like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 has just the same probability of coming out as 12, 23, 24, 34, 43, 48. And each draw is not statistically linked, so 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 being drawn 20 times in a row has exactly the same probability as a different set of numbers appearing for 20 draws. Rob.derosa 08:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * People underestimate the likelihood of sequences in a random series of numbers. See http://www.rexswain.com/benford.html for the story of the professor who asks his class to record the results of 200 coin-tosses, or if they prefer, to simply make up the results.  He can normally pick out the fake results: they tend to avoid having long runs of the same outcome; but the genuine results of 200 tosses will almost always have a run of 6 consecutive heads or 6 consecutive tails.  I'm sure the same applies in lottery results... the chances of there being a short "run" is probably larger than most people imagine. TomH 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is some interesting info at http://www.lottery.co.uk/stats/. Some balls are clearly more popular than others, for example compare 41 and 38. According to official stats on the site above, 41 has been picked 113 times and 38 171 times (as of 12/02/07). That means that 38 is more than 1.5 times as likely to be picked as 41. My understanding of statistics is that, with a sample this large if the odds on each ball were equal then there should not be variations this large.


 * "That means that 38 is more than 1.5 times as likely to be picked as 41." No it doesn't!  It just means that at some point in the past, 38 had been picked around 1.5 as many times as 41.  This does not mean that it is any more (or any less) likely to be drawn in future.  That is the whole point of a random draw.


 * Maybe you are assuming that such a large departure from the norm is proof positive that the draw is not truly random. But there will always be some difference between the most-frequently and least-frequently drawn numbers.  It would be interesting if a proper statistician could tell us what the expected standard deviation is, and what is the probability of such a large departure from the mean.  I suspect that while it is unusual, the odds against it are not astronomical.


 * I also note that the BBC page says "but the 100 or so draws since have seen it [38] fall back into the statistically normal pack" TomH 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A key thing to remember is that you didn't pick two balls at random to compare, you picked the two balls with the least and most occurrences. A factor of 1.5 seems quite small to me, under those conditions. Unfortunately, I can't think of how to calculate the expected difference - standard deviation isn't it, that would give you the expected deviation of two randomly selected balls, not the expected deviation of the min and max. --Tango 20:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Another interesting point to note is that if you look at the official stats page, it is clear that higher numbers are more common than lower numbers. Mojo-chan 11:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that many people use the birth day or month of their children, so there are less winnders when higher numbers come out, this is highly suspicious

erratum with dream odds number calculations
There are 10 balls per slot, which according to my basic maths and the national lottery website = 1:10 chance of getting one ball right, surely? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.88.27 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, but I made the same mistake too! There is indeed 1:10 chance of matching the first ball, but 1:12 are the odds of matching the first ball and only the first ball. It's easier to understand if you work backwards from the end, there are 10,000,000 different possible numbers, so there is only one way of matching all digits, so the odds are 1:10,000,000. For match 6, there are 10 different ways to do so, but one of those already included under match 7, hence the chances are 9/10,000,000 or 1:1,111,112. Similary for match 5, there are 100 ways, but 10 of those are included in match 6 and 7, all the way down to match 1, where there are 1,000,000 ways to match, but 100,000 of those are already included in the higher prizes, so the odds are 900,000/10,000,000 or 1:11.11 (rounded up to 1:12). The odds of 1:10 are those of winning any prize, which is the same answer you'd get if you added up the odds of all the match 1-7 prizes. As a side point, the figures in the articles aren't calculated, but taken directly from the source given, but I hope this clarifies that calculating it ends up with the same figures as a cross check. Regards, MartinRe 22:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Prize Fund Allocation Does Not Add Up To 100%
Perhaps I'm being stupid and missing something, but shouldn't the way that the Lotto prize fund is distributed, after the £10 prizes are removed, add up to 100%, not 80%? -- Avapoet 15:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also very ambiguous; it says that players win a percentage of the remaining fund, but remaining after what? Is the jackpot taken out first? or are the £10 winners taken first? If the £10 winners are taken first then why do 4 numbers get a higher percentage than 5 numbers? If the jackpot is taken first then what if the £10 wins amount to less than or greater what's left in the fund? -- Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudeboymick (talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) prize funds som is 100%, no incorrect figure in table (2) 45% of sales minus prize pool 3 match (3 no correct) = X. NOW: 52% of X = prize pool 6 numbers correct, 16% of X = prize pool 5+bonusNO correct, 10% of X = prize pool 5 numbers correct, 22% of X = prize pool 4 numbers correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.98.146 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Odds
The odds for the Lotto game are given in the form 56:1 (1/56). But the numbers are not correct. Consider the case of "evens" - odds of 1:1 - this means that an event is believed to have en equal chance of happening or not happening - in other words the probability of it occurring is 1/2. For a probability of 1/n, the odds are (n-1):1. So the correct odds for this event (the balls matching) are actually 55:1 (1/56). All the odds for the Lotto game are wrong for the same reason (assuming that the probabilities given are correct).

It is not clear whether the odds given for the other games are similarly incorrect (do the numbers actually represent probabilities rather than odds?). I could probably work it out given time... but not right now :)

Also: in the other games, the odds are given in reverse, e.g. 1:100. By convention this means odds of 1-100 on (i.e. a probability of 99/100). TomH 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

prize
why is the prize larger for numbers than 5 and 5+bonus bal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.55.68 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

More about rollovers and expected values please
I am willing to gamble if and only if the expected value is greater than the ticket price. But so far I have not been able to get any clear idea of when or if this occurs. Someone on the Reference Desk made the point that on average the expected value must be 50% (or is it 45%?). Could there be more about the extected value, the effects of rollovers, and actual rollovers and expected values in past lotteries please? And personally I find that p is clearer than bookmaker's odds for desribing probabilities. Thanks 80.0.121.236 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm planning on doing a project on the statistical area of the lottery within the next couple of months. Maybe some of it would look good here (Expected values, etc) But Wikipedia needs citations. To help you out though, mean or expected value isn't a proportion, probability or percentage. It's the evaluation of expected payout, given in the form of how much you win weighed against the probability winning that amount. Most of the time in the lottery, you "win" £-1. ~1 in 57 times you win £9, etc. I checked the approximate expected values a long while ago, and if I remember correctly the Lotto Hotpicks are by far the best games to play with regards to expected value, hovering ~-50p, as opposed to Lotto's ~-88p. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Odds again
The odds for the dream number game state the odds as:

"1st number only 	£2 	1 in 11.12"

Surely this isn't right as you get given one number between 0 and 9, meaning the odds should be exactly 1 in 10? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right there. Given there are no fractions in the Lotto games, only whole numbers, I'll amend that. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, that's not correct. The odds of hitting 1 or more numbers is 1 in 10, but the odds of hitting only 1 number is 1 in 11.2. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok I stand corrected. Sorry. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Machine Names
Need to check the machine names as machine Guinevere was used in the Lotto draws on Sat 27/3/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.209.253 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus 5 "Odds of winning any prize"
You can't just look at the odds of winning a prize on a single draw and divide that number by 5 to find out the odds of winning across any draw; the fact that they're five independent draws makes them follow a Binomial distribution. The odds of winning a prize on a single draw being 52.65514 to 1 against converts to a probability of 0.01863754, therefore 5 draws follow a distribution of:


 * $$\Pr(\text{Winning on X draws}) = Binomial(5,0.01863754)$$

Therefore,


 * $$\Pr(\text{Winning 1 or more draws}) = 1-\Pr(X=0) = 0.08977826$$

...Which converts to odds of 10.13855 to 1 against. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot and Merlin are NOT the original machines
The original machines used by the National Lottery (Merlin, Arthur, Guinevere, Galahad, Vyvyan and Lancelot) were the Criterion I mechanical mix model supplied by SmartPlay International Inc, based in New Jersey, USA. The second batch (Garnet, Topaz, Opal, Amethyst, Moonstone, Pearl and Sapphire) were SmartPlay's Magnum model. Around 2009, Camelot introduced a third batch which look like SmartPlay's Magnum II model - confusingly, these reuse some of the names given to the first batch (Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot and Merlin). This means the text in the article that talks about machine names is currently incorrect. The original Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot and Merlin are all obsolete and would certainly not be used now - indeed I believe Guinevere was donated to the Science Museum.

Cannot provide citations as Camelot seem to be fairly secretive about equipment upgrades, but anyone can check what I'm saying by referring to SmartPlay International's product page here: http://www.smartplay.com/Products/2-Lotto-Mech-Mix.html and comparing images with the televised draws

HoraceCoker (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now found credible citations for the above and have amended the lead. HoraceCoker (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

History - Most jackpot winners in a single draw
In the 9th National Lottery draw (Saturday 14 November 1995) there were 133 jackpot winners. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/240734.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.160.252 (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

£10 scratchcard reference troubles
The information on the new £10 scratchcard is here in pdf form. I'm not too sure about how exactly to reference it in the main article but it certainly exists. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Magnum
I have deleted the statement "Magnum is the designated spare machine, and thus has yet to be used" since it is not correct. There is no spare machine of this name. This confusion probably arose after the 2003 Millionaire Maker draw, which used all 6 available machines in a one-off game. This meant that none of the regular machines was available for the Lotto extra draw; so Camelot used a brand-new "Magnum" series machine which was being tested as the next generation draw equipment. Note that "Magnum" is the name of the model type and not the machine name. The machine used in the draw did not have a name at the time, so they just labeled it "Magnum". Eventually this machine and the other Magnums would all be named after semi-precious stones (Opal, Sapphire etc) All the Magnums have now been retired. Achilver (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Derren Brown
Derren Brown predicted the midweek draw, and even, in the likely event, it was a trick, should this be mentioned as a high-profile draw? I'm sure there were record numbers watching at the very least Sheepdean (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the number to text to play? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.205.94 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DerrenB. predicted nothing at all!! when the draw was finished (or over; done) he (or a friend) put (write) the drawn winning numbers on some balls and stated; I won the lotto, silly people! he never show the winning numbers before the draw; what he was doing was very easy to do! (everybody can do that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.189.191 (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thunderball Only Odds Wrong?
The official national lottery website states 1 in 29. however this article states 1 in 13.

https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/help/aboutthunderball/prizecalculation.ftl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.24.35 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Good spot - changed. Bonusballs (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

New Lotto Formula
for somebody who want to chance the text page: the new lotto formula is: total prise fund 47.5% sales: 42.47% for lotto & 5.03% raffle fund now: simply chance the old % with the new ones: 42.47% sales minus categorie 5 fund (winnersX25£)= prize fund "let say" X then: cat 6= 66.4% X cat 5+bonus= 5.3% X cat 5= 4.5% X cat 4= 23.8% X

source: http://lottery.merseyworld.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geertes62 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

'Good Causes'
There are widespread feelings in the UK that a lot of the causes funded are not beneficial to the UK on a wide level. Ethnic/religious minorities (including Muslims, who officially hate gambling) and homo/trans-sexuals seem to get a disproportionate amount of help. Considering how hard it is to distinguish a terrorist movement from a genuine charity, I wonder how many atrocities have been funded (indirectly or directly) by this money. Other charities who are supported have to keep records of their users, no doubt to ensure an 'acceptable' mix of users.--MartinUK (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Widespread amongst who? I've never even heard such things suggested before, and most of the lottery funding i've heard of has gone to museums and things 82.153.230.138 (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We really don't need someone going all 'Daily Mail' here. Smurfmeister (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wednesday draw
There was no Wednesday draw when the Lottery was first introduced, yet this article reads as if it existed from day one. It needs some information on when and why this was introduced. Smurfmeister (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Trevor amiss is my name yes I won free lotto within the uk's phone lotto back in 2013 it was phone lotto, the phone number was 0407155643, the phone it's self it miss placed the queens cancel stepped in in regards to the queens stamp &the non resents tax now what I did was asked the go vernal general even back then she was a women on to day stands some old navy block so when the queens cancel held &I had played 98% of these taxes why should the uk government hold first my winnings from your lotto firm or your in this case clamed unclaimed lotto winning when I my self have played 98%of the out going taxes SO IN THIS CASE THE QUEEN UK GOVERMENT ARE HOLDING MY WINNINGS MY QUEENS TAX STAMP COST MY NON RESTENT TAX FEES WHICH HAVE HAD 98 PERSENT PAYED ON THEM && YOUR FIRM IS WHAT THEY SAYS FIVE MILLION GBP OUT OF POCKET JUST BECOUSE YOUR OFFICE IS IN THE UNITED KINGIOM LET MY SELF KNOW ON MY DETAIL OF trevoramiss@mail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.2.117 (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Raffle change
According to the web site, &quot;the number of Lotto raffle prizes available on Rollover draws will no longer increase&quot;, but the article currently states &quot;The number of winners varies during rollovers&quot;.

See: https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/procedures &mdash; 82.25.220.134 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

NEW! "instant lotto"
Can anyone make a new title in the article about the new game: "instant lotto" thanks (sse the official website)

https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/games/instant-wins/instant-lotto?icid=iwg%3A3895%3Aim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.206.4 (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Bigger jackpots
5th paragraph lotto section: The arrival of the new lotto means bigger Jackpots: NOT correct! because sales fell down the jackpot decrease from 6.1m to 5.0m for lotto V1 to Lotto V2. Sales went down from 63m to 51m a week. tip: you could call Lotto 1994 to 2013 V1, Lotto from 2013 to 2015 V2 and Lotto V3 from 2015.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geertes62 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Table info is correct (new lotto formula)
my sales figure is correct = the prizes are correct

sat 10/10/15 sales "reverse-calculated" (see table) = 35,609,006£

formula:

sales X prize fund (17.82%) X prize pool% / number of winners =

cat1 prize: 35609006 X 17.82% X 83.2% = 5279477 (jackpot)

cat2 prize: 35609006 X 17.82% X 1.9% / 1 = 120564 (prize 5+bn)

cat3 prize: 35609006 X 17.82% X 2% / 61 = 2080 (prize 5)

cat4 prize: 35609006 X 17.82% X 12.9% / 5059 = 161 (prize 4)

Geertes62 (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)geertes62

It was better to do it directly on the sales!

if you take 17.82% of the sales and then 83.2% of that part you become of course 14.83% on the sales!

(100 X 17.82%) X 83.2% = 14.83

so the pool's % on sales are (theoretical!):

cat1= 14.83% sales + cat2= 0.34% sales + cat3= 0.36% sales + cat4= 2.30% sales + cat5= 13.00% sales + cat6= 9.75 sales + raffle's pool 6.93% = total 47.5% sales

even better: the avg prizes of cat2 to cat4: you can make them fixed prizes!!!! (the 50,000 & 1,000 & 100 £)

Geertes62 (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)geertes62

Name of Article
Shouldn't this article be called "National Lottery (United Kingdom and Isle of Man)" instead of "National Lottery (United Kingdom)" since it also takes place in the Isle of Man, but the Isle of Man is not part of United Kingdom? Ezza1995 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems it has now been reverted to the latter. Do we not normally open RfCs for this type, of thing? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

national lottery.
Why do not sack some bosses of Camelot - for ruining a working class chance to get moderately rich fun activity - now it's just a clever con to up Camelot bonuses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.87.10 (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on National Lottery (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120802041424/http://www.camelotfoundation.org.uk/camelot.asp to http://www.camelotfoundation.org.uk/camelot.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714121817/http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/lottonews_FAQ.ftl to http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/lottonews_FAQ.ftl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140712011640/http://www.camelotgroup.co.uk/news/uk-national-lottery-news/games-and-brands/NewLottotoLaunchwithTwoUnmissableEvents30072013 to http://www.camelotgroup.co.uk/news/uk-national-lottery-news/games-and-brands/NewLottotoLaunchwithTwoUnmissableEvents30072013
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140629085527/http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/help/lotterydrawgames/lotto_whatis.ftl to https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/help/lotterydrawgames/lotto_whatis.ftl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017024438/https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/lotto/results/prizeBreakdown.ftl?drawNumber=1856&drawSequence=0 to https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/lotto/results/prizeBreakdown.ftl?drawNumber=1856&drawSequence=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704162942/http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/help/scratchcard.ftl to http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/help/scratchcard.ftl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701193604/http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/help/lotterydrawgames/millionairerafflehelp.ftl to https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/help/lotterydrawgames/millionairerafflehelp.ftl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125061445/http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/skyactive.ftl to https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/skyactive.ftl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208094054/http://www.hlf.org.uk/English/AboutUs/ to http://www.hlf.org.uk/English/AboutUs
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418194401/http://www.lotterymagic.co.uk/lotto-statistics/draw-machine-frequency/ to http://www.lotterymagic.co.uk/lotto-statistics/draw-machine-frequency/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The Jackpot Problem (Lotto)
As in 2016, the National Lottery has decided to make the jackpot limit from 50 million to around 22 million, but in this case, isn't making this lotto pointless when it has rollover then cascaded to someone else who won the lower tier, and then it has to be all over again? for an instance that 59C6 (the probability to win the jackpot in lotto) = 45,057,474, however you get up to 12 million times what you have bet when you won a jackpot. this case is seemingly killing their business, and this matter is decreasing the popularity of the National Lottery Lotto. do you agree?

202.40.211.144 (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)lottery248

New Lotto (again) 21nov18
If (I say IF) the payout = 50% of sales the new lotto looks like this....chart

2£ per ticket & 6/59 matrix = no chance

chart is full draw of all 45057474 combinations

sales= 45057474 times 2= £90114948

2 correct = a free ticket 2£ enrty

max 6 draw = if no jackpot winner in 6th draw = jackpot must be won in that 6th draw

if that happens jackpot will be go to all winners cat 5+bonus to 3 winners

NO RAFFLE!!

It's sad they should have taken the 1st version 6/49, 1£, that was: 237 jackpot winners a year of 2.1 million £ each !!!! geertes62 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geertes62 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Geertes62 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)