THE EDITOR, Sir:
I AM aware of the scepticism surrounding the Lotto, especially when the 'jackpot' keeps mounting and no 'winner' can emerge.
My concern, however, is not so much with the public's belief that the game is 'fixed' but with the size of the 'pool' especially after the jackpot is won.
Years ago when the game started with only a single draw each Saturday, I recall being told that the lottery sales prior to a draw was not part of that particular draw. That is, Monday's to Saturday's sales would not contribute to the size of the Saturday's pool, but instead carried forward to the next draw. As a result, when a draw was held and no winner was declared, the promoters armed with the previous week's sales could declare the size of the next jackpot.
LOTTERY SALES
Recently, with two draws per week, Wednesdays and Saturdays, the arrangements are similar. In other words, if a draw was to be held on say, Wednesday, the lottery sales after the previous draw on Saturday, that is Monday's, Tuesday's and Wednesday's sales would not be placed in the pool for Wednesday. Instead, that amount of money, less deductions, would be carried forward to increase the size of the pool for the draw on the Saturday.
SUCCEEDING JACKPOT
In so doing, the size of each succeeding jackpot can be declared at the end of each draw. Monday's, Tuesday's and Wednesday's sales contributing to Saturday's jackpot while Thursday's, Friday's and Saturday's sales used to increase the size of Wednesday's draw.
Let us examine what happens when there is a draw with no jackpot winner. The succeeding pool is increased by an amount representing a percentage of the sales made prior to that draw. We take note that this appears to have been the case in recent times where we have seen the build-up of the jackpot, by increments of $15m, $20m and $20m thereby increasing the jackpot from $85m to $100m to $120m to $140m.
It may be concluded that had the jackpot on Wednesday 25, not been won, the size of the jackpot on Saturday 28 would be of the order $160m an increase of $20m. It could easily have been more because as we all know the larger the size of the jackpot, the greater the sales. We remind ourselves however, that the promoters, Supreme Ventures Ltd. had said that there was a 'levelling off' of sales.
PROMOTERS
One would expect that following Wednesday's win the next jackpot consisting of Monday's to Wednesday's sales would be of the order of $20m, not the paltry $7m as stated by the promoters. It appears that the public is being asked to accept that all that remains of the sales between Monday to Wednesday was a mere $7m which sum is offered as the next jackpot. The promoters, Supreme Ventures Ltd. need to advise the public as to the amount being deducted from these sales by providing audited statements of accounts.
The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Commission, the Minister and the Auditor General need to examine these statements of accounts and provide their findings in order to safeguard public interest and restore public confidence. Only then may we be sure that Jamaicans are being treated to 'honest gambling' (an oxymoron).
I am, etc.,
K. LINDSAY
Enfield Dist.
Gordon Town P.O.
St. Andrew
