Lotto draw screw up

Copper_pipe

https://twitter.com/muratcomtr_/status/916815271389749248

KPMG got some explaining to do!

Purple Mountain

What eagle eyed hawk picked this up??

Duckworth_Luas

This looks KPMG'd. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few KPMG's in my time

GhostyMcGhost

38 was the draw number. The rest of the numbers are 38, but that one clearly shows 33

Maybe, no idea though, it’s a ball manufacturing defect and 33 printed instead of 38.... but, lotto should be 100% spot on to prevent amateur hour mistakes like this....

Purple Mountain

Didn't something similar happen a fee years back
Anyone remember the details?

Atlantic Dawn

It's 33 shown as a portion of the number, no doubts or light tricks. How in the jaysus can an organisation who signs off on the draw approve this joke of a draw? I demand my €3 back along with €3.6 million in compo.

https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/lotto-1251/10785851/

I thought this was just a hoax but watched the draw back and it's a 33 on the 38 ball without a doubt. But if you watch the draw it's a 38 and then it just turns into a 33 it makes no sense.

Purple Mountain

Keenan Crooked Aircraft wrote: »

I thought this was just a hoax but watched the draw back and it's a 33 on the 38 ball without a doubt. But if you watch the draw it's a 38 and then it just turns into a 33 it makes no sense.

Conspiracy Theories forum ---->

B.A._Baracus

It is a stupid mistake.
But businesses blow themselves out. Talking a big game about being experts, professionalism, quality control, blah blah

These balls were created. No one in the factory spotted the mistake. The balls weren't inspected by Lotto despite them saying they take great measures. You know yourself. All a joke.

Hoover once had a marketing promotion in the UK in 1992 that offered 2x free flights to America or Europe for anyone who bought a product worth £100 or more. They didn't anticipate the demand and the fact these plane tickets cost a lot more than £100 pounds was asking to be a problem. They initially just wanted to get rid of old stock, hence the promotion.
People started to buy the cheapest model at £119 and they had to make the factory workers work over-time to supply the demand. In the end they made around 30 million but the cost of plane tickets cost 50 million.
Not to mention they over-saturated the market with cheap Hoover products that people were selling for dirt cheap in markets and magazines.

You would be surprised how stupid a collection of people can be.

ChikiChiki

Surprised to see one of the Big 4 involved in yet another controversy. 3 of them excluding Deloitte are notorious for cock-ups.

Purple Mountain

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

It is a stupid mistake.
But businesses blow themselves out. Talking a big game about being experts, professionalism, quality control, blah blah

These balls were created. No one in the factory spotted the mistake. The balls weren't inspected by Lotto despite them saying they take great measures. You know yourself. All a joke.

Moonlight REALLY are the winners!

GhostyMcGhost

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

It is a stupid mistake.
But businesses blow themselves out. Talking a big game about being experts, professionalism, quality control, blah blah

These balls were created. No one in the factory spotted the mistake. The balls weren't inspected by Lotto despite them saying they take great measures. You know yourself. All a joke.

Hoover once had a marketing promotion in the UK in 1992 that offered 2x free flights to America or Europe for anyone who bought a product worth £100 or more. They didn't anticipate the demand and the fact these plane tickets cost a lot more than £100 pounds was asking to be a problem. They initially just wanted to get rid of old stock, hence the promotion.
People started to buy the cheapest model at £119 and they had to make the factory workers work over-time to supply the demand. In the end they made around 30 million but the cost of plane tickets cost 50 million.
Not to mention they over-saturated the market with cheap Hoover products that people were selling for dirt cheap in markets and magazines.

You would be surprised how stupid a collection of people can be.

Dafuq?

BorneTobyWilde

It's just the light shining on the ball. With every ball that came out it nudged the 38 ball until the 38 turn to a 33 as it hit the light and reflected.
It's was an optional delusion .

B.A._Baracus

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Dafuq?

Maybe I should have worded it better?

But short story is: You hear so much about quality control, checks, etc. It's all wa*k. It's all bollocks :pac:
Lotto love going on about all the checks and procedures they have in place to stop this. But no one person spotted this. From the company who made it, to the person with the clip board inspecting to the randomer who places the balls in the drum.

My post was just about how even the biggest of things make stupid mistakes. The hoover example being one of the biggest companies in the world making such a school boy blunder. Same as this lotto mistake. You think someone would simply check the balls as they loaded them into the machine.

suicide_circus

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It's just the light shining on the ball. With every ball that came out it nudged the 38 ball until the 38 turn to a 33 as it hit the light and reflected.
It's was an optional delusion .

Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely in this TV studio?

longshanks

suicide_circus wrote: »

Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely in this TV studio?

It's just the Northern lights.

uck51js9zml2yt

longshanks wrote: »

It's just the Northern lights.

It's Montrose, so it's the Southern Lights

Sam Quentin

Haha cool, look at the 45 next to it.. The light/shadow is starting to do strange invisible stuff to that as well lol..
NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG MOVE ALONG....

thomasj

Sam Quentin wrote:

Haha cool, look at the 45 next to it.. The light/shadow is starting to do strange invisible stuff to that as well lol.. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG MOVE ALONG....

Not in a month of Sundays does that look like an obscured 38. Look at the 33 in the bowl, that clearly looks like a 3 rather than an 8.

tomwaterford

Surly the easiest solution is to just pay out on both 33 and 38?

jamesbere

suicide_circus wrote: »

Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely in this TV studio?

Can I see it?

thomasj

Screenshot

So you're saying that I actually won????

donegaLroad

There are also two #14 balls in the upper drum (or is that just a reflection?)


I'd say the only way a draw like that could be rigged, is if some of the balls were weighted or magnetised :eek:

James 007

thomasj wrote: »

Screenshot

From that screenshot it does look like the light is shining on the ball

When you zoom in, you can see the length of the space is different between the two threes, so it's definitely an optical illusion.

dan1895

jamesbere wrote: »

Can I see it?

No.

Wildlife Actor

Uh oh... There's a 1 in 10,700,000 chance they'll have to pay out a second jackpot...

exaisle

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

It is a stupid mistake.
But businesses blow themselves out. Talking a big game about being experts, professionalism, quality control, blah blah

These balls were created. No one in the factory spotted the mistake. The balls weren't inspected by Lotto despite them saying they take great measures. You know yourself. All a joke.

Hoover once had a marketing promotion in the UK in 1992 that offered 2x free flights to America or Europe for anyone who bought a product worth £100 or more. They didn't anticipate the demand and the fact these plane tickets cost a lot more than £100 pounds was asking to be a problem. They initially just wanted to get rid of old stock, hence the promotion.
People started to buy the cheapest model at £119 and they had to make the factory workers work over-time to supply the demand. In the end they made around 30 million but the cost of plane tickets cost 50 million.
Not to mention they over-saturated the market with cheap Hoover products that people were selling for dirt cheap in markets and magazines.

You would be surprised how stupid a collection of people can be.

You don't have to go abroad to find a f**k up like that....a few years ago, some genius in the (Irish) Lotto came up with the idea that anybody getting four numbers was guaranteed to collect £100....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/how-a-secret-syndicate-managed-to-buy-the-lotto-35981173.html

Zoomed in. When you compare the two, there's a difference between them.

Wombatman

Just the lighting. Move along.

eeguy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When you zoom in, you can see the length of the space is different between the two threes, so it's definitely an optical illusion.

Yep, there's a circular shine on the 38 that makes it look like a 33. You can see the same shine on the 44 and 45 balls, though its less noticeable.

biko

As several others have said - it's just a light glare in the right spot. You can see it happening for the 45 ball too.

Everywhere else on the ball is 38 so I don't see what the huffing is about. Do people actually think someone at Lotto would change one number on a ball? Really?

_Dara_

Looks very like 33 but an 8 can look like a 3 quite easily. The moved along still there seems to clear it up.

Avatar MIA

Hah! Poor KPMG. They should had have checked the lighting. :pac:

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

Zoomed in. When you compare the two, there's a difference between them.

Enhance

osarusan

Back and to the left.

Sam Quentin

To think that this is anything other than lighting, shadow, reflection, illusion etc etc is hilarious.. Looks cool tho

server down

Sam Quentin wrote: »

To think that this is anything other than lighting, shadow, reflection, illusion etc etc is hilarious.. Looks cool tho

why? Could easily have been a ball that was printed faulty for whatever reason, maybe the printing failed to finish the 8 on one side.

I mean a white spot light so bright that it hides black ink, thats pretty unusual.

Until our expert IT forensic department enhanced the image nobody could be sure what happened.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

server down wrote: »

why? Could easily have been a ball that was printed faulty for whatever reason, maybe the printing failed to finish the 8 on one side.

I mean a white spot light so bright that it hides black ink, thats pretty unusual.

Until our expert IT forensic department enhanced the image nobody could be sure what happened.

Baloney. Every other shot of the ball shows it is perfect. It's the light, as you can see from 'missing' parts of numbers on other balls.

BillyBobBS

More than likely an honest mistake but in a country rife with corruption, brown envelopes and who not what you know nothing would surprise me.

colm_mcm

I’d imagine there are RFID tags or something in the balls so it automatically knows what came out.

Avatar MIA

BillyBobBS wrote: »

More than likely an honest mistake but in a country rife with corruption, brown envelopes and who not what you know nothing would surprise me.

What honest mistake, apart from your own, do you think has happend here?

Or are you AGAIN seeing what you want to see?

Gerrup Outta Dat!

suicide_circus wrote: »

Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely in this TV studio?

May I see it?

retro:electro

It's clearly the light reflecting on the 8 making it look like a 3. Now if one number was 33 and the rest 37 or something ye may have a point. You can see the same dot of light on the ball beside it.
I don't care anyway because I didn't win either way

Turtwig

I'm glad we've graduated from the colour of a dress to the number on a lottery ball.

NinjaTruncs

Look at the last ball in the row the 46, it has a white dot on it most likely caused by glare, it's the same on the 38 ball which is making it look like a 33.

server down

Maison Hundreds Fir wrote: »

Baloney. Every other shot of the ball shows it is perfect. It's the light, as you can see from 'missing' parts of numbers on other balls.

Every other shot is not relevant here. The only information we got from the OP is the picture. And it is indeed an unusual effect of the light, but the glare isn't clear at all from the one picture we were asked to discuss.

mr_cochise

It is clearly an optical illusion. Perhaps the title of the thread should be changed to Lotto watchers screw up.

Lotto don't need to rig the way the balls come out. Statistically, everything favours them from the start. They are already on a winner.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

server down wrote: »

Every other shot is not relevant here. The only information we got from the OP is the picture. And it is indeed an unusual effect of the light, but the glare isn't clear at all from the one picture we were asked to discuss.

Of course other shots are relevant, as they show the same ball in the same position, with all numbers clearly correct. And the glare is obvious on two of the other balls were part of the numbers appear to be missing. But, carry on ; life's too short...

4068ac1elhodqr

Conclusion: Caused by directional (spot) lighting: