Mornng blogsters:

It appears the morning's a good one for the balloonsters.  The dogs and coyotes are howling, which, when it's a universal phenomenon this time of year, means there are balloons tuning up.  Drives the animals nuts, the sound. 

Last night they must have had the 'Balloon Glow' event.... there was a steady roar for a couple of hours, about on the jet airplane passing over level.  That field's 20 or more miles away from here, so I think the noise and the dogs might well have been something to remember for those nearer.

But it was a clear night, stars out and still, so probably everyone had a good time puffing up the balloons and crowd walking among them craning their necks.  And it's still, but with a low ceiling here.  Probably ceiling's high enough in the valley to let them drift up and make a spectacle of themselves.

But it mightn't be so.  I hear some roar down there, just now, but looking to the south and west there are some fairly dark clouds trying to make up their minds what to do.  Might be another non-event building up.

Or that old sky hanging back, fishing, in hopes they'll follow wishful thinking and get on up there before Mama Nature kicks loose with a surprise for them.

As for number stuff.  I don't know what to make of some of the things I've been stumbling onto.  Found a place where all the numbers that hit PB and MM for each draw usually show up among a score, or more other numbers, under weird circumstances, but consistently, and prior to the draws.  Which describes a lot of other methods I've muddled around in, with the problem always being to identify which of all those numbers are the ones that apply.  Frequency of occurance in history doesn't matter for all I've messed with until now.

But the opposite seems to be the case on this one.  A group appears time after time and you can sieve out the numbers that will hit this MM, and tomorrow's PB, just by using the ones that hit most frequently..... But the conditions are complex, and it appears to be completely impossible to know which will hit MM, and which will hit PB.

Furthermore, there's nothing I've been able to detect in the behavior that gives any kind of indicator which of those numbers might be red balls.

I tried to hone a group down to 15 out of the 25 or so for the MM draw tonight, posted them on the MADDOG MM Challenge thread, made a stab at redball possibles, but it all leaves a lot to be desired.

Still working on it.

The problem is that the entire issue is so durned unlikely, and the process is large enough to be confusing, awfully time consuming.  At times just trying to wrap my mind around what I'm looking at and digest the implications almost gives me the blind staggers.

When I first came to LP early this year I hoped I'd run across people of like mind to work with on this sort of thing, but it became plain several months ago that all the groups out there are already well formed and moving in different directions than I am, or that the folks who are doing what I am are working alone.

I suppose I tend to see why that's true.  Today, if I couldn't go the rest of this way alone, I'd have to give heavy thought to whom and whether I'd work with someone else, simply because it feels like the home stretch.  Not many believe it can be done, is my impression, or they're pursuing their own secret paths for doing it.  I hoped for months there'd be someone who'd drop out of the sky whom I could kick this around with, share the work of chasing the possibilities, and they just ain't there.

The trouble with self-belief and total confidence in one's self is that it usually rides a particular vision.  If there are people out there pursuing this similarly to the way I am, they're figuring they are on the right track without anyone else, which they might be, and which I also believe of my own direction on it.

However, if this is a mechanical process following some sort of physical laws, all roads eventually lead to Rome.  There's not just one way of getting there.  I'm reasonably convinced that BL guy of a while back found a way, but whatever method he was using must have been different from the one I'm chasing at the moment.  I've studied what he said, both on the threads, and on PMs, and what he was doing doesn't seem to overlay this unless his hints were deliberately obfiscating what he was actually doing.

On the other hand, this new thing might well turn out to be another blind alley.  It's too complicated to try to backtest thoroughly, so it ends up just being a matter of keeping the pool of numbers the method turns up and observing how they compare to each draw.

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Jack