I have yet to verify if this as a Blaise Pascal quote but I love it. "When intuition and logic agree, you are always right"
"Intuition is the supra-logic that cuts out all the routine processes of thought and leaps straight from the problem to the answer." - Robert Graves
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - Albert Einstein
Pick 3/4 Positional Frequency Theory- The hypothesis that straight hits can be predicted from choosing hot and cold digits in each position.
-
You know when you have a great lottery system theory when you are able apply it to all games. I find that people who are aware of this theory can create strategies that get more straight hits but only on an irregular basis.
-
I have observed that the majority systems I've researched so far concentrate on the most recent hot numbers and maybe the most recent cold numbers which I feel is the reason for only hitting on an irregular basis in the first place.
-
This theory has lead me to find strategies used by people such as A A New York (I do not want to get kicked off of LP for including links so you'll have to google him) along with Ion Saliu. A A New Yorks' F14 and reference box strategies are good but I feel Ion Saliu's FrequencyRank system is superior simply because it does not suggest using the top hot digits
"Some of the most respected lotto software packages out there consider their strength to be the number frequency as plotted by method #1 in FrequencyRank. Then, said software packages offer to the user the so-called best numbers to play: Usually, the top half of the lotto numbers based on frequency. I showed how weak that lottery strategy is."
"It is infrequently that the winning lotto numbers come from the top-half of the hot numbers!
How about a strategy based on positional frequency, as worked out by the function #2 in FrequencyRank? I believe it is a much more effective method of lottery number reduction." -Ion Saliu
"I have learned over the years that no matter how good a system looks on paper you should be cautious, back test, and only move forward when you are confident it will work. The only way to get that confidence is by back testing the system at least 3 months." -A A New York
I'm sure there are many people out there with similar systems but Saliu's position by position analysis within his FrequencyRank is the closest system related to my idea for predicting when a certain digit is most likely to hit in a certain position.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -Albert Einstein
It seems my epiphany is a continuation of Ion Saliu's Positional FrequencyRank system which infers selecting digits based on their low positional frequently. Basically, instead of choosing hot recent digits, do the exact opposite and choose cold numbers that have not been drawn in awhile.
Cold digits= Low frequency
Hot digits= High frequency
This brings to the question of just how long is awhile?
Exactly how long should I wait before choosing a cold digit that is most likely to hit in a certain position with the highest degree of certainty.
So far I have made observations using the Texas pick 3 lottery draw results that have led me to make the intuitive conclusion that choosing numbers that have not been hit in over 40 drawings have the highest probability of be drawn next. This has led me to the realization that digits that have not hit in the over 40 drawings in a certain position is just a signal to start paying attention to that particular digit. The highest I've seen a digit not hit in a certain position has been 54 drawings.
I call this approach the Extremely Low Positional Frequency (ELPF) theory.
I have not properly back-tested it to see just how accurate it really is but I'm intuitively confident I'm headed the right direction.
Like Einstein when he first introduced his theory of relativity, I have made an intuitive leap from the problem (in this case, predicting digits by position) to the answer (only choosing digits with Extremely Low Positional Frequency rates) before it has even been verified. Of course, his theory of relativity is now the law of relativity and I'm just some guy trying to get a straight hit based on an intuitive feeling.
There is much value in rare things.
I feel I have entered in the spectacularly crazy universe of chaos theory. These rarely seen digits are the reason why many systems fail to be consistent because they are the butterflies that cause the ripple effect that changes the actual outcome.
The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken notion that the odds for something with a fixed probability increase or decrease depending upon recent occurrences.
My ELPF theory is not based on recent occurrences. In fact, it is based on the equal and exact opposite of that notion in order to find the most least recent occurrences by position. I could be wrong but it feels so right.
Like everyone else there have been plenty of times when I thought my system was a sure thing and turn out the be horribly wrong with no clue as to what happened. You get that feeling of I must've did something wrong so you have to go back and tweak your system again and again.
I do not have the proper software to back-test my ELPE theory so I am asking YOU (reading this right now) to perform the back-test not just for the pick 3 and pick 4 games but this theory can be applied to all lottery games.
"Success is simple. Do what's right, the right way, at the right time." -Arnold H. Glascow
"A good theory is just a collection of hypothesis, experiments and deductions that survives repeated challenge and can therefore be used to predict untested outcomes." -RandomTruth (from Yahoo answers. How was Einstein's General Relativity theory proven? )
Another difference between my theory and Saliu's system along with many other similar systems is that I suggest using the previous 1,000 drawings to evaluate which digits that have NOT hit in over 40 drawings since there are a total of 1,000 combinations but do what you want to do. You need to know not to just pick the coldest digits in each positions but how cold that number need to be before it is highly likely to hit next and I think you should at least start paying attention to digits that have not hit in 40 drawings or more.
Step 1: Use the previous 1,000 drawings to find and record the digits that were last seen/have not hit in over 40 drawings in the 1st[front], 2nd[middle] and 3rd[back] positions
Note: Since I have witnessed digits not being hit in over 54 drawings, again I say, start paying attention to a certain extremely cold digit that has not hit in 40 or more drawings. Since there are only 10 digits (0-9), every digit is expected to hit in each position once/1x in every 10 drawings.
Step 2: Calculate what percentage of the time these digits hit in the very next drawing.
As of Saturday 11/23/13 for the Texas Pick 3 using 47 of the previous morning, day, evening and night drawings combined, digit 4 in the 2nd position has not been drawn in over 47 drawings. I consider this to be an etremely cold digit and has the highest probability of being drawn in the middle position so I will definitely play it until it hits.
Run your back-test and see for yourself. I would even look for what I call Super Freq's that have not hit in over 80 or more drawings just to see if those chaotic butterflies exist.
As I mentioned before, there is a way to apply this theory to all games but for now I want to focus on the pick 3 lottery because my mission is to master the art of predicting one digit in each position and getting a straight hit.
I'm always open to learn. I'm human so I'm perfectly flawed just like everyone else. If I have made some incorrect statements feel free to correct me and offer some "constructive" criticism but I try and I am relentless. I'm just an every now then fan of math. I don't know anything about equations. H3ll I just like Einstein because we share the same birthday (March 14th) but other than that I don't even know what the Law of Relativity is about. Light can bend or something ...maybe...idk.
Anyway, I have a lot of back-testing to do.
Let me know that you think. The good, the bad and the ugly.