To think this is not how raffles work?

[PopcornAndPizza]

Hotly contested discussion at work and although light-hearted I now think I'm either losing the plot or almost all my work colleagues are all weird.

A colleague was pleased yesterday that she had won a coffee voucher at her grandsons school raffle. She mentioned her prize was the 8th top prize and that unfortunately her ticket didn't win any more prizes after that including the top prize which was a tablet.

I was only half paying attention until the other colleague (that I think is right) then said well surely they announced that one first? To which she replied well no they did that one last to build suspense.

To help the other colleague I tried to point out that's not how it works because then your ticket isn't actually in with the chance of winning the top prize but only me and this one other lady had this viewpoint, everyone else couldn't see the issue.

It's not us is it, that's not how raffles work? Surely the top prize should be drawn first so everyone has an equal chance at winning?

Yes, this is MN at its best: intelligent discussion and people respectfully arguing their own differing opinions and interpretations of a potentially controversial situation - with no recourse to nastiness or insults whatsoever.

Not wanting to derail, but does anybody else remember the thread from a couple of years back, where OP couldn't be at the draw in person, but her ticket won the top prize?

Her friend who was there and heard the announcement congratulated her on winning a fabulous laptop, but she somehow never seemed able to get the organiser to hand it over... and the organiser's child coincidentally got an identical new laptop at the same time.

I don't think we ever heard a resolution for that one - iirc it may have gone legal - but I was enthralled throughout!

I get what you are saying.

I sell 100 tickets and have prizes. Each ticket has a 1/10 chance of winning a prize, or 1/100 chance of a specific prize.

The first ticket drawn is 1/100, the second 1/99, third 1/98 etc...

If the top prize is drawn first, every ticket has 1/100.
Of its drawn 10th, 90 tickets have 1/90 and 9 have no chance.

So first scenario is "fairer".

This is interesting Thinking back to the few raffles I've participated in, I think it's always been a case of small prizes before the big prize to keep people engaged. The big point as well is to sell / buy as many tickets as possible to increase the chance of winning, so each individual ticket should be considered, not a strip, because your "financial investment" is that each 50p you spend increases your chances of a prize, otherwise you've paid 2.50 and effectively reduced your chances of winning.

I suppose the fairest way would be to have say 10 identical prizes, but that might reduce the ticket sales as the prize might not appeal.

Not what I expected my brain to focus on after three hours sleep due to problematic cat politics that have blown up out of nowhere for the last week 😬

@SprayWhiteDung Raffle skulduggery! Lottery jiggery-pokery! I am there for it

Re your earlier post, I agree it's the differential between the value (or perceived value) between the top prizes and the others that makes the difference. This is why I used to hate the tombola at the school fair, because so many kids walked away crying. When I am queen the prizes will be more equal and more people will walk away happy.

@PopcornAndPizza in some countries (not sure about UK) this is actually part of the raffle rules and raffle licensing laws!

If you are advertising a raffle with a TOP PRIZE of XXXXX, then anyone buying a ticket has to be in with a chance to win this prize. Therefore, they would have to draw this prize first so everyone that entered has chance of their ticket being drawn. (or otherwise put all tickets back in after each round).

Otherwise, someone might just buy one ticket. Say 2000 tickets have been sold, then their odds of winning the top prize is 1 in 2000. But... if they draw lower prizes first, and their ticket is drawn for a can of peas, then their odds of now winning the top prize are now 0.

And no one enters the raffle to win a can of peas.

I don't remember that one, but there was one where one of the organisers won a prize and was pressured to give it back and have it redrawn- but she'd bought the ticket like everyone else! Or perhaps it was someone that had already won a prize or two? Was interesting reading the views, anyway!

Or... you could have a raffle for the smaller prizes, then put the winning names in a second hat and draw out the Grand Prize out of the winners.

Or this, but the winners have to fight each other to the death to get the Top Prize. Both are pretty brutal

If you have 20 tickets you have an equal chance to win 20 prizes - don't you?
It's a long time since I did statistics at school 🙂

To maintain fairness and the suspense, the ticket for the top prize is drawn first, but not announced until the end. I've done this, it works well and is fair to everyone.

Now that is simple but genius!

Probably only works 100% if there's just one/a very few amazing prize(s) to be drawn ahead in secret and the rest are all rubbishy little ones, though. It wouldn't work if there was a big sliding scale of prizes all the way down.

And no one enters the raffle to win a can of peas.
Every raffle I've ever entered I've done so just to make a donation to whatever the cause is. I haven't entered in order to win a can of peas or a laptop or anything in-between. I would have entered the raffle at DD's dance school show at the weekend even though I had zero interest in any of the prizes but they were cash only so I couldn't.

That’s exactly how I see it.

But clearly other people do enter with the hope of winning a nice prize - otherwise why not just ask for donations and do away with the raffle altogether?

That's a good idea. You could put it in an envelope and put the envelope up in a place where everyone could see it, remaining untouched.

The only way this could be unfair is if Derren Brown has entered your raffle, in which case he will inevitably be the one holding the winning ticket.

Great idea.

Clearly it attracts more people, the prospect of winning something. But most people enter to win "something" don't they? Are people really donating and being anything other than a teeny bit disappointed if they don't win the big prize without overanalysing the actual process of the draw?

Ive never seen a raffle drawn that way.

It’s either first out gets the top prize or if all the ticket holders are present, each winner gets to choose from the table.

But she did have as much chance as everyone else of winning the top prize. Say there’s 10 prizes and 100 tickets sold then every ticket has a 1% chance of winning prize 1, 1% chance of winning prize 2, etc. so it’s perfectly fair either way (as your way would also give equal chance).

That doesn't work because often I've bought a raffle ticket but left before the draw which can be much later in the day, so I leave my phone number. I've never been to one where you pick your prize (apart grom the little WI one we have every month during the meeting)

As long as the process is known upfront you can do it anyway you like

I remember a post-raffle argument, about a raffle to raise funds for the blind: the child drawing the winning tickets was blindfolded, and somebody else read out the number. Some people thought this was a great idea, others thought it was mocking blind people, and it was unfair that the child couldn’t see the winners’ reactions; never mind that the child had volunteered, and was really excited about this task!

But what about the 2nd prize? 3rd prize? They might still be excellent prizes & much better than the others. Do you draw them 2nd, 3rd etc but reveal them in reverse order? I think drawing & calling the top prize first is best then in numerical order

Yep, and my point still stands 👍🥴