Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 27, 1991                   TAG: 9103270406
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short

WITH SMALLER PRIZES, MORE LOTTERY PLAYERS

My feeling is that just the opposite might be worth trying.

If the maximum prize were limited to, for example, $500,000, and the lottery pool grew to $10 million (as it has several times), 20 people would become modestly rich, as opposed to one winner becoming filthy rich.

Certainly there are people who buy more tickets as the prize grows larger. However, I believe many people never buy lottery tickets at all because of the astronomical odds against winning.

If the size of the prizes were limited, it would significantly increase the chances of winning a substantial amount of money. The thousands upon thousands of people who never buy would become players due to the better odds. Sales would increase.

This should at least be tried for a while to determine the effect.

I'd also like to see mailers adopt this system of prize disbursement. I consider it obscene to give $11 million dollars to a single lucky winner when there are millions of ordinary, hard-working people who could use a financial boost.

STANLEY A. KNOTT\ MARTINSVILLE