Hmm, I think you have to dig state-by-state for pre-draw info.

To that end, the Ohio lottery website links to all the other state lottery sites.

I've done some modeling of day-day vs. day-eve systems (which, in a way, mimics pre-draws). The results say don't worry about pre-drawings. Now, if you don't believe a system can work, you'd have no interest in pre-drawings (unless you saw the number you played ... show up there. )

^{_{Modern "education" teaches a version of history so fictionalized, it should be followed by "TM"}
They're warning me about Osama or whatever. Picture me buying the scam; I say "never!".}

Re: Card counting.

As a former casino worker I have to say some of the input here is quite entertaining.

Some things folks should know:

The casinos teach their supervisors card counting. They've even sent them to card counting schools (some become degenerate gamblers themselves, partly due to this).

So many times inside the pit you will hear conversations like, "The guy on BJ 12 thinks he's a good counter but that's as far as it goes."

Card counting is only half of it for a good counter. Sometimes they have to be disguise artists, and they also have to be able to concentrate while being distracted. Floor supervisors are told to "go get that guy in a conversation", just to brak his or her focus.

Varying bets is a giveaway, but only one of many.

Bob stupak used to invite card counters to his casino. His philosophy was that you may know the deck is rich in high or low cards, you may know that there is a King and a four left in the deck. Only God knows which one is going to be dealt first.

For the MIT people, yes, they worked in teams and were very high tech. They got it on for a while. I seriously doubt if anyhting like that will happen again. Casino surveillance has come a long, long way since the days of guys up in catwalks with binouclars.

And I'm prety sure some of these "Beat the house" programs being aired on the Travel Channel and others are silently sponsored by the casinos. Convince them they can come out and beat the house and they'll come out.

No different than people (who have never hit a lottery jackpot) selling books and systems about how to hit a lottery jackpot.

Well 'counting' cards is just keeping track of what percentage of cards in the deck are in your favor, it all depends on what you do with that info!

It takes money to make money!  To win big money using card counting methods any big BlackJack player will tell you that you need to start with a decent amount of money to ride out the lows.  You won't see anyone walking in with $20 to start counting cards seriously! Counting cards only gives you a few percent advantage (if done properly), the whole idea is to take as much advantage of each favorable situation as you can (big bets).

If the system was developed using only the posted results, then the pre-draw information shouldn't be a factor.

More food for thought:

- Nothing in nature is purely random, just so complicated that it can be difficult or impossible to predict.

- Let's say you have a Powerball system that provides a 1% edge. It's not much, but it's better than QP and if you win with numbers you picked you feel more like you "earned it" and deserve more recognition. You'll have quite a few new friends even w/o even giving them actual money!

- The matrix of SuperCash did seem to change Oct. 23, 2005, because they announced a bigger jackpot and introduced the Doubler feature, and the higher numbers began appearing soon after. My question is, did this person's algorithm span across this matrix change, which would have disfavored some higher numbers, since the winning set was low numbers, that's what helped him? If he was doing this penci/paper then it's not likely he went that far back unless it was a very simple freq. analysis but that type only seems to give 3 of 6 at most.

- A thorough backtest will prove or disprove if an algorithm has merit. It can show either that it has no effect, or a slight advantage not enough to overcome the takeout, or so good that it makes profit. I have never seen the third type, but some of mine hover around breakeven.

- I still wonder if he used some kind of computer program or pencil/paper, and if any of it was partly randomized, like filtering out bad #s then QPing the good ones. Or how many he played.

- My suggestion to you if you are worried about pre-draws clouding the stats, use the History QP method. Generate a random X number the width of the drawing (6 for SuperCash) and a random Y number however far back you want to use the history. Do this enough times to get 6 or whatever unique numbers, and play those. You are thus emulating how the drawings are done and also more likely to be the only one winner.

In meantime though I will as soon as I can try to determine what was so special about that set of numbers. I'm thinking maybe hot/cold/due, but since he liked math puzzles he could have been using math instead.

I won't believe them unless they can return with a first prize again within 6 months.

I threw the WI history in my app here for sh*ts and giggles, and checked a few basic methods.

With a pool size of 1025 drawings (back to the matrix change), we get these statistics.

ACTUAL RESULT: 1,5,8,13,24,26

If we look at the HOT numbers ranked from HOT to COLD, 5 were decently close to the top. 

 HOT number ranks that hit were: Rank # 4,5,6,7,10,25

If we look at the DUE numbers with a pool size of 1025, this is the ranking.

 DUE ranks that hit were: Rank # 2,4,13,16,23,34

Note: My 'DUE' calculation is based on the (total hits/hit count) = avg hits, then number of draws out compared to the avg. (i.e., a ball that averages once per 9 draws and was drawn 8 drawings ago is 'due'). 

If we look at the COLD numbers (longest since they hit), this is the ranking:

 COLD ranks were: Rank # 3,9,17,18,25,33

Interesting spread on those COLD numbers, eh? Almost symmetrical.

Those should be the basic stats using the maximum pool size before the matrix change.  Of course, even if he was using the same basic methods his pool size could be completely different.

I wonder if you scan past the matrix change? Or less? Also 1000-something drawings would require either a computer program or a very simple algorithm. A simple "hot/cold/due" tally can be done by rewriting the frequencies each drawing. It's possible he QP'd the top however-many but the "1" is weird. Maybe his due calc. is different OR maybe there is a bug in his system as I have sometimes in mine. He wants to patent his system which sounds like it's compex and/or a program because you probably can't patent "frequency count" method or "hot-cold-due" because those are used by a lot of people. I strongly doubt his method is as simple as frequency; there'd have been many other winners.

What we know is 4 winning tickets were turned in purchased from different locations.

The Wisc SuperCash 6/39 game pays up to 20 fixed jackpots of $350,000. each.  After that a pool of $7 million is divided among winners.

Tickets are 2 for a dollar.

The game is computer drawn.

Just because 4 winning tickets were presented to the lottery, there may have also been lower tier prizes paid in cash if a wheel was used.

The winners may have had the experience of winning multiple 4 and 5 number prizes on one ticket they had to turn in and pay taxes on, hence the desire to break up the plays.

Or, they may have wanted to make sure the plays were viewed as totally independent of each other, by the lottery.  It is impossible to judge the thinking of people who may be guessing what the optimal strategy of dealing with planning to present the lottery with four winning tickets.

There may not be any such thing as a winning formula, but there certainly are traps that can be laid for the lottery to fall into if you're willing to wait long enough, like playing $10. on 5-5-5-5 every day.

BobP
 

Really, it's computer-drawn?

A game that is computerized has to be approached much differently than a ball-drawing. Computerized games are purely numeric-based. They said he is a fan of math puzzles. It would mean his system is probably limited to computerized games then, but I'd still want to look at it. Think of it, if the system is good then it can foil those pesky computerized games...maybe now the Lotteries would have to ditch them! Isn't that what we want? Also with computerized, it doesn't much matter about pre-tests. This encourages me to develop some math-based algorithms for computerized games like PA Treasure Hunt and Hot Lotto.

Why Quad 5? Why not 7-8-9-0 or something? It would be costing $140 a week just for that one play, and when it did win they take taxes so I'd hope the 5555 comes out four times as often as any other 4-digit. Unless that # is special you'll wait an average 15 or 30 years before you win.