Mega Millions Raising Ticket Prices But Jackpots Getting Much Bigger—Here’s What To Know

Forbes - Mar 26th, 2025

Mega Millions announced several changes to its lottery structure, aiming to significantly increase the average jackpot win. Starting April 4, participants will notice improved odds of winning any prize, shifting from one-in-24 to one-in-23, after the removal of one 'Mega Ball' from the drawing pool. This adjustment enhances the chances of winning the jackpot from one-in-302.6 million to one-in-290.4 million. Additionally, the ticket price will rise from $2 to $5, aiding in increasing the average jackpot from $450 million to over $800 million, with the jackpot resetting to $50 million post-win.

These changes come in the wake of a recent $349 million jackpot win in Illinois, highlighting the ongoing appeal of lottery games despite the price increase. The broader context is rooted in similar strategic shifts made by both Mega Millions and Powerball in 2015, which altered the odds by expanding the pool of numbers, resulting in some of the largest lottery prizes in U.S. history. The implications of these changes suggest a continued public interest in high-reward gambling, with potential effects on player engagement and lottery revenues over time.

Mega Millions Lottery Changes Jackpot Odds Ticket Price Increase Illinois Jackpot Winner

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a clear and timely overview of the changes to the Mega Millions lottery, focusing on key factual elements such as ticket price increases and adjustments to prize structures. It is generally accurate, though it could benefit from more source attribution and transparency regarding the information's origin. The piece is well-written and accessible, making it easy for a general audience to understand. However, it lacks balance and depth, as it does not explore the potential implications for players or include diverse perspectives. Enhancing these areas could increase the article's engagement potential and impact on public discourse.

Accuracy

The article provides a largely accurate depiction of the changes announced for the Mega Millions lottery. It correctly reports the increase in ticket prices from $2 to $5 and the adjustments in jackpot and non-jackpot prize structures. The claim about improving the odds of winning the jackpot from one-in-302.6 million to one-in-290.4 million is also consistent with the announced changes. However, the article could improve by providing citations or sources to verify these claims, which are essential for ensuring factual accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the changes to the Mega Millions lottery, presenting the information from the perspective of the lottery organizers. It does not extensively explore the potential impact on players, such as how the increased ticket price might affect participation or public sentiment. Including viewpoints from lottery players or industry analysts could have provided a more balanced perspective on the implications of these changes.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey the changes to the Mega Millions lottery. The information is logically organized, with key facts about the changes presented in a straightforward manner. However, the inclusion of more detailed explanations or examples could further enhance reader comprehension, particularly for those unfamiliar with lottery operations.

Source quality

The article lacks specific attribution to primary sources or direct statements from Mega Millions officials. While it appears to accurately represent the changes, the absence of direct quotes or references to official press releases or statements weakens the source quality. The inclusion of authoritative sources would enhance the credibility and reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the methodology or sources used to gather the information about the Mega Millions changes. It would benefit from greater transparency regarding how the information was obtained and whether there are any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the reporting. Clarifying these aspects would improve the transparency of the article.