All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00) | Home -> Forums -> Mathematics -> Mathematics and the Lottery Can a winning lottery system be created with existing math formulas? mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 13923 Posts Offline | | Posted: November 23, 2011, 6:12 pm - IP Logged | |
You're right, the odds that someone would actually post a strategy that is making them a lot of money is probably greater than just winning the lottery itself. After all, people win the lottery every day, but a winning strategy that can stand up to historical analysis is non-existant. That said, it doesn't mean that the winning strategy hasn't been posted. There is always some truth to any failed system. You just have to take bits and pieces of all the systems and put them together in a coherent matter. There is always some truth to any failed system. You just have to take bits and pieces of all the systems and put them together in a coherent matter. Are you suggesting combining the best parts of failed systems is the way to come up with a successful one? * that which happens most *
* is most likely to happen again * 
| | |
Monte Carlo France Member #56062 October 9, 2007 837 Posts Offline | | Posted: November 30, 2011, 3:57 pm - IP Logged | |
not only math,but also logic and imagination. Welcome to Cannes! The most precious thing is Free. | | |
Ohio United States Member #50440 February 21, 2007 19368 Posts Offline | | Posted: November 30, 2011, 5:51 pm - IP Logged | |
not only math,but also logic and imagination. You got that right Hans!!  Blessings to everyone let's get this Cash Money ! 12345 67890 Use Mirror #'s Use prs. with your dream Key* numbers the most Vivid thing in your dream. Follow TaxiJohn's rule go up or down. Flip 6=9 `9=6 Bullseyes says 0 or 1 for Pick 4 Play the other part of doubles. Do the Whole nine yards for a P.4* or 0 thur 9 from my dreams or hunches or any numbers. | | |
United States Member #5700 July 13, 2004 983 Posts Offline | | Posted: December 16, 2011, 10:02 pm - IP Logged | |
Hi, Is any familiar with Mine software from Harvard? Does anyone have access to the software? Ref. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/tool-detects-patterns-hidden-in-vast-data-sets Abstract Identifying interesting relationships between pairs of variables in large data sets is increasingly important. Here, we present a measure of dependence for two-variable relationships: the maximal information coefficient (MIC). MIC captures a wide range of associations both functional and not, and for functional relationships provides a score that roughly equals the coefficient of determination (R2) of the data relative to the regression function. MIC belongs to a larger class of maximal information-based nonparametric exploration (MINE) statistics for identifying and classifying relationships. We apply MIC and MINE to data sets in global health, gene expression, major-league baseball, and the human gut microbiota and identify known and novel relationships. The most valuable things in life are not things. My predictions at the LP are simply a testing ground of my latest hairbrained ideas, please don't take them seriously. | | |
United States Member #5700 July 13, 2004 983 Posts Offline | | Posted: December 16, 2011, 10:18 pm - IP Logged | |
Hi, Is any familiar with Mine software from Harvard? Does anyone have access to the software? Ref. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/tool-detects-patterns-hidden-in-vast-data-sets Abstract Identifying interesting relationships between pairs of variables in large data sets is increasingly important. Here, we present a measure of dependence for two-variable relationships: the maximal information coefficient (MIC). MIC captures a wide range of associations both functional and not, and for functional relationships provides a score that roughly equals the coefficient of determination (R2) of the data relative to the regression function. MIC belongs to a larger class of maximal information-based nonparametric exploration (MINE) statistics for identifying and classifying relationships. We apply MIC and MINE to data sets in global health, gene expression, major-league baseball, and the human gut microbiota and identify known and novel relationships. And one more additional link... http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml The most valuable things in life are not things. My predictions at the LP are simply a testing ground of my latest hairbrained ideas, please don't take them seriously. | | |
United States Member #5700 July 13, 2004 983 Posts Offline | | Posted: December 17, 2011, 9:37 am - IP Logged | |
Hi, Is any familiar with Mine software from Harvard? Does anyone have access to the software? Ref. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/tool-detects-patterns-hidden-in-vast-data-sets Abstract Identifying interesting relationships between pairs of variables in large data sets is increasingly important. Here, we present a measure of dependence for two-variable relationships: the maximal information coefficient (MIC). MIC captures a wide range of associations both functional and not, and for functional relationships provides a score that roughly equals the coefficient of determination (R2) of the data relative to the regression function. MIC belongs to a larger class of maximal information-based nonparametric exploration (MINE) statistics for identifying and classifying relationships. We apply MIC and MINE to data sets in global health, gene expression, major-league baseball, and the human gut microbiota and identify known and novel relationships. Hi, I answered my own question. *L* If you are interested, go to the link below. http://www.exploredata.net/Downloads The most valuable things in life are not things. My predictions at the LP are simply a testing ground of my latest hairbrained ideas, please don't take them seriously. | | |
Stone Mountain*Georgia United States Member #837 November 2, 2002 9089 Posts Offline | | Posted: December 18, 2011, 10:16 am - IP Logged | |
Thank you for your effort to share JKING......it is appreciated. I enjoyed the parts that I could understand. Looking back .......I wish I hadn't majored in just Philosophy. I should have know back then something was wrong on college career day.......and none of the big Philosophy companies showed up. LOL  "It's just as important to show how you missed the number ......as how you hit it."
| | |
long beach, Cali United States Member #120018 December 7, 2011 52 Posts Offline | | Posted: December 21, 2011, 7:24 pm - IP Logged | |
I really really dont believe that math can beat the lottery. The Numbers do funny things in the lottery. Somtimes they show up in the next drawing. or sometimes they dont show up for 45 days. You never know. I really dont think math can beat the lottery there really isnt a solution or math problem that can pinpoint an exact number that will show up. Even Statiscians can be fooled. | | |
mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 13923 Posts Offline | | Posted: December 29, 2011, 1:58 pm - IP Logged | |
I really really dont believe that math can beat the lottery. The Numbers do funny things in the lottery. Somtimes they show up in the next drawing. or sometimes they dont show up for 45 days. You never know. I really dont think math can beat the lottery there really isnt a solution or math problem that can pinpoint an exact number that will show up. Even Statiscians can be fooled. You're probably right and you don't have to prove it because the odds of anyone ever proving you wrong are probably the same as their odds of ever winning a lottery jackpot. * that which happens most *
* is most likely to happen again *
| | |
New Member
Tahiti- Polynesia Tuvalu Member #34923 March 4, 2006 15 Posts Offline | | Posted: January 8, 2012, 12:12 am - IP Logged | |
I don't think that you can beat the lottery with any mathematical formula.The lotto would have been cracked for a long time now by all those those maths genius.
I do however think that you can use mathematics as a tool to have better results. The secret is not in mathematics; the secret is about how you think the lotto. | | |
NASHVILLE, TENN United States Member #33768 February 20, 2006 866 Posts Online | | Posted: January 14, 2012, 3:00 am - IP Logged | |
When discussing random, there is no way to prove anything. Random means random, pure and simple. We lotto players don't let that fact stand in our way. We move on and make statements. Allow me to make a statement disguised as fact. Math will never produce a winning combination consistently. Math might provide someone a jackpot somewhere but that would be a fluke and nothing else. He who used math to get that one jackpot will never be able to repeat his feat. I believe RL has the right approach. Study the patterns and then make your choices. You will be wrong most of the time; you will be right sometimes. If your right choices keep you profitable, then you have something to work with. If not, keep studying, keep choosing, keep on keeping on. We will need another form of math, one which has not been invented (developed?) yet. Before Isacc Newton, there was no such thing as calculus. After Newton, several different aspects of calculus has been developed. The same senario is going on here, at Lottery Post. We are muddling about in a dense fog, looking for that Yellow Brick Road. We may never find it but that should not prevent us from looking, from thinking, from trying. I will get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening. (Or should that be, "Thanks for reading"?) | | |
bgonçalves Brasil Member #92592 June 9, 2010 662 Posts Offline | | Posted: January 14, 2012, 7:42 am - IP Logged | |
When discussing random, there is no way to prove anything. Random means random, pure and simple. We lotto players don't let that fact stand in our way. We move on and make statements. Allow me to make a statement disguised as fact. Math will never produce a winning combination consistently. Math might provide someone a jackpot somewhere but that would be a fluke and nothing else. He who used math to get that one jackpot will never be able to repeat his feat. I believe RL has the right approach. Study the patterns and then make your choices. You will be wrong most of the time; you will be right sometimes. If your right choices keep you profitable, then you have something to work with. If not, keep studying, keep choosing, keep on keeping on. We will need another form of math, one which has not been invented (developed?) yet. Before Isacc Newton, there was no such thing as calculus. After Newton, several different aspects of calculus has been developed. The same senario is going on here, at Lottery Post. We are muddling about in a dense fog, looking for that Yellow Brick Road. We may never find it but that should not prevent us from looking, from thinking, from trying. I will get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening. (Or should that be, "Thanks for reading"?) Hello, gasmu, yes you can use mathematics to some extent in 100% example, a lotto 49 / 6 can be expected 3 to 4 numbers with much confidence when it unfolds in such positions if 4 = 1,2,3 , 4, 1,2,3,5 3,4,5,6 until both the front of the number of digits from 0 to 4, as the final digit from 0 to 9, then gasmu, trios, and blocks, it is easy predict the missing numbers are random, then math is 60% to 70%
And alaetorio else to complete the bet, so do gasmu can see various bets
Sweepstakes and play until 10, you will see that the frequency from 3 to 4 hits is very frequent,
Concordia with you all a lottery numca we predict, but rather hal | | |
New Member
Gainesville, FL United States Member #121749 January 16, 2012 8 Posts Offline | | Posted: January 16, 2012, 6:09 pm - IP Logged | |
"The math is there somewhere...who is clever enough to find it? *S*" If it exists, only someone who is looking will ever have a chance of finding it. I like this post .... Of course the math is there (in standard probability and statistics) .... and, of course, lotteries can be won using math. For example, in a pick 6 Lottery with 53 numbers, each number tends to show up, on average, about once a month in a 9 draws per month lottery (53/6=9). Competently run lotteries work very hard to minimize the deviation any one number has from this normal monthly rate. In any given 18 draws, almost all the numbers will show at least once, and, if you look at the count of hits for each number over 104 lotteries (52 weeks * 2), you will predictably see a very nice bell curve with the peak between 11 and 12 (numbers hitting about once a month). That is to say ... More numbers hit an average number of times than less than average or greater than average, and the probability that a number in a list will hit is exactly proportional to the size of the list divided by the total number of possibilities for the list. Examples: - It is almost equally probably that a given lottery draw number will be even or odd (there's 1 more odd number). It is also most probable that a given draw will have 3 even numbers and 3 odd numbers, less likely 4-2 or 2-4, less likely 1-5 or 5-1 and even less likely all even or all odd.
- Numbers that occur early in a history list are more probable than those that occur later.
- Numbers that have occurred 0 or 1 times in 9 lotteries are a lot more probable than numbers that have occurred more than 1 time. (The hotter a number, the less likely to hit.)
To win a lottery once in a while, you don't have to hold every possibility. You only have to hold enough of the tops of the probability curves to equal the percentage of times you'd like to win; and have deep enough pockets to stay with it. | | |
New Member
Tahiti- Polynesia Tuvalu Member #34923 March 4, 2006 15 Posts Offline | | Posted: January 17, 2012, 10:50 pm - IP Logged | |
Please, what language are you speaking on this thread? Very very difficult to understand. That's arab for me. Better give documented examples. I don't really need this sytem as I have a better one but Dr san theory about pareto law used for lottery is interesting. Just need clear examples. That's the kind of maths theory to use to have better results. | | |
Taunton, Ma United States Member #123016 February 11, 2012 136 Posts Offline | | Posted: February 11, 2012, 9:09 pm - IP Logged | |
I beleive that it is POSSIBLE to predict outcomes with mathematics. Weather such math exists now is unknown. However, everything in this universe can be explained by mathematics. Math is the universal language of the cosmos. It explains the past and predicts the future. Every single atom and every single action can be defined in math. However, if the numbers are truly random and not simply a pattern-based algorithim then predicting them is equivalent to predicting any other future outcome. In which case the math exists to predict some things but not everything. If we can finally unify quantum physics and general relativity, we should at that point be able to predict ANYTHING. When this happens, the lotto will be moot. | | |
|
