Find out in this video why Canadians have to answer a math question before collecting a lottery prize

  VIDEO: Half as Interesting/YouTube

It’s quite unique. Canada requires winners to answer a lottery skill testing question before they can collect their prize.

It’s needed because originally Canadian law prohibits ‘disposing of any property by lots, cards, tickets or any mode of chance’ whatsoever.

In theory, this means no lotteries, no sweepstakes, and no gambling. It’s the only country that has this compulsary test for winners.

While it appears to be an easy answer why Canadians should answer a math question, it’s not always that simple.

Watch the video to find out what’s behind this peculiar requirement.

Photo: Steve Harvey/Facebook

Transcript: In times of turmoil, it’s important to remember that all Americans are united by one shared dream: the dream of Steve Harvey showing up on our doorstep with a large novelty check from Publishers Clearing House.

More than 55 million Americans enter some form of sweepstakes or contest every year, and these promotions net around $2.8 billion annually for the companies that host them, which might make some of you think “gee, that’s a lot of work for poor Steve Harvey.”

But the smarter of you might think “gee, those figures kind of pale in comparison to the $71 billion dollars that Americans spend on the lottery annually.”

Why don’t these companies just host lotteries instead? Aren’t sweepstakes just convoluted lotteries?

Well, in order to answer those questions, we first need a long explanation of American lottery law.

By definition, a lottery has three key components: a winner chosen by chance, a prize that has value, and the exchange of money or something of value to enter.

Only state governments can legally run lotteries, so in order for private businesses to run contests legally, they need to eliminate one of these components.

Most do this by eliminating the third—the entry fee.

Businesses generally attach their sweepstakes to the purchase of a product, but provide a free method of entry in the fine print.

So any legal sweepstakes in the United States can be entered for free.

In reality, most of these ‘alternate methods of entry’ require divulging a lot of personal data that can then be packaged and sold to telemarketers.

Now, this loophole might work wonders for money-obsessed Americans, but it doesn’t quite cut it up north—or down south, actually, if you live in Detroit.

Canadian law prohibits disposing of any property by lots, cards, tickets or any mode of chance whatsoever.

Theoretically, this means no lotteries, no sweepstakes, and no gambling on the outcome of, say, underground chimpanzee wrestling matches even if the underground chimpanzee wrestling matches provide a free method of entry in the fine print.

However, bigger Minnesota, also called Canada, still wants to run contests so, since the 19th century, Canadians have tried to subvert these laws by adding small tests of skill to their lotteries and sweepstakes as a qualification for claiming the prize.

This means that they’re not technically games of chance, sort of like how pizza isn’t technically

a vegetable, or spending your entire paycheck on Half as Interesting t-shirts isn’t technically a good idea.

Up until a few decades ago, private businesses and the Canadian government constantly went to court over what did and didn’t count as a game of skill.

For example, guessing beans in a jar—according to the Ontario High Court of Justice, is a skill.

Peeling a potato—not so much.

Estimating the time that it would take for a barrel to float down a river—pure skill. Answering questions about the city of Montreal—nope.

Answering questions about the city of Montreal with the correct answers given to the player before they respond—shockingly, also a no.

Sniping a turkey from fifty yards with a rifle?

Well, this should be obvious: of course not, what sort of early 20th-century gentleman can’t snipe a turkey from fifty yards with a rifle?

This squabbling finally came to a head in 1984, when a Canadian court approved a simple math equation as a suitable test of skill for sweepstakes and lotteries: (((228 x 21 + 10,824) / 12) – 1,121).

I’ll give you a few seconds to do some quick math.

Just pretend like your ownership of a brand-new luxury catamaran depends on it, but also, feel free to pause the video and use a calculator, because, much like the Canadian Competition Bureau, I have no way of monitoring when, where, and how you solve the equation.

Also, much like the Canadian Competition Bureau, I really don’t care that much. Alright, time’s up!

Did you get 180?

I really hope you did, because this was about as easy to cheat on as online AP tests.

Anyway, this case set an important precedent and four-part math equations were adopted nationwide, regulating the largest national lotteries and the smallest local giveaways.

Over time, these problems have gotten even simpler, sometimes only using three parts and single-digit numbers, or even asking contestants to divide by 1.

But, after all, basic arithmetic isn’t quite as simple as sniping a turkey from fifty yards with a rifle, so it’s still possible to screw up—though that doesn’t necessarily mean that you lose the prize.

In fact, a cursory search of Google finds just one example of someone who even came close to being punished for failing a skill-testing question.

The woman in question won a GPS in a 2007 coffeehouse Tim Hortons giveaway and was asked to solve 8 x 6 – 5 + 9.

She gave the answer of 51.

Tim Hortons asked her to submit a different answer, but, feeling satisfied with her first answer, she submitted 51 again.

Tim Hortons denied her the GPS at first, but after submitting several complaints over the course of two months, she eventually got her prize anyway.