The lottery is a big business, and for many people it’s their only way to win some money. They buy tickets, and they hope that their numbers will match the ones randomly drawn by a machine. But what if they had an alternative? What if they could use their winning ticket to win something else, say a unit in a subsidized housing project or kindergarten placement at a good public school?

That’s the premise behind the so-called “social lottery,” an experiment that has some researchers and some states trying to see what would happen if state lotteries shifted from prizes like cash and vehicles to prizes that might actually help poor people. It’s an idea that hasn’t been tested extensively, but some early results suggest that such a shift might improve the odds of people hitting it rich—and might even reduce the number of people playing.

In the meantime, lottery promoters are still selling their wacky games of chance. Their advertising message is that everyone plays the lottery, and that it’s fun and harmless. But the truth is that the vast majority of players are lower-income and less educated, and that one in eight will spend more than they make on tickets this year.

Lotteries are also expensive for governments, and there’s a logical question about how much they’re worth to taxpayers, especially since the biggest winners tend to be wealthy individuals who don’t need the money. That’s why it might be time for us to rethink whether this form of gambling is worthy of our support.