Important!-Pick 3 filters-Educated guess?

Reply #13

JAZZY JASPER — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:32:45 GMT

Any numbers

Reply #12

CalifDude — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:32:44 GMT

Reply #11

LANTERN — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:32:40 GMT

Time ago I had a working filter system then one day it quit working, since then I have been looking for new and better longer lasting pick 3 filter systems, it looks like I am finally making some progress towards a new system that will again work and maybe even better than the one that I had that also worked. Because now I am trying for a system that might more often perhaps give straight wins.It's still a little soon to tell for sure, I work some on this new system every week as I remember thin... [ More ]

Reply #10

LANTERN — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:24:51 GMT

CalifDudeYes many things have to be tried untill a sought for balance is found and then little by little as time permits then changes and or new things tried to see if things can be made better.Good luck to you.

Reply #9

CalifDude — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:09:20 GMT

Lantern,That is exactly what I have found. I used to teach numbering systems when I taught computers and digital electronics. My students were often amazed about facts about numbers that they didn't know (up to that point!). It happens here on this forum, too. Now and then you will find someone that makes a discovery , but it is just a fact of the 3-digit numbers and our base 10 numbering system.Teaching numbering systems was one of my favorite subjects. I base my filters on past history of the... [ More ]

Reply #8

LANTERN — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:56:29 GMT

By trial or tests with past draws you will discover on what to base your filters that won't fail too often or at least not as often as if you used the past draw and or few past draws. Use other draws and or make changes to the draws that you will use. Use your imagination and test to make sure that it will work, the changes most be dynamic, I could explain what I mean by dynamic, but I said way too much already for now.

Reply #7

LANTERN — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:47:31 GMT

I had been mostly using the last draw and sometimes also the last 2 to 6 draws.But 1 or more filters failed often, so then I finally asked myself, Why should I base my use of the filters on those draws, if 1 or more filters almost always fail?So the answer was, quit basing your filters on those draws or at least if you use them, don't use those draws as they are, changes have to be made, other-wise the filters will keep on failing, what you base the filters on will have to be on something that w... [ More ]

Reply #6

LANTERN — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:31:47 GMT

CalifDudeNo, I didn't discover no pseudo RNG's bias.Peach and Justin thank you.What I did discover is that the basics of filters are not exactly what I thought that they were, I thought that they were based on the last draw and or few last draws and to some degree they are, but and they don't have to be at all, they are based on random make believe draws and or draw(s) situations, in other words, filters are truly based on what-ever you want to base them on, I know that many people won't under... [ More ]

Reply #5

Justin — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:05:31 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by CalifDude on November 15, 2004Thank you, Justin. I haven't studied that in depth, but certainly will now. I just made a list of the last 30 doubles in California. I will start studying what you have pointed out...don't see it right away! Here is the list:133191060686151020797661199200006009488155040995088611595199800525889533757212171822330282Those are just the doubles! There are a lot of skips between them!Those bolded ones all fell relatively close, all since ive be... [ More ]

Reply #4

CalifDude — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:51:21 GMT

Thank you, Justin. I haven't studied that in depth, but certainly will now. I just made a list of the last 30 doubles in California. I will start studying what you have pointed out...don't see it right away! Here is the list:133191060686151020797661199200006009488155040995088611595199800525889533757212171822330282Those are just the doubles! There are a lot of skips between them

Reply #3

Justin — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:30:25 GMT

CA is very biased, usually a pair will repeat more than 3 times if it repeats twice, this happens alot, they also reverse there doubles quite quickly, at least this has been the case recently.however, profiting, may still be too hardLantern, you are a genius, love your poststhanks

Reply #2

CalifDude — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:25:37 GMT

Wow! I could spend hours discussing this (and have in the past!!). Having been very involved with cryptography in the past and even writing (and copyrighting) an encryption program, I am very aware of what is called random . There is true random (IMHO), but of course not from any software or hardware, rather the decay of radioactive isotopes.When it is pseudo-random, then the bias can be determined, but it takes millions or trillions of bits to find the bias. No lottery has gone that long!! The... [ More ]

Reply #1

peach_picker — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:24:15 GMT

Quote: I can somewhat try and or compensate for the filters' short-comings or at least I am learning and or trying to learn how to do that, I think that I have made some progress in that direction .Glad it's coming together for you, Lantern. I can totally understand your wanting to share only as much as you feel fully comfortable with. Gotta keep certain things to ourselves ;). Thanks for another thoughtful post.Wish you the best.

Important!-Pick 3 filters-Educated guess?

LANTERN — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:42:17 GMT

Hi!Well, it has taken me 2 to3 years, but I finally understand this:I have always been right when I sayed or said as it might be that there is no RANDOM or True Random , but now I finally know that for all Human Practical purposes there is what might be called Pseudo Random and I am not talking about pseudo random RNGs ( all RNGs are only pseudo-random, no matter what anybody says, because there is no TRUE random), but about random itself.But as I said, for all human practical purpos... [ More ]