Come on you guys, jking has a nice post going here and many would benefit from his methods.
I think he is taking a logical approach to systematic play and most systems don't follow this
sort of logic. What he is doing in a nutshell is reducing the pool step by step using filters that
he can predict with some certainty. This is the same thing in theory that I was doing with the
digit system. By selecting a few digits and blocking a few others and setting limits on a few of
those that are predicted to hit I am able to trap the winners within a very small pool of sets.
From this small sample then I use a number of other filters to reduce, If jking follows his current
logic then he will have a very good system. What I found is that there is a point where it seems
that no more can be done and one must then leave the rest to chance. However his chances
will be much better then the overall odds for the game. Here's the catch-22 to system play,
while for any single game the odds never change, consider the 2/3 odd-even paradox, While
the the totals of odd/even numbers can be any value for any one game many more will draws
will fall within this range for a pick-5. This has nothing to do with how the numbers are drawn
or what was drawn in the past. It is a product of the universe of sets. My odds are the same
as any other person playing a single game but not for a string of draws. Before we can move
foward we must forget the randomness of the selection method and focus on the most probable
over a period of time. The analysis of the history of past draws can confirm that certain events
will follow a set of rules governed by the matrix. The lottery will always involve a element of
chance and the system player tries to reduce this as much as he/she belives possible. The problem
here is not who is right and who is wrong. I think jimmy is correct in the confines of the math he
uses but his entire stance is based on the randomness of the selection. System players believe
they have found some element of events that are less then random which if correct then both could
be correct because they are based on different rules. If there is indeed an area that can be exploited
then it should withstand a serious backtest to prove it and here lies the divide. A few months ago I
decided to prove to jimmy my claims of success using math based processes. I thought this would be
a simple task but after a couple weeks I had to abandon the task as I was unable to do it. As a result
of working with statical analysis at that level I found that my play suffered to the point of failure. It took
me weeks to regain the ground I had lost and this also confirmed my belief that using stats to play lottery
is a recipe for disaster. Maybe all systems should be moved out of the Math forum and moved to a
Pseudo-Pseudomathematics forum. I think that the human brain is able to decode information that is beyond
the realm of mathematics. I can't prove it using math, I just have to accept the outcome as it comes and no
longer care if it's impossible or not and don't feel the need to prove it. Base your selections on math and
you will suffer the odds. While math is a very good tool you must not tether yourself to probability. Use the
outher side of your brain, you know, the one that is creative.
RL