And who had the last laugh in 1995?

About the lottery prizes. Who's got really rich?

The National Lottery has created 132 millionaires: the biggest pay-out has been pounds 22.6m. In all, pounds 1.5bn (out of pounds 4.4bn sales) has been distributed in prizes, with pounds 10 being the lowest prize.

So could it be me?

Don't order the BMW yet. There is a 1 in 14 million chance of winning the jackpot.

How could I turn myself from a loser into a winner?

A good start would be to join the board of Camelot, which operates the lottery. Tim Holley, the chief executive, received pounds 330,000 last year. Richard Branson's company Virgin, miffed at not winning the lottery contract, reckons that Camelot stands to make a profit of pounds 1bn over the next six years. Alternatively, you could take a swing at being Chancellor of Exchequer. The lottery has been good news for the Treasury: it has raised pounds 500m in taxes from it.

Any other smart suggestions?

You could move home. So far, the Midlands has produced 53 jackpot winners (average prize pounds 715,000); London has generated 50. Only nine people have hit it big in Northern Ireland. Thirteen have won the jackpot in Wales.

That sounds too drastic ...

You could double-check your old tickets. There is pounds 22m outstanding in unclaimed prizes. The biggest winning ticket hidden down the back of someone's sofa is worth pounds 259,251.

But 1995 must have been boom time for some. Surely Gamblers' Anonymous is thriving?

Every day is Grand National Day: calls are up by 17 per cent. Personality tests indicate that there are up to 1.75m people with the potential to become problem gamblers. The National Lottery is flushing many of them out. Traditionally, gambling facilities were designed to respond to unstimulated demand. So there was no advertising. But the National Lottery's high profile has turned people into gamblers who never even had a flutter before.

Hold on for an instant: why should a weekly bet be such a problem?

Actually, the big issue is the Instants. For behaviour to become addictive, it is important that the reward happens quickly: the shorter the time lag between cause and effect, the stronger the psychological link. That's why scratch cards are so addictive. Another problem is the "psychology of the near miss". This is important in creating addictive behaviour: every loss on the lottery is perceived as almost a win, reinforcing the desire to try again. Camelot is keen to satisfy this urge: it is considering a midweek National Lottery.

But the people who play the lottery are adults. Surely they can look after themselves even if they lose?

Actually a lot are very young. Anyone over 16 can buy a ticket. Much younger children are also playing, getting others to buy their tickets.

All right, so there are lots of losers, but surely there are great benefits accruing to many organisations from lottery grants?

That's true. So far pounds 600m has been spent in grants, including pounds 135m on sport, pounds 200m on the arts, pounds 175m on Millennium projects and pounds 40m on charities. There is the same amount again available: out of pounds 4.4bn spent on the lottery, pounds 1.2bn has been set aside for these so-called "Good Causes". Among the biggest winners are the Tate Gallery, which has been given pounds 50m, the Earth Centre, Doncaster (pounds 50m), the National Cycle Network (pounds 42.5m), Portsmouth Harbour (pounds 40m) and Sadler's Wells (pounds 30m).

This sounds impressive.

Yes, but some charities are unhappy. They have seen donations falling off this year. They estimate that about pounds 212m of charitable giving has been diverted into buying lottery tickets. They expect to receive about pounds 150m in grants from the National Lottery, leaving a shortfall. Medical charities, who were excluded from the first round of grant-giving, have also suffered losses.

What is the regional pattern of spending?

London has had a third of the grants, though it has only 12 per cent of the population. The North-west, whose population matches London's, has received 6 per cent of the pay-outs. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not appear in the list of the top 10 awards.

Are the less well-off getting their fair share?

It is hard to break down which classes benefit most, but with so much going to the Royal Opera House and similar grandiose projects, it is clear that "high culture" is doing best.

Does that matter?

It does when you consider how much the less well-off are forking out on the lottery. According to Camelot, a person in social class DE spends as much on the lottery per week - about pounds 2.30 - as a person of class AB. That figure represents a much larger chunk from the poorer person's income.

So the lottery is really nothing new: just the same old story?

That's right: the rich getting richer on the backs of the poor.

JACK O'SULLIVAN