lottosync 1.7 hit again!!

Reply #14

paul762 — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:12:55 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by paul762 on February 8, 2005you are right , the ultimate sample does not exist thats why I have only predicted upto 30000 sample so far, there is no point going any further because there are 9 different samples to choose from and each gives differing numbers and no clue as to which will perform better for any given draw. I hope this problem is addressed in the next version or it will end up just as random as 1.6 and 1.7perhaps I was too quick to dismiss things here, a... [ More ]

Reply #13

paul762 — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:26:14 GMT

you are right , the ultimate sample does not exist thats why I have only predicted upto 30000 sample so far, there is no point going any further because there are 9 different samples to choose from and each gives differing numbers and no clue as to which will perform better for any given draw. I hope this problem is addressed in the next version or it will end up just as random as 1.6 and 1.7

Reply #12

Guru — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:37:42 GMT

It's no use trying to find THE ultimate sample setting. It doesn't exist.One time 20000 will yield better results than 100000 and sometimes it's the opposite.It all depends on the current draws, and the initial path chosen by lottosync when you start the prediction.The only thing that can be said about it is. The higher the sample size, the higher the probability of accuracy.But as you know, probabilities are just what they are. Probabilities

Reply #11

paul762 — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:20:39 GMT

I have also started testing 1.7 so far im upto 25000 samples but 12000+16000+20000 have produced the same results, which means at present 20000 is so far no better than 12000, the 25000 sample prediction will finish in 2 hours and will have taken 8-9 hours. I am planning to run all samples upto 100000.

Reply #10

lottosyncman — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:13:38 GMT

i'am finding 20,000 to be ideal so far i tried 16,000 last saturday and didnt come close

Reply #9

paul762 — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:33:16 GMT

congrats. again on the hit!! perhaps you should try 12000 samples I dont personally think it will make a lot of difference to your predictions, in fact I noted some time ago with 1.6 that the lower sample was more accurate than the higher sample, and quicker also! in my test anyway.hows that march date looking guru? still on

Reply #8

lottosyncman — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:59:57 GMT

i'am using an amd

Reply #7

MillionsWanted — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:12:23 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by lottosyncman on February 2, 2005 i would do that but my computer is too slow! it already takes me 2 days to run this at 20,000 samples but thanks for the adavice! saturday the jackpot is mine!!!!Are you using a Pentium 200 or 300 to run your program?It doesn't cost much to upgrade your PC to a AMD Athlon XP 2000+ these days.

Reply #6

LANTERN — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:10:34 GMT

But no matter how good, version 1.7 might be, I still want version 1.8 and soon.

Reply #5

LANTERN — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:48:50 GMT

As crazy as it sounds I wonder if the speed of the prediction (very slow) might not be the factor or the reason for his getting better numbers more often for that particular game or maybe even for all games, for the particular technique used by LottoSync, a slower prediction might give more accurate numbers, not that the predictions must be slower, they already are plenty slow, even with very fast computers, but super slow as with an old computer could a little more often give an extra degree of... [ More ]

Reply #4

vick — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:21:09 GMT

nice little hit there synchman, though it looks like you hit 4 and close to 5 = 2-6-7-31.This is typical of 1.7, ie picking alot of low numbers and this draw was an oddall, ie low sum, which doesn't happen very often.Geeze, 2 days man, we can do it in like 1 hour u need to get yourself a faster computer -)i don't play Canada 649 anymore since they raised the price and left the low prizes the same, ie 3 and 4. It's now All or nothing with this new format.Goodluck and waiting for synch 1.8... [ More ]

Reply #3

MillionsWanted — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:20:31 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by lottosyncman on February 2, 2005 i would do that but my computer is too slow! it already takes me 2 days to run this at 20,000 samples but thanks for the adavice! saturday the jackpot is mine!!!!Anything slower than 4Ghz is obviously too slow for this hog of a program.Better win some money and start upgrading!The speed of Lotto Sorcerer 4.0 is something quite different.It uses 5 seconds on a AMD Athlon 2000+ with 512 Mbyte.

Reply #2

lottosyncman — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:12:07 GMT

i would do that but my computer is too slow! it already takes me 2 days to run this at 20,000 samples but thanks for the adavice! saturday the jackpot is mine

Reply #1

MillionsWanted — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:59:37 GMT

Good news!I thought 30,000 samples was best?Perhaps you should test Lottosynch with earlier draws and use different amount of samples.That way you should be able to find out which amount of samples is best for your lottery.

lottosync 1.7 hit again!!

lottosyncman — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:31:31 GMT

well folks when this program is on its on!!! i hit 3 numbers in the canada 6/49 tonight 2-7-31 the program predicted these 10 1,2,3,6,7,14,16,18,31,46 the winners were 2,6,7,13,31,36 look how close i was to nailing another 4 number winner with 13 set it once again at 20,000 samples until saturday