While working the numbers on this last update, I've come across a few interesting things. I'll get back to this in a few days to see how and where this is headed. Unreasonable is a word that can best describe what I'm seeing. To be continued...

Alright, I think I can post some additional information. First is the update from the last post.

I've gone back a looked at the entire Badger 5 draws and did an analysis for a moving draw span of 170 draws. I then applied the Simple BMA out to Iteration 8 to get the average Fluctuations for those draw spans; I also analyzed the wheel numbers the same way. I then created an animation of the changing graphs to show how this moving 170 draw span looks over time. Below is a link to my YouTube site where the animation is. As you are watching this, please note the following:

1. the left hand y-axis shows the scale for the Badger 5 Fluctuation distribution.

2. the right hand y-axis shows the scale for the Wheel Fluctuation distribution.

3. the bottom x-axis shows the scale for the Badger 5 numbers.

4. the top title shows the range of draw span in the Badger 5 draws.

5. there are some calibration lines in the background that show the average for the Badger 5 Fluctuation and the standard deviations from that line.

6. the gray line in the background is the average.

7. the light blue line is the 1st standard deviation from the average.

8. the light green line is the 2nd standard deviation from the average.

9. the light red line is the 3rd standard deviation from the average.

10. the dark red line is the Badger 5 number distribution fluctuation.

11. the dark blue line is the Wheel number distribution fluctuation.

Graph animation --> http://www.youtube.com/v/VfYxlTZYE8c

If it is at all possible, lotteries may be rigged to provide one of two outcomes - either certain numbers played by those who do the rigging can be selected or the most popular numbers selected can be eliminated from the draw - and keep in mind that around 70% of all tickets purchased in any lottery will be quick picks. With the second possibility in mind data like this can be analyzed to eliminate certain numbers from non-QP selections to maximize the winning possibilities. Interesting thread - KUTGW.

gl

I like this point

You can have the most mathematically

correct results for a particular day from the finest software on the market that still won't

assure unfettered drawing procedures(glitch-prevention.)

If your statistics can show which numbers those fixing the lottery are playing, perhaps you should play those numbers as well.

I given that much thought. That's why I think BOT Picking might be the way. A BOT, short for roBOT, can be programmed the pick up on those kinds of subtle things to hack the lottery's computer picking method, fixed or not.

If the link for the graph animation doesn't work, try this --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfYxlTZYE8c

JAde, i respect your knowledge in mathematics and computer programming but in my opinion you are going overboard with this thing....most likely you will never "prove" anything, even if you come close the state will still ignore you...everyone aknowledged that there was a problem in tennesse and they didnt do anything about the situaton so....on the other hand if you are trying so hard to figure a statistical way to win just "keep it simple"...

State ignore me?   I'm counting on it.

Never prove anything?   Well, as long as I prove it to myself, that's all I need.

This information is posted for your benefit.

You can use it any way you'd like or not at all.

I'll let you decide.

Sorry, posted a program test sheet by mistake.

Here's the actual update from my post earlier this week.