New Wagerworks "Mega Jackpots" - "Cluedo"

[tristan727]

So...finally having a bash at this, at Paddy's - the jackpot is ticking up at just a bit faster than 1 pence per second. I'm playing at £2.25/spin...this contribution makes sense only if I am the only person on the planet playing any variation of Wagerworks megajackpots games currently? I also make that about 10 years before it hits £4 mill., at this rate.

[liquuid_fusion]

I sent an email a couple of weeks ago FAO the manager of Paddy Power Casino asking him about his companies position on the 19 annual installments. I never received a reply

[Simmo!]

Not sure how relevant it is but the terms of the MegaJackpots games are Wagerworks terms, not Paddy Power's or the individual casinos....so the buck stops with them IMO.

Actually...this whole installments thing isn't very good.

If you win MegaJackpots® the prize money shall be paid to you in 20 equal annual instalments. For the avoidance of doubt, no interest will accrue in your favour on any unpaid balance.

If you look at the Retail Price Index and the "purchasing power" of the £ or $ between 1980 and 1999 (see here), it seriously devalues the jackpot worth. In that chart, the £ is only worth 40.4% of its original 1980 value by 1999, while the $ fairs slightly better at 49.5%

So on that basis, if you won the Jackpot at £2,000,000, over the 20 years between 1980 and 1999, the actual value in terms of purchasing power will be only £1,207,400, and on top of that (see the quote above stating no interest is accrued) you lose a percentage of any interest you would gave gained had you been able to invest the £2 mil. Of course no two periods of time will produce the same result, but I think it's pretty safe to say purchasing power will continue to fall, irrespective of the time period.

Then to top it all off, you're relying on Wagerworks still being there and able to pay in 20 years time! A lot can happen in 20 years.

And just to add insult to injury, if interest accrues at 5% over that 20 years, Wagerworks could significantly decrease the amount it will cost them to pay the jackpot although to be fair, that is irrelevant to the terms of the jackpot and the effect on the consumer.

Someone with a math head might like to calculate the interest starting at £1.9 mil, decreasing by £100k per month over 19 years accruing interest on the balance at 5% per annum. By my reckoning (but I'm no mathematician mind so I could be wrong) Wagerworks would have saved £1,847,304 over 19 years by investing the sum and not paying it in one lump (at 5% interest on the balance with £100k per annum going out), which, if I'm right, effectively means that it would have cost them just £152,696!

Anyway, that aside, the RPI stuff makes the jackpot fairly deceptive IMO.

It should also be pointed out that the terms also state:

In lieu of the annual payments, a MegaJackpots winner will be offered the option of selecting a reduced lump sum amount based on the present value of the future payments.

Be interesting to know what the "present value of the future payments" actually means, although again I think that makes the jackpot sum deceptive as either way, you will not realise the true value of the jackpot total, even though you may eventually receive the full amount.


Now, that all said, maybe its not what it seems. I find it odd that Alderney, who are very strict on these things, would have rubber-stamped that unless they felt it was perfectly acceptable. They may not be the FSA, but still....

[Slotster!]

I guess it's because it's standard practice with the Vegas (and subsequently IGT) "Mega" jackpots... Just transferring the same policy online...

I'll live with the £100,000 or so a year I reckon!

[tristan727]

Just because, obviously - we'd rather win it as it is, than nothing - is no excuse. Our national lottery here would go bankrupt if they tried to stagger payments over 20 years suddenly - very few people would be interested or amused enough to carry on. I would also be very, very surprised if this 20 yr payment plan is reflected in the payout% - which it should be.

20 years ago, property & many other investments/goods which one would buy with such money, ie. artwork were 1/10th of the price that they are now. It's only the basic commodities, such as bread & milk - which have kept inflation in check. Ergo such a jackpot back then would have really been worth only a small fraction of it's stated amount, since getting rich wouldn't make me thirstier for milk. It's real value is probably not too far away from many non-progressive slot jackpots, if played at high-stakes.

[liquuid_fusion]

It's basically a complete ripoff for the reasons that Simmo has outlined.

They've obviously just transferred the policy over from their USA jackpots, but here in the UK we've never had to put up with this kind of crap. A progressive jackpot should be a set percentage of the payback that is ear-marked to go to one lucky player. This new WW jackpot is a complete farce. Up until now every progressive online was paid out in a lump sum. I'm very surprised that WW was the one to go against the grain.

[Slotster!]

Totally agree that it SHOULD be paid out in full, but it's not - and it's clearly displayed about the annual installments... So players choice and all that... I don't think it's ripping anyone off -- just a different way of doing things that you can either play, or not.

[Simmo!]

Firstly, it does clearly state its paid in annual installments.
Secondly, the terms clearly state no interest is due
Thirdly, the player has a choice to play or not
Fourthly, I don't think its a rip-off for those reasons above, but it is deceptive IMO.
Fifthly, I agree with liquid_fusion: surprised WW have been the ones to do this.

[tristan727]

Sorry - but if a store charges $4.99 for a can of coke, and clearly displays this price - is it not a rip-off? Until I see some proof or argument that the advertised payout % factors in this 20yr thing, then it's an accurate parallel.

[Simmo!]

...but it is deceptive IMO.

is it not a rip-off?

There's a fine line between something being a rip-off and being deceptive. You could argue they are the same thing, but in my book a rip-off is deception with intent to defraud. In this case, because the terms state the discrepencies pointed out above, I think deceptive is a more accurate descripion. Either way I don't think it's good business.