Struggling Family Robbed of 500k prize

[apples and oranges]

Read the following instructions for Texas' scratch off lottery ticket.



Based on the wording and the presence of a Money Bax in the 5X box, Ms. Hinojosa won $500,000. But she only walked away with $5.00.

Hinojosa is one of hundreds of lottery players who thought she won the lottery, only to find out it was a misunderstanding.

Why the confusion? The instructions on the ticket say a winner must match up 3 "5s" in a row to win a prize. A second sentence says if a moneybag symbol is revealed in the five times box the player wins five times the prize. Many players thought the second sentence was a second way to win on the ticket.

"There's a sentence, a period, and then they start a whole new sentence." Hinojosa said.

In a statement the Texas Lottery Commission said, "The first sentence of the play instructions for Game 5 of the scratch-off game, Fun 5's, explains how to win the prize in the PRIZE box. The sentence reads, Reveal three "5" symbols in any one row, column or diagonal, win PRIZE in PRIZE box. The second sentence, Reveal a Money Bag symbol in the 5X BOX, win 5 times that PRIZE, explains how to multiply a prize won as described in the first sentence."

Read More: http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/26630555/lottery-ticket-confusion

[dontshoot]

1. I read it the same way

[cyberswede]

2. It reads like two criteria needed to be met.

First: you have to have three 5s in a row or column
THEN: if you have the the three 5s PLUS the $ bag, your prize is multiplied.

If you didn't win the prize in part one, there's nothing to multiply in part two.

It's clumsily written, but it makes perfect sense to me.

[dontshoot]

3. Really ? we have tickets in my state that give 2nd and 3rd chance wins

on scratch offs and they are worded similar to that.
You lose the first game then there's a second game on the ticket.....maybe it's just me

[cyberswede]

10. I admit a lack of familiarity with lottery tickets.

I'm also a total cynic, so I would *expect* the ticket not to be a winner, so I read it that way, I guess.

[jberryhill]

12. I'd agree if it didn't say "win 5x THAT prize"

The word "that" signals an antecedent basis.

[snooper2]

56. It's pretty clear LOL, "any one row"

3, in a row,

like

5 5 5

Those would be in a row

5
5 5

Would not be in a row LOL

[Adrahil]

60. There is no "prize" if you don't win it in the first place.

It's poorly worded, I admit, but I understood the first time and was confused about anyone could think they were "robbed."

[lame54]

72. that's how i see it

[bluesbassman]

5. I'm with you.

I understood the 5x modifier to be applied to the prize "won" and since the rows and columns did not produce a winner the multiplier is moot.

[dontshoot]

9. Then what purpose does the $100,000 box serve?

never mind just reread it

[cyberswede]

11. That's the prize you get if you reveal three 5s in a row or column...

which this ticket did not have.

[dontshoot]

13. How did she walk away with $5

wouldn't they have to be in a row ?

[lpbk2713]

17. There are five scratch off games on one $5 ticket.

She probably won on another game on the same ticket.


Link: http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/lottery/Games/Scratch_Offs/details.html_252730208.html

[dontshoot]

19. gotcha

[bluesbassman]

18. Apparently the part in question is only one of the ways to win.

Here's a link to the Texas Lottery and the Scrather in question: http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/lottery/Games/Scratch_Offs/details.html_252730208.html

[cyberswede]

20. Evidently, there are 5 different games on each ticket.

The image in the OP doesn't show a whole ticket.

http://www.lottoreport.com/Fun5QA.htm

I presume one of the other games was a $5 winner.

[bluesbassman]

15. Correct. Could've been $100, $500, or whatever...

I'm assuming this as I don't know the games payout odds, but as you have to "reveal" the prize it makes sense that there would be various prize amounts, and the 5x reveal just multiplies the specific prize.

[jberryhill]

4. I normally see ambiguities

The simplest instructions often elude me, but this one struck me as relatively clear.

[a2liberal]

25. "that PRIZE"

Could just as easily be referring to "PRIZE in PRIZE box" instead of a win based on the first sentence. Very poor choice of wording on the lottery's part. But alsoa sensationalized headline

[kcr]

37. Edit actually I think you're right.

How can you multiply a prize you don't have? ETA I change my mind. Reading it again it isn't stated specifically. I think it's implied but it needs to be clear.

[jberryhill]

43. in "PRIZE box" the word prize is an adjective, not a noun

[linuxman]

6. They weren't robbed of anything.

Unless every other card scans as a winner at the machine for the same situation, then it doesn't mean anything. The lottery doesn't operate off the "gotcha" principle. Either the card rings up as a winner via the barcode on the back, or it doesn't. You are buying a card that has a state mandated win/loss ratio. The scratching off of the card is purely anticipatory excitement for the buyer. The actual "Win" was determined by the state gaming commission and assigned via the bar-code on the back.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

7. I don't see the problem.

Where are the 3 5s in a row?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

16. I don't see three 5s either...

[UtahJosh]

8. Sorry, but they weren't "robbed".

I thought this would be one of those "if you scratch this part, you lose" deals. The wording is somewhat ambiguous, but the operative word is that "that" in "that prize", meaning that one they referred to in the first part.

[bhikkhu]

14. Dumb game, and they didn't win

implying that there's some sort of injustice involved (beyond the inherent poor odds of the lottery), or that "struggling" had anything to do with it, is disingenuous.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

21. A "struggling family" should not be losing money on lottery tickets. nt

[dontshoot]

22. Sometimes you just dream and spend $5

It doesn't mean they do this all the time

[closeupready]

44. Disagree, in moderation. Anyway, they didn't get 3 5's in a row.

Thus, they weren't robbed. Next story...

[LanternWaste]

51. It's pretty fun to pretend we have all relevant knowledge of a family's finances and expenses

It's pretty fun to pretend we have all relevant knowledge of a family's finances and expenses, and judge them based only off our ignorance.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

62. Is there a different definition for the word "struggling"? Do you not agree that if someone is

"struggling" they should not be spending the money they have on lottery tickets?

I didn't "judge" anybody. I made a statement of opinion: I don't think the person(s) who control the money within a 'struggling family" should be wasting it on lottery tickets.

Also, you deign to judge me while scolding me for being judgemental? How does that work?

My opinion will not change on this. A struggling family should not be buying lotto tickets. I don't care if you do not like it.

[yeoman6987]

76. Thank you!

So many would be in better financial shape if they would stop playing the lottery. It is such a waste of money. I had a friend who was so upset over having to pay a bill and how she was going to pay it. A week later Maryland was having a mega lottery worth 300 million and she actually called me to see if I would drive her to the place called "fish paws" a convenient store near the house so she could buy lottery tickets?

[wickerwoman]

23. Alternate headline: "Semi-literate family have false hopes dashed."

There's no "that prize" to quintuple if you didn't win the first bit.

[BlueJazz]

33. Quite true. I read the ticket and it took me all of 3/4 of a second to realize: They Lost.

It's rather like "IF you have $65,000, YOU can go buy a Mercedes Benz E3500 !!"

[Historic NY]

24. NY had a similar one...

you don't win unless you get the three 5's in any one row, column or diagonal. Play again or save your money.

[a2liberal]

26. I can't believe some people here...

Calling the family (and by implication the OP) semi-literate or accusing them of using "gotcha"s...

Not to toot my own horn, but I'm pretty well educated (not semi-literate) and to me there's obviously an ambiguity. If anything, a plain reading more matches the family's interpretation. I think people are using a bias of how they expect such a scratch-off to work. "that PRIZE" would most obviously (absent context of how these tickets work) refer to "PRIZE in PRIZE box" -- not a prize won by the first sentence. I thought of an example to maybe make my point clearer. Imagine the wording was: "Reveal three '5' symbols in any one row, column, or diagonal, win PRIZE in PRIZE box. Reveal two '5' symbols in any one row, column, or diagonal, win half that PRIZE." Pretty obvious, right?

Yes, they're not going to get anything, and the lottery is almost certainly legally in the clear and the headline is sensationalized. I'm not even claiming that this is the only way to interpret it. But they definitely have a point, and it's amazing to me that people are so quick to jump down their throats instead of seeing it. The lottery was stupid to let wording like that go out. They could've clarified it with a simple "also" at the beginning of the second sentence.

[snooper2]

58. "row" is a pretty clear word, not as clear as "is" but we are still working on that one

LOL

[joeglow3]

65. Focus on what the word "THAT" means

[kcr]

68. LOL OMG

people who are illiterate are stupid right lol lol lol can't understand basic english lolololol so funny so true!1 the word 'is' because clinton! hahaha! omg lol so funny!

[snooper2]

71. If you are writing in tween you need to add numbers and capitalize in tEh miDDle F woRds k?

[Downwinder]

27. The mafia numbers racket was more honest.

[HERVEPA]

53. and paid back a much larger percentage.

[alphafemale]

28. Well this does win the prize for dumbest headline of the week

And it's only, Tuesday.

How in any ever glorious reality were they robbed of anything?

People are misinterpreting a game as simple as tic-tac-toe.

Or it's a grift and they are out to scam people into feeling pity and sending money.

That is quite likely as well.

[hobbit709]

29. plain and simple failure to comprehend instructions is not robbed.

[jambo101]

30. Seems obvious to me

That there is no reason to think you are a winner here as the rules specifically say

a winner must match up 3 "5s" in a row to win a prize

I dont see 3 5s in a row.

[SoCalDem]

31. You have to get three 5's to win any prize..

in any row or diagonally.. she did not

a "won" prize could then be multiplied

I don't see how she even won $5

[apples and oranges]

45. Where is that stated in the instructions?

The Texas lottery is in the wrong here, because they admit that this keeps happening and yet they won't pull the tickets or change the wording.

[SoCalDem]

79. In the written instructions

[gollygee]

32. The game makes sense to me

and it isn't fair to say they were robbed. They were disappointed and didn't understand the rules.

[Chan790]

34. I'm going to go against consensus here.

While it's obvious what they meant--the wording is so poor that it does in the strictest-interpretation say "Reveal a Money Bag symbol in the 5X BOX, win 5 times that PRIZE."--strict reading supersedes intent in legal interpretation of documents. What they actually wrote is given greater weight in legal interpretation than what they meant.

The period making it a second sentence also makes it an independent clause from the first sentence. No conditional relationship between the two may be legally-inferred unless explicitly stated. It would have to say "Reveal a Money Bag symbol in the 5X BOX, win five times the winnings." What they wrote, strictly interpreted, says Money bags wins 5x the prize in the prize box. Automatically. No further conditionality exists as written.

If she took them to court and I was on that jury, she'd be getting her money. They'd be getting an admonishment to hire better legal writers to write legal-copy of their terms because assuming they sold 1m of these tickets, they probably just bankrupted the TX Lottery Commission.

[kcr]

40. I went back to carefully re read it after what you posted and I think you're right.

I did the same thing most here did and had a knee jerk reaction to it. But it is too ambiguous it its wording. They should have made it more clear that you have to actually meet the terms to win the prize in the first place. It's implied but it isn't stated specifically.

[apples and oranges]

47. I felt the same way, initially

But the more I thought about it, the more I sided with the woman and her husband.

[a2liberal]

55. +1000

I'm amazed how many people fail to see this

[jberryhill]

86. Reading it as a legal document makes it more clear it is not a win

I'm sorry, but the phrase "that prize" signals an antecedent basis for the word prize in that sentence.

In order to interpret "that prize" you must find the antecedent.

The only available antecedent is the prize won from the first sentence. The second use of the word prize in the first sentence is as an adjective modifying and identifying the "prize box", so it does not qualify as an antecedent noun.

[roody]

35. The poor are robbed daily by buying lottery

tickets.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

36. Must have been a really slow news day in Austin.

to drum up this so-called injustice.

[kiva]

38. The only confusion to me

was trying to figure out how they were 'robbed' since they didn't have 3 fives in any of the rows.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. The whole point of lottery tickets is to rob poor people. n/t

[Bonx]

67. They're not being robbed.

They enthusiastically hand over their money for these tickets.
If you said "The whole point of lottery tickets is to tax poor people." I would agree.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. People "enthusiastically hand over money" for drugs, too.

That doesn't mean that the relationship is not exploitative.

[Bonx]

74. Yep. Every day at Walgreens & CVS

Not being robbed there either.

[aikoaiko]

41. I don't see three 5s in a row, column, or diagnol.

I feel bad they didn't understand what they were reading, but thats how it goes.

[Ms. Toad]

42. You might want to change that extremely misleading headline.

The family won $5, when it thought (before verifying with the lottery commission) that it had won $500,000. However you read the wording (or, more likely, a printing error), that is not robbery. You can't be robbed of something that is not yours.

Even if you can make out legal claim against the lottery, it would be for breach of contract. Unfortunately for the individuals involved, the state drafted a contract in its favor. This ticket appears to be a printing mistake. The moneybag symbol was only supposed to be printed if the ticket was already a 3-5s in a row winner. That apparent mistake is almost covered by this provision in the rules for Fun 5s:

In the event a defective Ticket is purchased, the only responsibility or liability of the Texas Lottery shall be to replace the defective Ticket with another unplayed Ticket in that Instant Game (or a Ticket of equivalent sales price from any other current Texas Lottery Instant Game) or refund the retail sales price of the Ticket, solely at the Executive Director's discretion.

http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/lottery/Documents/scratchoffs/1592procedures.pdf

[Iggo]

46. I read it right.

Three in a row to win a prize.

Five times that prize if there's a moneybag.

But there ain't 3 in a row, so it's 5 times nothin'.

Nobody got robbed.

[Dreamer Tatum]

48. Family disappointed. Not robbed. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

49. I read the post title and thought someone robbed them of a winning lottery ticket.

Ultimately, it just turned out to be misunderstanding the somewhat confusing directions.

Reminds me of the woman who was told she won a "Toyota" in a radio contest and got this as a prize:



I mean, it sucks for the family giving them false hope, but it's not like they really "lost" any money.

[Ilsa]

50. They were robbed by

Playing the lottery.

[louis-t]

52. "In any one row column or diagonal".

Seems pretty clear. I don't even see that she won $5.

[dilby]

54. First they were not robbed, I read it and completely understood.

If I had matched three 5's I would win the 100,000, if there was a moneybag in the box that would make my winnings worth 5x more. I have no idea why people play these stupid games, it's incredibly frustrating to see people spending money on state run gambling when they would be better off taking that $5 and putting it into a savings account. The lottery is the only tax people line up to pay.

[Nye Bevan]

57. I guess "struggling family misinterprets ambiguously worded scratch-off ticket"

while more accurate, is not as attention-grabbing a headline.

[louis-t]

77. It's not really ambiguous. It says "in a row".

A four-year-old knows what that means.

[cbayer]

59. The poor in general are robbed because they are encouraged to buy lottery tickets.

Evil game, evil money.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for those that buy these tickets. They have been seduced and they should recognize that.

[DesMoinesDem]

61. Can someone explain how that ticket wins $5?

It looks like a losing ticket to me.

[Travis_0004]

81. There were multiple games on the ticket

Another game won the money

[NYC_SKP]

82. It's 5 games on one card, here's a picture:

One of the other four games must have been a "winner", and if the ticket cost $5.00 it probably was a break-even.

[GoneOffShore]

63. Reading comprehension fail - not robbery.

[Liberal_in_LA]

73. agreed

[bobclark86]

64. The only way struggling family comes into it...

Is because of the poor reading comprehension skills. As we all know (actually, there are tons of studies to back this up), poor people do worse in schools than rich people, even public schools. And if you're playing scratch-offs, you probably aren't an investment banker.

And robbed? I thought somebody held a gun to someone's head and stole a winning ticket (you know, a robbery) reading the title.

"There's a sentence, a period, and then they start a whole new sentence." Hinojosa said.

Same paragraph? Yup.

[joeglow3]

66. At the end of the day, the wording means JACK SHIT

You don't even need to scratch it. Just scan the bar code right after buying it an you will see what you won. People act like this is a skill game. It is a lottery ticket that is a predetermined winner or loser.

[kcr]

70. So, the law doesn't care about words?

Are you sure about that?

[joeglow3]

83. The wording was clear

Just because someone lacked the ability comprehend basic English, that is not the states fault.

My point was just that, from a common sense standpoint, misreading the ticket does NOTHING (I repeat, NOTHING) about the ability to win.

[closeupready]

75. Typically, the bar code is ALSO covered in removable glitter ink, so

yes, you actually do have to scratch that itch, lol - it's an anti-fraud device designed to prevent unscrupulous ticket vendors from scanning for winning tickets and removing them from inventory available to the general public.

[trackfan]

78. Sophistry aside, I think most who actually hail from this planet know that's not a winning ticket.

[surrealAmerican]

80. They weren't "robbed", but ...

... that is somewhat ambiguous wording. Can't the folks who make these tickets afford a copy editor? You would think the language would be scrutinized by somebody in order to avoid any hint of an alternate meaning.

[B Calm]

84. Hinojosa has a reading comprehension problem. .

[NCTraveler]

85. I can't figure out where they won in the first place.

How do they think they won the hundred thousand to start?