Lottery Sales
Lottery Revenues
Purchasing lottery tickets
Lottery prizes
Lotteries and the economy
Who plays lotteries?
Lottery advertising
Lotteries and compulsive gambling
Lottery regulation
Lottery odds
Lottery Sales
How many lotteries are there?
In North America every Canadian province, 42 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands all offer government-operated lotteries. Elsewhere in the world publicly-operated lotteries exist in at least 100 countries on every inhabited continent. In some cases they are operated by national governments, in other cases by state or provincial governments, and in still others by cities.
What types of games do they offer?
Most offer instant or scratch-off tickets. Many offer lotto and/or numbers games. Some also offer keno or video lottery terminals. Outside of the United States many offer various types of sports betting. Raffles or passive games are less common. A few government lotteries, including those in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, also operate casinos. See the definitions section for examples of these and other lottery games.
How much do lotteries sell?
During fiscal year 2005 (which for most jurisdictions ended June 30) U.S. lottery sales totaled $53.2 billion ($US). Canadian sales reached $8.2 billion ($Can).
What jurisdictions sold the most?
New York led the U.S. (and North America) with fiscal 2005 sales of $6.2 billion, followed by Massachusetts with sales of $4.5 billion. The Canadian leaders were Quebec ($3.1 billion) and Ontario ($2.3 billion).
Worldwide sales honors go to Japan's Dai-ichi Kangyo Bank Lottery, with sales of $7.9 billion ($US) in 2001. They were followed by the U.K. National Lottery, Loterias y Apuestas del Estado of Spain,Lottomatica of Italy, and France's La Francaise des Jeux.
Table of North American lottery sales
Lottery Revenues <top>
What do lottery revenues benefit?
Lottery proceeds benefit different programs in different jurisdictions. In many cases lottery profits are combined with tax and other revenues in a government's general fund. In other cases lottery proceeds are dedicated to a wide range of causes, including education, economic development, the environment, programs for senior citizens, health care, sports facilities, capital construction projects, cultural activities, tax relief, and others. Lottery beneficiaries.
Who decides where the money goes?
In a few cases the recipients of lottery proceeds are specified in a jurisdiction's constitution, but in most cases this decision is up to that state or province's elected officials.
But isn't it true that lotteries haven't benefited education like they were supposed to do?
First, not every jurisdiction dedicates lottery proceeds to education; in fact, less than half do. In many places where there is a dedication to education, state education spending has risen but other parts of the budget have risen faster. Education is therefore a smaller proportion of the budget than it was before the start of the lottery. Skyrocketing medical care costs and the demand for new prisons have placed a tremendous strain on all government budgets. Between 1986 and 1993 the average U.S. state saw a 13 percent annual increase in the cost of correctional facilities. Schools have benefited from lottery funds, but this contribution is often masked by the other demands placed on state budgets.
It is also true that some non-lottery states spend a higher percentage of their budget on education than do lottery states, but in most cases the lottery states spend more per pupil. Individuals making this arguement fail to recognize that the funding needs of all states are not equal. High-growth and more populous states, in particular, usually have greater needs in areas such as criminal justice and health care than do smaller, more rural states, and it should come as no surprise that their education percentage is smaller. The more populous states are also the states most likely to have lotteries.
How much money do lotteries raise?
Since the New Hampshire lottery was founded in 1964, lotteries have raised more than $200 billion for government programs in North America. In fiscal year 04 Canadian lotteries transferred $3.1 billion ($CAN) to their beneficiaries, while U.S. lotteries turned over $14.5 billion ($US) to theirs.
Aren't lotteries an inefficient way to raise revenue?
Certainly lotteries are more expensive to administer than taxes, assuming we consider only the cost to government and not the costs to businesses and individuals in complying with tax laws. However, unlike taxes, lottery purchases are both voluntary and overwhelmingly preferred by the public.
But doesn't the government risk becoming "addicted" to lottery profits?
On the average, lotteries account for one-half of one percent of their state or provincial budgets. Governments are far, far, more dependent on tax and fee revenues than they are lottery proceeds. Voluntary, non-tax revenue sources are obviously more popular than taxes, and always will be.
Purchasing Lottery Tickets <top>
Where are lottery tickets sold?
Lottery tickets are sold at more than 240,000 locations throughout North America. Most of these locations are conventional retail outlets such as convenience stores, gas stations, and supermarkets.
How is it decided who gets to sell tickets?
State and provincial laws set minimum standards to sell lottery tickets based on financial soundness and integrity. Generally, any retailer meeting these standards will be permitted to sell lottery tickets.
How much do these retail outlets make?
Retailers are paid a commission on every ticket they sell. These commissions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but typically range from 5 percent to 8 percent depending on the specific product being sold. Retailers are also commonly compensated for cashing winning tickets, awarded bonuses when they sell a ticket which wins a major prize, or rewarded for exceeding sales goals. Retailers typically pay a license fee and in some cases other costs relating to the sale of lottery tickets. These costs also vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Isn't it true that lotteries deliberately place more ticket outlets in low-income neighborhoods?
No. Lotteries place their ticket outlets where there are qualifying stores. In many cases zoning regulations in upper-income communities mean that these communities have few or no gas stations or supermarkets, and hence few or no lottery retailers. City neighborhoods, by contrast, often have many qualifying retailers because of the population density in these areas and hence many lottery outlets. In addition, many "low-income" areas (such as downtown areas) are, in fact, commercial or industrial centers with a large influx of higher-income people during the workday.
But shouldn't the lotteries restrict the sale of tickets in low-income areas?
To deny a government contract to a retailer who meets basic financial and integrity standards would be very difficult. Such restrictions are clearly discriminatory against retailers located in these neighborhoods and would likely face a serious legal challenge.
I don't live in a state with a lottery. How can I buy a ticket?
You must travel to a state or province with a lottery and buy the ticket there. Lottery tickets cannot legally be sold by mail, telephone, or in any other type of interstate commerce.
Can lottery employees play the lottery?
Usually, no, though laws do vary from place to place. In most cases the employee's immediate family and employees of lottery suppliers are also not allowed to play. In practice, there is no way that employees could alter the outcome of a game in their favor, but lottery officials generally believe that public confidence would be damaged should an employee win a large prize.
Lottery Prizes <top>
What was the biggest prize in history?
On February 18, 2006 a group of eight Nebraska coworkers won the largest jackpot ever. The group elected to receive a lump sum payment of $177.3 million (or $22.2 million each) in lieu of an annuity that would have paid out $365 million over a 30 year period. The winning Powerball ticket was purchased in Lincoln, Nebraska.
What will happen if I win a big prize?
Winners of large prizes must bring the winning ticket to lottery headquarters -- the amount at which you must show up in person varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The ticket will be examined by lottery security staff for authentication. The lottery usually gives some advice on seeking financial and legal advice along with some practical advice like getting an unlisted phone number. All but a very few states and provinces have laws that require the lottery to make public the name and city of every winner (to assure the public that there are real winners). The lottery will ask the winner to participate in a press conference. Most take that option. It really is a good idea to get it over with since the press is likely to pursue your story until they get some questions answered. Questions are usually along the lines of "will you quit your job?" or "what will you do with the money?" or "how did you tell your family you won?" After a few weeks the excitement usually dies down and you can go about your life.
Can winners remain anonymous?
Usually no. State and provincial lawmakers want the public to know that the lottery is honestly run and so require that at a minimum the name of the winner and their city of residence be made public. This way the public can be reassured that the prize really was paid out to a real person.
Some large lottery prizes pay out over a period of several years. What if the holder of this type of prize dies before collecting it all?
In this case the prize is considered to be part of the estate and is passed along to the winner's heirs. Contrary to popular belief, the prize does not revert to the government. The only exceptions are "win for life" games where a prize is guaranteed for the rest of the winner's life. In this case the payments stop with the winner's death.
How long do I have to claim my prize?
The time to claim a prize varies from place to place, but typically is between six months and one year.
What happens to prizes that aren't claimed?
The disposition of unclaimed prizes varies from lottery to lottery and is governed by the laws of that state or province. In some cases all unclaimed prizes reenter the prize pool and increase the payout on future games. In other cases the money goes to the government to benefit the causes the lottery supports.
Lotteries and the Economy <top>
Aren't lotteries (and other forms of gambling) just "zero-sum" games which contribute nothing to the economy?
Some economists have argued that since lotteries do not produce a tangible product they cannot contribute to the economy. However, there are many other businesses that do not product a tangible product, including medical offices, banks, law firms, movie theaters, and auto repair shops, to name a few. If the criterion for contributing to the economy is the production of a good, then all service businesses and over half the workforce contributes nothing to the economy.
Lottery revenues contribute to the economy in a number of ways. Certainly that portion of lottery sales which return as prizes is simple redistribution, but revenues are also distributed to over 240,000 retail outlets as commissions, to the companies which supply lotteries such as ticket printers, data processing companies, advertising agencies, and delivery services, and most importantly, for the provision of goods and services through the programs lotteries were created to support.
But don't lottery purchases lack a useful purpose? If you don't win, you've gotten nothing for your money.
Lotteries are perceived by players as a form of entertainment, not as a financial investment. As such, they are no more or less "useful" to the buyer than a ticket to a sports event or a video rental. A player's entertainment and the programs funded by the lottery is the value received; prize awards are not the singular benefit.
Who Plays Lotteries? <top>
Who buys lottery tickets? I understand it's mostly poor people.
A recent Gallup Poll on Gambling in America found that 57% of American adults reported buying a lottery ticket in the past 12 months. People with incomes of $45,000 to $75,000 were the most likely to play -- 65 percent had played in the past year -- while those with incomes under $25,000 were the least likely to play at 53 percent. Further, people with incomes in excess of $75,000 spend roughly three times as much on lotteries each month as do those with incomes under $25,000.
In addition, surveys of gambling behavior have been conducted in a number of jurisdictions. In Colorado, for example, people with annual incomes of $15,000 or less make up 7 percent of the population but only 5 percent of those playing the lottery in the past 30 days. In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal and Constitution Survey found that only 8.6 percent of lottery players had incomes of $24,000 or less, while 27 percent had incomes between $50,000 and $74,000. In addition, 33 percent were high school graduates, 22 percent had some college, 25 percent had a college degree, and 10 percent had an advanced degree. A 1998 Texas study found that those with less than a high school education and those with the lowest incomes were least likely to play. And in Minnesota a 1998 study found that the 13 percent of the population with incomes under $20,000 made up only 9 percent of the past year's ticket buyers while those with incomes higher than $50,000 were disproportionately more likely to play.
But not all of these people play the same amount. Don't most lottery sales come from a relatively small number of people?
As with any product or service, some people are more enthusiastic consumers than others. Business schools teach marketing students the "pareto principle:" the idea that no matter what the product, 80 percent of the sales will come from 20 percent of the customers. Lotteries are no different. A Minnesota study, for example, found that 20 percent of the lottery players account for 71 percent of lottery income. In Arizona, 24 percent of lottery players accounted for 70 percent of lottery spending, and in Pennsylvania 29 percent of the players accounted for 79 percent of the spending on the lottery.
What about the heaviest lottery players? Aren't they poor, undereducated, and desperate?
Again, no. Numerous studies conducted in a wide range of jurisdictions show that frequent or "heavy" lottery players closely resemble the overall population of that state or province. They are no more likely to be poor or have little formal education than a citizen selected at random.
But didn't a New York study show that the lowest income areas had the highest per capita lottery sales?
This "study" was a simple correlation between ticket sales and per capita income by zip code. The newspaper reporter who prepared it failed to realize that the zip codes with the highest sales and lowest incomes were in fact commercial districts with large numbers of ticket-buying workers and very few full-time residents. In fact, the zip code with the highest sales and lowest income was the Wall Street financial district. Had the reporter thoroughly analyzed the data, the "study" would have recognized that the residents of Wall Street (if any) weren't buying nearly as many tickets as were stock market workers commuting from New Jersey, Connecticut, and other wealthy suburbs. Other similar studies have been conducted, but all suffer from the failure to recognize that people buy tickets where they work, shop, vacation, or other places other than where they live. In Minnesota it was found that over half the players bought their tickets in a zip code other than where they lived.
Don't poor people spend a higher percentage of their incomes on lottery tickets than those of greater means?
Poor people spend a larger proportion of their income than wealthy people on any item having a fixed price and general appeal. Poor people pay proportionately more for food, medicine, clothing, utilities, insurance, and housing, as well as for payroll and sales taxes. People who are well-off, on the other hand, spend a higher percentage of their income on things that the poor cannot afford, such as overseas vacations or season tickets to cultural or sporting events. The rich also invest and gamble in stock and commodity markets -- also activities the poor cannot afford.
Lottery opponents have pointed out, though, that unlike spending on, say, a movie ticket, the lottery ticket is purchased from the government and is therefore a regressive tax. But the lottery is not a tax. Webster defines a tax as "a compulsory payment ... for the support of government." No one is coerced to play the lottery. The purchase of a lottery ticket is completely voluntary - and a lot more fun than filling out Form 1040.
Ultimately, though, the important question isn't the percentage of income spent. It's whether the less affluent are spending an unduly large portion of their income on lottery tickets. This has undoubtedly happened in some instances just as it undoubtedly happened with junk food, athletic shoes, and other consumer items. However, there is no evidence suggesting that it is anything approaching the norm. The overwhelming majority of poor people, along with the overwhelming majority of upper-income people, play with restraint and moderation.
But shouldn't the government try to keep those who can least afford it from spending their money on the lottery?
This question implies that economically disadvantaged people are somehow less capable of making a decision on how to spend a dollar than those of greater means or that they are not entitled to the same opportunities for entertainment and recreation than the rest of us. The poor are allowed to vote, get married, and sign contracts. Society in the U.S. and Canada does not usurp rights and privileges based on socioeconomic status. The poor have to budget and watch their expenditures much more carefully than the rich. Economic status is not a measure of intelligence.
Lottery Advertising <top>
How much do lotteries advertise?
In 1996 North American lotteries spend $400 million ($US) on advertising and received $34 billion in sales. Advertising expenditures accounted for 1.17 percent of total revenue. By contrast, restaurant owners spent 3.2 percent of their revenues on advertising, beverage manufacturers 7.5 percent, cosmetics companies 8.8 percent, and candy makers 12.7 percent. Advertising accounts for less of the cost of a lottery ticket than virtually any other consumer product.
Why can lotteries advertise when casinos can't?
Casinos can, and do, advertise. A recent Supreme Court decision cleared the way for casinos to advertise throughout the country. But even before this decision, casino advertising was extensive. According to the recent Saul F. Leonard Company's Study of U.S. Gaming, the MGM Grand casino alone spent $51,622,000 on advertising and promotion in 1994.
Lottery advertising isn't regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Why not?
Lotteries are not subject to FTC regulation because they are operated by state governments, and the federal government cannot regulate state government programs. Unlike other products, however, lottery advertising is subject to review and restriction by governors and state and provincial legislators. Rodney A. Smolla, George Allen Professor of Law, University of Richmond, T.C. Williams School of Law has recently written about the constitutional limitations on federal regulation of advertising of state gambling operations.
So who does regulate lottery advertising?
Lottery advertising is regulated by the states and provinces in which lotteries operate. Many have adopted formal laws, standards, or guidelines about what is and is not appropriate for advertising in their jurisdiction, and most states have elaborate review procedures to prevent potentially offensive advertising from appearing. In addition, the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries has established advertising guidelines to provide direction to member lotteries in developing their advertising standards. These guidelines are extensive and incorporate aspects related to compulsive gambling, beneficiary funding, and more. Remember, too, that lottery advertising is seen by lottery critics as well as lottery players. If an ad is seen as even marginally objectionable, these critics do not hesitate to make their opinions known in the political arena.
Unlike other advertising, though, isn't lottery advertising dangerous because it can create compulsive gamblers?
This statement reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of compulsive gambling. Most researchers and treatment professionals agree that compulsive or pathological gambling arises as a result of some combination of biological and psychological factors predisposing an individual to addictive behavior. Dr. Durand Jacobs, Vice-president of the National Council on Problem Gambling, has written that "the addict's pursuit and over indulgence in alcohol, other drugs, food, gambling, sex, overwork, or whatever, is NOT the addict's "problem". On the contrary, a person's addictive pattern of behavior represents that person's best SOLUTION to the stresses generated by their long-standing underlying problems." This is further borne out by the recent National Survey on Gambling Behavior, which found no relationship between problem gambling rates and the presence or absence of a lottery. If problem gambling is no more common where there is a lottery, then problem gambling cannot be caused by lottery advertising.
Is lottery advertising targeted to the poor?
No. This would be both a bad business decision and a bad political decision. It's a bad business decision to target marketing to a small portion of the population with the least disposable income and who are the least likely to buy the product. It's a bad political decision as such a practice is almost certain to earn a lottery the wrath of the governor, the legislature, and the media.
But what about the billboard in the low-income neighborhood that pictured a lottery ticket with the caption "your ticket out of here"?
The billboard in question was just one of hundreds placed by the Illinois lottery as part of an advertising campaign in 1986. It actually read "How to get from Washington Street to Easy Street". Similar billboards appeared throughout the state (with the street name changed), in wealthy and middle-class areas in addition to the one low-income example cited. In fact, the location in question was selected because it was on the main access road to Chicago Stadium (home of the Chicago Bulls and Blackhawks) hardly a low income target audience.
I've heard that lottery ads are timed to coincide with monthly welfare and Social Security checks.
Duke University professors Charles T. Clotfelter and Philip J. Cook in their book "Selling Hope" investigated this charge. They concluded that "... there appears to be no systematic attempt to time ads to correspond to specific days other than around Friday."
Why aren't the odds of winning all lottery prizes on all ads?
Why aren't all food ingredients listed on all ads? Because of the limited time and space available on advertisements and the likelihood that they would have to be either spoken too fast or appear in too small print to be easily comprehended. All lotteries make the odds of winning available in print at the point of sale, often on the ticket itself, much as food ingredients are available at the store on the product label.
Lotteries and Compulsive Gambling <top>
Do lotteries contribute to compulsive gambling?
There are certainly pathological and problem gamblers who play the lottery to excess. They are, however, few and far between. According to the Iowa Department of Human Services after 10 years of the lottery's existence only 6 percent of the calls to the state's problem gambling hotline related to lottery play. A 2002 Iowa study also found that lottery games only accounted for 6 percent of the financial losses reported by those presenting for compulsive gambling treatment. In Minnesota, the lottery accounted for 4 percent of hotline calls in 1997. Also in Minnesota, of the 944 admitted to the state's gambling treatment centers from 1990 to 1996, only eight cited the lottery as their preferred game. A Colorado study found that problem gamblers were 4.7 times more likely to have visited a casino in the past week and 5.2 times more likely to have played bingo than non-problem gamblers. By contrast, they were only 1.9 times more likely to have played the lottery, the lowest figure of any form of gambling. An Iowa State University study found that having more than one marriage, frequently changing residences, being a member of a minority group, and serving in the armed forces had higher correlations with problem gambling than did playing the lottery.
Most conclusively, the recent National Survey on Gambling Behavior conducted for the National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that "it does not appear that the availability of a lottery has an impact on (problem gambling) prevalence rates." In fact, they found that problem gamblers were only slightly more likely to be lottery players than were members of the general public. By contrast, they were more than five times as likely to have made an "unlicensed" (often illegal) wager and more than four times as likely to have visited a racetrack.
Why don't lottery games appeal to problem gamblers?
Problem gamblers are attracted to games for a variety of reasons. One is a sense of high excitement, usually involving considerable sensory stimulation. Lottery tickets do not provide this. A second factor is a sense of mastery or skill. Lotteries have no skill element. A third is the immediacy of the result and reward and the ability to play repeatedly and quickly. Numbers game drawings typically take place some time after the purchase is made, and players have to wait between a day and a week to play again, making chasing losses difficult. Even instant or scratch tickets have much less immediacy than other forms of gambling. The outlets at which they are sold are not conducive to repeated play, and a player with a winning ticket must return to the convenience store, stand in line, and wait for the clerk to validate the ticket before beginning the process anew. It's quite different from pulling the slot machine handle and watching the coins come out (or not come out).
Didn't I read that lotteries cost states $10.9 billion a year because of the resulting compulsive gambling problems?
This estimate comes from "The Luck Business" by Dr. Robert Goodman. In making this estimate, Dr. Goodman makes an assumption of an average cost of $13,200 per pathological gambler without disclosing the basis for this estimate. He further assumes that 4 percent of all lottery players are pathological gamblers, a figure higher than the measured prevalence for all forms of pathological gambling and one particularly doubtful in light of the small number of pathological gamblers citing lotteries as their problem. He also assumes that all of their compulsive play is on lotteries, and that eliminating lotteries would in turn eliminate their compulsive gambling. These assumptions are clearly erroneous.
But isn't one compulsive lottery player too many?
Yes. Treatment should be made available to anyone needing it. Research should be conducted on making treatment more effective. More emphasis should be placed on prevention and gambling education. And lotteries should (and do) play a role in funding these activities. But it does not follow that the existence of compulsive lottery players should result in the elimination of lotteries any more than the existence of compulsive shoppers should result in the elimination of shopping malls or the existence of eating disorders should lead to the closing of all fast food restaurants. The overwhelming majority of lottery players (in excess of 99 percent) enjoy their pastime and are not pathological gamblers. To punish the majority because a small minority refuses to play these games responsibly would be unfair to the majority. It would also eliminate the billions of dollars that lotteries contribute to public good works.
What are lotteries doing about problem gambling?
Elsewhere on this web site you'll find a table of lottery contributions to problem gambling programs. These contributions vary from state to state and province to province. It is important to note, though, that decisions on what to do with lottery proceeds are not made by the lotteries but by their governors and legislatures. A state or province may choose to have a program for problem gamblers but to fund it from a source other than the lottery. The net effect, of course, is the same.
Lottery regulation <top>
Who regulates lotteries?
Lotteries are regulated by their state or provincial governments. Federal regulation in the U.S. is limited to interstate distribution of tickets and interstate advertising.
Can state governments be trusted to regulate lotteries when they benefit from the lottery proceeds?
State regulatory proceedings are much more open and accessible to the public than the workings of federal regulatory agencies. All lottery board meetings are public, as are all legislative hearings. Lottery files are public records, subject at any time to media scrutiny. Lottery opponents in a legislature can examine the smallest lottery details and vote on lottery business operations. (In what other business would those opposed to the business' existence be permitted a vote on business operations?) And if the public does not approve of the way a lottery is run, they have recourse to the ballot box and the ultimate sanction of refusing to buy tickets. Those who claim that lotteries are not regulated are really complaining that the regulators have made decisions they don't agree with.
If the states cannot be trusted to regulate lotteries because they make a relatively small amount of money on them (an average of 1/2 of 1 percent of the state budget) it follows that they should not be allowed to make their own tax policy as well.
Can't lotteries be privatized?
Yes, they could be. Certainly many of the day-to-day activities of lotteries are done under contract or are privatized, and the retailers selling lottery tickets are almost all private businesses. However, the public has a right to demand both the security and integrity of lotteries, to ensure that everyone stands an equal chance of winning, that all advertised prizes are in fact paid out, and that the lottery does not resort to unscrupulous business practices. It is true that these factors also apply to casinos, but it is much easier to police operations at a handful of casinos than at thousands of lottery retail outlets. Remember that lotteries were abolished in the 1800s because of the dishonesty of private operators.
But at least with a private lottery the government would not be sponsoring an activity I consider to be immoral.
There are many government activities that some consider to be immoral, ranging from defense spending to the teaching of evolution. Citizens do not have the option of paying taxes only to support those programs they approve of. By contrast no one is forced to buy a lottery ticket.
Lottery odds <top>
Is it true that the odds of winning the lottery are worse than being struck by lightning?
No, even if we just consider the awarding of large jackpots. In 1996 1,136 people won $1,000,000 or more playing North American lotteries. An additional 4,520 won $100,000 or more. By contrast, 91 people were killed by lightning.
In addition, there's no second prize in a lightning strike. In a lottery, you win lesser amounts of money by coming close to the winning numbers. On many games odds of 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 are not uncommon. Lotteries award over $50 million in prizes in North America every day. Lightning isn't nearly that productive.
I bought six tickets for a game where the odds were one in four, and none of them were winners. Doesn't this show that the prizes aren't awarded randomly?
No. Consider tossing a coin. It is certainly possible for a coin to come up heads four, five, or more times in a row, even though the odds are one in two. Part of randomness is the concept that every ticket has the identical chance of winning and that the result of one ticket has no impact on the next. Suppose "one in four" meant that out of every four tickets there was exactly one winner. Suppose three tickets in a row lost. You now know that the next one is a winner. This is not random. If you were a store clerk and saw three people in a row buy non-winning tickets, would you sell the next one or keep it for yourself? This is why true randomness is necessary for security.
