Wagering on a large scale: Relationships between public gambling and game manipulations in two state lotteries.

The team looked at two state lotteries for several years. They asked: what happens to ticket sales when we change the rules?

They tracked three rule tweaks: minimum jackpot size, how often numbers are drawn, and the odds of winning.

Sales jumped when the lottery set a $1 million floor and held draws twice a week. Over time, bigger and bigger jackpots were needed to keep people buying.

Changing the odds alone did nothing. People cared more about big, frequent prizes than better chances.

Habib et al. (2010) show that near-miss spins light up the brain like wins for problem gamblers. Lyons (1995) moves the lens from slot machines to whole state games, proving schedule changes can steer millions of people.

Whiting et al. (2015) taught college students to see one roulette color as "more than" another and shifted bets in the lab. Lyons (1995) shows the same principle works in the real world: re-label the prize pool and draw days, and public wagering follows.

Weiss et al. (2001) found that longer waits between rat trials flipped the effect of the same drug dose. Lyons (1995) echoes this: timing (draw frequency) matters more than probability (odds) for sustaining risky choice.

If you design reinforcement systems for humans, think jackpots and schedules, not odds. Whether you run a classroom token economy or a workplace safety game, set a clear minimum payoff and deliver it often. When motivation dips, raise the prize before you tinker with probability.