Since New Hampshire launched the modern state lottery in 1964, the adoption of lotteries across the nation has followed remarkably similar patterns: states legislate a monopoly for themselves; establish a public agency to run the lottery (instead of licensing private firms); start small with a limited number of relatively simple games; and then, pushed by a constant need for additional revenues, progressively expand the size and complexity of the lottery.
This expansion has created a host of issues, from the exploitation of compulsive gamblers to the alleged regressive impact on low-income groups. But it has also produced a second problem that is less obvious: boredom. People who play the lottery — and a large share of Americans do so regularly, purchasing one ticket or more per week — become familiar with the game’s odds and are attracted by the prospect of a big win.
But as the jackpot grows, the odds of winning get longer and long — and ticket sales can decline. To keep people playing, lottery officials have to introduce a steady stream of new games with different odds and prize amounts.
This is a classic case of “piggybacking.” If the chances of winning are too high, no one will buy tickets; if the prizes are too low, they won’t generate enough revenue to pay for advertising or other expenses. It’s why a good many lottery players have quote-unquote systems for picking numbers, from lucky stores and times of day to lucky numbers or sequences.