Welcome Guest

### NetConnect

#### Internet Domains, simple and cheap

##### Find a domain name:

Home

The time is now 9:43 am
You last visited September 18, 2014, 9:41 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# What was Brad Dukes Lottery system?

Topic closed. 4 replies. Last post 4 years ago by RJOh.

 Page 1 of 1

United States
Member #95539
August 12, 2010
40 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 5:58 pm - IP Logged

Brad Duke won the Lottery back in 2005 using some system where he picked numbers that had come up frequently over the past 6 months or something like that.

Does anyone know exactly what this system was? I can't seem to find any details about his system on google or anywhere else.

Connecticut
United States
Member #61623
May 29, 2008
19676 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2010, 6:03 pm - IP Logged

here's an excerpt  from an interview....

"How did you develop your system?

Here is what Mr. Duke had to say for Fortune, a popular financial magazine:

"I just started playing number games with myself about how to capture the most diverse numbers. Then I looked at the most recent Powerball numbers over the last six months and took the set of 15 numbers that were most commonly coming up. My Powerball numbers were going to be those 15. So I started messing around with it, and my number games got a little more complex and a little bigger. I was starting to win smaller amounts like \$150 and \$500."

What he is not saying is whether he was spending more than he was winning. While a hundred bucks or even five times that sounds nice, if he was spending more than he was winning, his system was not a winning one at all. Fortunately, even if it were the case, all losses were eventually covered by one huge win, so the gamble was indeed worth it.

His system based on seeking a most diverse pool of numbers seems like a step in the right direction compared to systems that assume that all sets of numbers are equally good. To see this, let us consider the following set of five numbers: 1,2,3,4,5. This is a set of consecutive numbers and there are only a few dozens of such sets which can be formed from the whole numbers ranging from 1 to 39 or to 56 or to whatever the top number in a given lottery happens to be. Let us remind the reader that in a standard lottery, without a mega number, 5 or 6 numbers are drawn from the universe of whole numbers ranging from 1 to some top number that is usually about 50. If you compare this (a few dozens) to many millions of five number combinations that you can possibly draw, you quickly realize that it makes more sense to bet on the sets of non-consecutive numbers as such sets are statistically more likely to come up. And the longer you play, the more true this becomes. This is what Brad Duke would probably mean by a more diverse pool of numbers.

That's nice, except that all this argument is wrong. And here is why: all number combinations are equally likely and while there are more combinations that do not constitute consecutive numbers, the bet is not on the property (consecutive or non-consecutive), but on a precise combination and it is this particular combination that wins and not its mathematical property.

So how come that Mr. Duke won? Well, his system made things easier for him. By choosing only 15 numbers and focusing on those instead of, say, 50, he simplified things and, eventually, got lucky. He might have gotten lucky, but in some other drawing, with some other set of numbers, not just those 15 that he chose because they seemed most commonly coming up. It remains to be seen if his set of numbers was more statistically valid in their alleged higher frequency than some other set. I somewhat doubt it.

Does that mean that this approach has no merit? Not at all. As a matter of fact, it's the best if not the only sensible approach you can use in such a case, an approach that is often used by scientists to arrive at an approximate solution if an exact one is hard to figure out. Using 15 "most likely candidates" as Mr. Duke did to win his millions or simply a smaller sample is an example of an approximation to a more complex problem which cannot be handled exactly in a realistic, cost efficient manner due to its enormous size. Sometimes an approximate solution, if we are lucky enough, may turn out to the exact one as was the case for Brad Duke a few years ago.

Yes, luck is what we still need here too. Even the most intelligent, most high-tech, lottery system cannot guarantee that you will ever win. It can certainly help you by simplifying the task of handling the game complexity, but to win the lottery you still need old-fashioned good luck. You need to have Lady Luck on your side. So, how can you win her over? Well, avoiding black cats and standing ladders is said to work miracles in securing good luck, but that may not be enough, though. And I am, obviously, facetious here. There is only one way you can help your luck: by playing the lottery. Otherwise, how else can you even begin to think you will ever become a lotto millionaire?

"...Life is not a matter of holding good cards,but sometimes playing a poor hand well...

Dump Water Florida
United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
2910 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 13, 2010, 3:10 am - IP Logged

took the set of 15 numbers that were most commonly coming up.

If that means the highest short term frequency?  As good a way as any for off and on small prizes, but all the winning numbers from that group is going to be rare and then you have to get extra lucky to have them all on the same line.   BobP

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
17878 Posts
Online
 Posted: August 13, 2010, 4:46 am - IP Logged

Brad Duke of Idaho won a PowerBall jackpot of \$125M on May 28,2005 when the matrix was 5/53 + 1/42 with the numbers 05 07 24 28 39 +36.

The matrix had been 5/53 + 1/42 since 10/09/02 and up to 05/28/05 there had been 275 drawings under that matrix and the numbers had hit:

10/09/02 TO 05/25/05   275 DRAWS  WB

1: 26    11: 35    21: 24    31: 29    41: 28    51: 24
2: 26    12: 19    22: 25    32: 27    42: 25    52: 25
3: 15    13: 22    23: 18    33: 25    43: 22    53: 18
4: 20    14: 24    24: 21    34: 32    44: 31
5: 31    15: 22    25: 25    35: 32    45: 30
6: 30    16: 31    26: 30    36: 18    46: 28
7: 22    17: 41    27: 25    37: 28    47: 24
8: 18    18: 25    28: 21    38: 21    48: 34
9: 32    19: 25    29: 26    39: 25    49: 25
10: 28    20: 29    30: 26    40: 30    50: 32

10/09/02 TO 05/25/05   275 DRAWS  PB

1: 9     11: 6     21: 7     31: 13    41: 10
2: 12    12: 4     22: 5     32: 5     42: 5
3: 7     13: 5     23: 8     33: 6
4: 10    14: 2     24: 3     34: 5
5: 4     15: 6     25: 9     35: 13
6: 8     16: 5     26: 3     36: 5
7: 6     17: 6     27: 4     37: 6
8: 8     18: 4     28: 9     38: 7
9: 8     19: 6     29: 6     39: 6
10: 3     20: 7     30: 6     40: 8

* you don't need more tickets, just the right ticket *
* your best chance at winning a lottery jackpot is to buy a ticket *

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
17878 Posts
Online
 Posted: August 13, 2010, 1:50 pm - IP Logged

Brad Duke won the Lottery back in 2005 using some system where he picked numbers that had come up frequently over the past 6 months or something like that.

Does anyone know exactly what this system was? I can't seem to find any details about his system on google or anywhere else.

When Brad Duke won his jackpot, he had 275 drawings under the 5/53 + 1/42 matrix to look at to decide which 15 numbers he wanted to use.  A player today only has 167 drawings under the 5/59 + 1/39 matrix to look at.

If your data goes back far enough then you can analyze it as he might have and see the same things he saw and maybe duplicate his results

It should also be pointed out, his system only won a jackpot once and he could afford to continue buying tickets until it won.

* you don't need more tickets, just the right ticket *
* your best chance at winning a lottery jackpot is to buy a ticket *

 Page 1 of 1