May 30, 2019

Lotto Max now harder to win, but lottery crown corporations don't want to explain why

David MenziesMission Specialist

Lottery players may have noticed big changes to the Lotto Max game. It has bigger jackpots. More draws. More prizes.

But missing from the ad campaigns promoting the lottery is the fact that an extra number has been added, worsening the odds for the main jackpot by some 5 million to one.

Incredibly, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation says Lotto Max players actually wanted this change according to a survey conducted by the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation.

We wanted to see this survey, and ask the OLG why they are still publishing the old (and now fake) odds regarding Lotto Max jackpots.

But instead of coming clean, this open and transparent and “socially responsible” crown corporation called security!

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-05-31 11:25:23 -0400
Every week the gaming corporations rake tons of cash. They pay themselves big salaries and give a portion of their earnings away as lottery prizes. I bet that the total amount for the above is no more than 25% of what their sales are.
So where does the rest of the money go?
Our medical system, infrastructure, seniors and educational systems are all under financial strain.
The only area were there does not seem to be a shortage of money is to help the poor refugees and illegal aliens.
When it come to Canadians, our elderly and our vets, as they say in French “ils peuvent aller petter dans les fleurs”
commented 2019-05-31 10:02:50 -0400
I believe that they have players who wanted this change because they don’t understand the math and thought their odds were improving. It’s likely in the way the question to them was phrased. That’s my guess.
commented 2019-05-31 07:49:28 -0400
Bureaucratic arrogance left over from the Wynne regime.
commented 2019-05-31 07:20:33 -0400
I do not play these shames.I always thought that these fake dreams are taxes by stealth!
commented 2019-05-30 23:20:19 -0400
Silence speaks louder than words, David. Also, governments love lotteries and hate paying out to the “lucky” winners. Lotteries are a tax on poor and desperate people. Why should government lotteries be honest about odds? And another thing, we should tell photo radar and security camera owners that we don’t have permission to be filmed. Imagine thousands of Rebel viewers telling that to cops and security companies. :-)
commented 2019-05-30 23:18:53 -0400
Robert. Enlightening post – thanks!
commented 2019-05-30 23:18:02 -0400
What the hell makes these employees think they have the right to keep you out of a public office? They need to be fired!! That should be your real question David. Go to the minister and demand to know what the hell they think they’re doing? It’s a publicly owned company. Gov (public) property.

Next time David, be more assertive. Tell them they can’t stop you entering their office!!
commented 2019-05-30 20:15:22 -0400
Off topic and lengthy.. But a good read. We have to keep sending and spreading the facts all the time.. The CBC link didn’t work for me..

“On the political front, I have included some light reading. This first one I’m going to send on to my political list as it comes from one of OSA’s female members on the subject of gun control and bans:
The claim that they did a gender-based analysis and concluded that women are far more likely to be killed by a handgun than to kill someone with one, therefore we need to get rid of handguns, is a wonderful example of a total lack of critical thinking. I bet we are also disproportionately likely to be killed by, rather than to kill using, knives, blunt instruments, duct tape (Mr. Williams), boiling water followed by lack of medical care (that guy in Gatineau a couple of years ago), long flexible ropey things, and bare hands. But there aren’t many calls to ban hockey sticks and baseball bats, or register, track and chemically castrate everybody with a Y chromosome. A logical person might even hypothesize that a big part of the problem is that a lot of men think that women are property, not the existence of things that can be used as weapons, and come up with ways to test that hypothesis without running an unethical controlled experiment. One might also suggest that giving escaping abused spouses an authorization to carry would go some way towards addressing the disproportionality.

On Apr 19, 2019, I wrote the following letter to the Senators and to my politician list. As you can see by the replies “SSDD”:

Some time ago, you may remember that I asked all of you if you were doing something about the 30,000+ Canadian citizens who are killed each year as a result of medical malpractice. Below is an article written by a doctor who states some facts and figures that will put this into perspective. If you were really serious about public safety, you could do a lot more focusing here, instead of creating new and ineffective laws aimed at law-abiding gun owners.

One last point, I must make a comment about the picture below, just so you don’t fall into this trap set by the CBC. Whenever the CBC reports on anything to do with firearms, we who are truly the Subject Matter Experts on the recreational use of firearms, are always left wondering are they really this naïve about firearms or is it “fake
news” at it finest. We feel this picture was put in with this article to create fear and doubt about the facts it relates. Typical of the CBC. However, within the Recreational Shooting Community, we will NOT allow and absolutely abhor the taking of a picture with the firearm pointed directly at the camera. Even the Olympic committee set rules
forbidding this. It is also against the law to have someone pointing a firearm at anyone and this includes the person behind the camera. In fact, when I was on the Canadian Shooting team to the 1994 Commonwealth Games, whenever the media wanted to take a picture they would get out in front of our firearm and want us to point it at the camera. This would obscure the athlete’s face and no one would know who it was, at least by the picture. I recall having to insist that I wanted my face in the picture (sort of the whole purpose of the picture in the first place) and I had to remind them that it was against the law for me to point a firearm at the camera and therefore, by extension, at them.

BTW – the shooting team won many medals for Canada, in fact, had we been our own country, we would have finished in 3rd place – and you can just guess that was never mentioned in any news.

Please read the article below – the facts mentioned are wonderful, refreshing and… well… factual.

Here are a couple of highlights I’ve picked out of the story:

There were 84,000 doctors in Canada in 2016. There are between 30 and 60 thousand deaths annually due to medical error and hospital acquired infections. Let’s take the median 45 thousand. Therefore there are 0.53 preventable deaths per physician per year in Canada.

Let’s compare to gun owners. There are 2.2 million LAGOs (Law Abiding Gun Owners) in Canada. We know that most murderers are not LAGOs and that suicidal people just switch methods in the absence of guns, [stats show that twice as many suicides are committed by hanging] so we should really only deal with accidental deaths. There are about 20 accidental shooting deaths each year giving a rate of 0.00001 per LAGO per year. Even if we lumped in all the murders and suicides and rounded way up from the 2011 figures of just under 700 to more than double that and used 1500, that still only gives 0.0007 deaths per LAGO per year. It would take LAGOs 53,000 years to accidentally kill as many people as doctors do in a year on a per capita basis.

As always, we LAGOs remain willing to work with any government or private agency to make evidence based laws that are regularly audited for performance, and whose effect is violence reduction.

What we are not willing to do is acquiesce to shameful demonisation, marginalisation and eradication by ideological zealots whose actions (attacking Canada’s safest people) belie their words (seeking to reduce violence).

Below is the link to the complete letter from the Doctor:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/gun-laws-doctor-mosdossy-1.5101
For those of you who read this, here’s your chance to be a political hero, please do something to save these thousands of Canadian lives.

Keith Cunningham

To which, Senator Larry Campbell replied:
Hardly a useful comparison.

I then replied:
Really… this is the best answer you can come up with – you certainly aren’t one to let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

Let me introduce you to the Subject Matter Expert Principle. It says that if you are not educated, trained or experienced on a topic, then your opinion doesn’t have credibility.

I provided you facts and figures from two Subject Matter Experts. One, a doctor with considerable experience in both the medical field as well as a recreational shooter. The other, a military officer who has been shooting recreationally and professionally for 60 years and has represented Canada at shooting competitions, literally, around the world.

I would be interested to know what qualifications you bring to the table that would allow you to ignore these two SMEs and provide a pert 4 word reply.

Senator, I’m thinking your true colours are showing and they are not pretty.

Keith Cunningham

The Senator replied:

I’m sorry you are disappointed. Such is life in a democracy. My qualifications. 12 years RCMP, 20 years Coroner, Chief Coroner investigating homicides including with guns, 14 years Senator reviewing gun legislation. I know it’s not much compared to a recreational shooter and a doctor. You decided they were experts. Thank you again for writing.

You just have to know that I couldn’t leave this reply alone, so wrote the following:

Senator Campbell,
The only thing that disappoints me about democracy, is that a politician can get voted in having no qualifications to actually lead a country other than nice hair. Even the janitor that sweeps up after the politicians needs to know what a broom is and how to use it.

The thing that does disappoint me is that you would, with the incredible qualifications that you have, supported legislation that does nothing to go after the criminal use of firearms. I would have thought that you would be after an amendment that would, at the very least, give out a mandatory jail sentence for the commission of a crime while
in the possession of a weapon, any weapon. But, instead, you support legislation that put law-abiding gun owners through more hoops.

Your list of qualifications, as impressive as they are, actually make the point I was trying to make. There is no doubt that you are qualified, experienced and trained (a subject matter expert) about the criminal use of firearms. But my point was, and your qualifications speak to this, is that you know nothing about the recreational use of
firearms. In fact, your tone suggests that if you are not trained by the police, you know spit about firearms.

We work with police a lot, in fact, we work hard to support the police and what they do, however, we also know how poor the training is for police as it related to marksmanship. If the trainers can’t make you a better shot, they just give you a bigger target on which to qualify. We have been told that some police will suffer from diarrhea leading up to their annual qualification – certainly not someone bubbling with confidence over a life and death skill. We think (and this number is unofficial) that 90% of the police have pistols that are not zeroed. We have had trainers tell us that “you don’t zero pistols, they come from the factory zeroed and if you can’t hit what you are pointing at, it’s your fault”. We once had a police officer shoot a gorgeous group well off to one side of his point of aim. We were impressed with his group because it indicates he was shooting well, but he was apologetic for what he was doing wrong to shoot so far off his point of aim. His trainer had told him it was his fault. We said that he was doing everything right because he was shooting such a small group. We told him all he needed to do was zero his pistol. He looked sceptical, but we zeroed his pistol so that his little group was on his point of aim. At the end of the course he told us that in 15 years of service, this was the first time he had a pistol that hit where he aimed it. We told this story to a class of recreational shooters and a 16-year-old girl said, “if you don’t zero pistols, why do they make the sights movable and of different heights?” Indeed, a logical question lost on many trainers.

Let me suggest to you, as to just how much shooting you have actually done. As a police officer, you would have shot your annual qualification and would likely have dreaded it because you are not a good shot and you don’t know why. You might have been involved in some kind of yearly special weapons training and accomplished that successfully only because you have such a big target to shoot at, and even then, you would have missed more often than you should have. And as a coroner, well, shooting the odd shot into a water tank hardly qualifies as marksmanship. We do courses here for forensic officers so they can better appreciate what it takes to shoot well.

In the Recreational Shooting Culture, we train and practice almost weekly. We fire more shots in a week than the average police officer does in a year. We love shooting, we love practicing and we love to compete. We try to get police officers to get involved in competition shooting, because in competition you will experience the same feelings
that you would in a gunfight, only at a lower level. If you can’t handle the stresses of competition, it’s not going to get easier in a gunfight. The police officers that are good shots are the ones who are also involved with recreational shooting.

So, as impressive as your qualifications are, you are not the subject matter expert when it comers to recreational shooting and making decisions that affect only us. Gun crimes are often bargained away. Use your skills and qualifications to go after the criminal use of firearms and come down like a load of bricks on those who would use a
weapon of any type in the commission of a crime.

As I suggested before, the doctor and I are, in fact, much better qualified to advise on legislation affecting the law-abiding gun owner.
Keith Cunningham

So, I may have struck a delicate spot with the Senator, as he provided the following reply:

I find you so arrogant. I have owned, shot and used weapons for over 60 years. Really used them not like you. So I really don’t appreciate your poor me attitude. This law affects me and I’m prepared to follow it. Owning a gun is NOT a right in this country. It’s a privilege. No reply necessary.

I am now pretty sure the Senator is having problems with the facts, but I just had to reply to his comment, “Really used them not like you”. So, I made the following and final reply:

Senator Campbell,
You have made it obvious that our discussion has come to an end. I’m sorry for that as I have enjoyed our conversations. I feel it’s important to be able to speak directly with our politicians but I fear I have overwhelmed you and for that I apologise. Since you have resorted to name calling, I want to end it, but I feel it’s only fair that I have the chance to respond and then, will bother you no more.

As for being called “arrogant”, well, I didn’t expect that, especially from you. A quick look at the chain of messages below shows that, while I provided you with statistical facts, topics of honest discussion and related questions, you choose instead to ignore my questions, ignore the facts and provided only pert, insinuating and insulting replies. This alone makes me think that I’m not the arrogant one here.

In reference to your use of firearms, you make the comment that you, “Really used them not like you”. I assume by this that you are implying that because you were a police officer, you “Really used them…” and because I was (only) a competition and recreational shooter “… not like you”, that somehow in your mind, I didn’t count (how arrogant is that?). So, I was wondering if “really used them” would apply to my combat tour (1971-1972) in Vietnam? I was a member of the 75th Rangers, doing long-range reconnaissance patrols, in fact, 38 of them and since we were always looking for the enemy, they were all into a hostile environment. I earned the Bronze Star, Air Medal and the Purple Heart, among others. Since there were times when I had to “really use them” and I also have a great deal of competition experience, “… not like you”, well… I think you should get over your arrogance and appreciate that others might know as much or even more about a specific topic.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, there is “no reply necessary”. I know where I stand in this discussion and there is no need for you to further prove that point. As I said above, I have enjoyed our conversations, I understand you point of view and I will bother you no more.

Keith Cunningham"

Keith Cunningham CD, C3GC6, CSR4, CSP8, COP1
“When Success is the Only Option”
MilCun Training Center www.milcun.com
“Focusing On Performance”
Home of the Operational Shooting Association (OSA) www.osacanada.ca
Prius Faciat
Satis Ver
commented 2019-05-30 16:40:06 -0400
Ezra why have you not talked about Clare bronfman pleading guilty for the NXIVM SEX SLAVERY TRIAL?
Why have you not talked about Sara bronfman representing snc and bombardier for trade with gadafi ??

Is Sara bronfman avoiding arrest in the United States ?
Why have you not talked about Steven bronfman being the chief financier for the liberal party ??

Who was the canadian security firm hired to spy on judges and politicians ??
Did the murdered Sherman family’s holicaust foundation have any connections with the Edgar bronfman foundation ?

How much illegal money did Clare bronfman give to the Hillary presidential election through the NXIVM sex slavery cult ??
Did the hookers that gadafi have have Kieth reniers brand on them ???
If you are being told too shut up about this ezra now is the time too scream it at the top of your lungs
commented 2019-05-30 15:40:55 -0400
Western Canadian Lottery Corp. is way ahead apparently. They state prominently that it is with 50 numbers, and the odds are now 1: 33,294,800.
commented 2019-05-30 14:53:45 -0400
David – the fix is in! Thank you for trying to separate the truth from the fiction. Any time the government is involved, you just know that corruption will follow. Who audits the OLG?