"Aitchbee"

"With fewer people purchasing lottery tickets [in shops] after November 2013, Camelot will rake in more profits, with this audacious money-making scheme."

Like SillBill you fail to understand the commercial model behind the National Lottery.

Camelot runs the most cost-efficient lottery in Europe, with around 4% of total revenue spent on operating costs. The company will not "rake in more profits" on falling ticket sales, it will still receive the same amount per pound of revenue as it does now. It's very much in Camelot's interests to sell more tickets, not less.

The thinking behind the price increase is to maintain reasonably high jackpots - the average of around £4.4 million should increase to around £5.2 million, and provide more 'instant millionaire' wins, both of which public surveys have said the players want.

Camelot is like any other commercial concern, in that there's no point in running a business that doesn't make a profit. In Camelot's case it is regulated by the National Lotteries Commission, and can't simply do what it likes with the money that comes in. Revenues are dependent on ticket sales, and retailers are not going to sell tickets for nothing - they have to be paid. On average each ticket seller receives around £8500 a year in sales commission - not a fortune, but they run retailing businesses, and lottery sales make a useful contribution to both revenue and footfall totals.

The government takes a slice - currently about 12% of the total - and about 28% goes to good causes. Who gets the money isn't decided by Camelot, that's up to the 13 Lottery fund distribution bodies.

It isn't in anyone's interest to create what you call an "audacious money-making scheme.". The decision is a commercial one, in that there is risk attached. The risk being that revenues (and therefore profits) will be seriously affected. It remains to be seen whether or not that happens, but let's remember - nobody has to play the lottery. Those that do (currently 60% of all UK adults) do so in the hope of winning big money. A lottery operator wants lots of people to win because that encourages others to play.

Quickbeam

"I've always thought that a maximum 1 million top limit is enough to solve most persons money worries, if it isn't, then you're beyond redemption..."

I'm not sure that redemption has anything to do with this. A million pounds is certainly a large sum, but nowadays it isn't nearly enough to solve most peoples' money worries in the long term.

Companies which run national lotteries know that what really makes people buy tickets is that glittering prize, the big jackpot. Of course there's mileage in the instant millionaire prizes, but not enough to sustain current ticket sales levels - there has to be something more.

As I said earlier, increasing ticket prices is a gamble,it may or may not be commercially successful. Camelot obviously believes it's worth trying.

The price of an entry in the Euromillions lottery has been at £2 for a couple of years, and plenty of people seem to be prepared to pay that. The odds of getting 5 numbers and a lucky star in the Euromillion lottery are roughly 1 in 6 million. The odds of getting 5 numbers plus a bonus ball in the UK Lotto are around 1 in 2.3 million.

Quickbeam

"...it'd see me out with change to spare for a damn good wake!"

It's an age-dependent thing, isn't it? To have enough money to ensure a return equal to the median average UK income a 21 year old man would have to win over £2 million.

For a man aged 40 the win would need to be £1.2 million.

I don't do the lottery and my Premium Bonds haven't won for years but I used to think that a million would be good but over the last year I have begun to realise that to do all that I would like, eg pay off family mortgages, get a bungalow, help a charity, etc, then I would need about 2 million.