- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop

The time is now 12:36 am
You last visited
April 17, 2025, 10:47 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Not finding correlations yet...
Published:
I am not surprised that there were no apparent correlations between the raw frequency and the follower frequency. Though classification is still about 70% neutral, when looking at the same draw between the two functions, they are rarely lining up as NNN on both.
Now it is time to grab some paper and start rearranging the data and looking for clues. Could a spreadsheet do the same? Sure, but there is something about actually writing stuff down that helps connect to the data. If something looks useful during the manual process, it is most likely simple to automate, but that part is for later.
With the script, I am passing in variables, so it is worth tweaking those, and much easier since I only have to change a variable to call the functions with a new setup. The exciting find of a "scaling factor" to control how much of the standard deviation is used will be helpful in "tuning" the classifiers between the 2 functions.
This factor I am calling neutral_bandwidth, as it scales the classification thresholds by multiplying the standard deviation by a scaling factor. If st_dev = 2, then setting this variable to 0.7 effectively reduces the st_dev to 1.4. By the same token, using 1.3 as a bandwidth factor increases the same st_dev to 2.6
I found this necessary, because even though the numbers have the same chance of being drawn with both functions, they don't seem to distribute in exactly the same way.
This part may take some time...
Comments
Had the low and high neutrals been cut, that winning combo would have been excluded.
Another theory shot down was only including numbers that were coincident to both lists, as the draws hardly line up as NNN to NNN.
Running the script on stale files from pick 2 through pick 5 showed multiple NN hits on the pick 2, NNNN hits on the pick 4 and even NNNNN hits on the pick 5.
Going to try opening the st_dev back to full on the follower function to see if that fixes the coincidental list elimination any.
Post a Comment
Please Log In
To use this feature you must be logged into your Lottery Post account.
Not a member yet?
If you don't yet have a Lottery Post account, it's simple and free to create one! Just tap the Register button and after a quick process you'll be part of our lottery community.
Register