Reducing filtered combinations help

Reply #14

time*treat — Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:09:27 GMT

more ways to filter than there are numbers to filter.refers to the number of permutations possible. Given that most systems comprise at least two groups of numbers: 1) those you play 2) those you don't play, there are more such two-group arrangements possible than there are actual numbers in the two groups. You can test it yourself using, say, 4 numbers total. nPr >> nCr. Hope this clears it up.49C6 = __,_13,983,816 <== ~14 mill49P6 = 10,068,347,520 <== + 10 bill

Reply #13

NewClub — Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:28:50 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by time*treat on April 23, 2005there are more ways to filter than there are numbers to filter. The question is a lot like playing hangman (or Wheel of Fortune . It's kind of hard to suggest something new without knowing what's already been used.2 questions. What language are you using? And how complex a filter are you willing to code?Really? Is there a place that list all the methods people used? I know there is a no link rule here, please send to my private box if you k... [ More ]

Reply #12

time*treat — Sat, 23 Apr 2005 04:41:32 GMT

there are more ways to filter than there are numbers to filter. The question is a lot like playing hangman (or Wheel of Fortune It's kind of hard to suggest something new without knowing what's already been used.2 questions. What language are you using? And how complex a filter are you willing to code

Reply #11

JKING — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:25:44 GMT

SHTh, Have you considered changing the accuracy level of your filters? Personally, I like working at the 98%/99% acurracy level for most of my filters and then select just a couple other filters at a lower level of accuracy (only to get the amount of combinations down). Some people like working at 90% or 95% levels. Since errors are multiplicative when combined together, you can assess your overall filter strategy.Just a thought.

Reply #10

SHTh — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:07:48 GMT

<fx:lol> Really JKING now you wouldn't really expect me to say in open forum. Put it this way, i've never seen a poor hunter.Seriously reduction to 5,000 or even less is only stage 2. After incorporating posters suggestion, back testing and dry runs. Stage 3 aka LAST STAGE will be further reduction but I have some ideas how to select from the 5,000 (unfortunately far to frivolous, irrelevant and risky to use on reducing the 90,000). From then on it's pure luck.SHTH

Reply #9

JKING — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:47:49 GMT

Why is 5000 so important? Do you intend to gamble $5000 on one draw? If not how do you intend to pick that one winning combination out of the 5000

Reply #8

NewClub — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:49:24 GMT

This is an interesting idea.I think RJOH's suggestion is an economy partial filter, which would not fit with your original idea.BobP has a very good point here. Extending his way of thinking, I think any idea you are seeking to find here will be another filter that add to your system. The more filters you add, the higher chance that a jackpot will hit one of your filters.I think you'v got to varify BobP's point before you go any further. Take Canada 6/49 history and see how many jackpots do you... [ More ]

Reply #7

BobP — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 06:22:56 GMT

You're boot strapping, playing against the past rather then the future. Take those 90,000 combinations and try them against a randomly chosen 6/49 game from another state and see how many of those draws are hits.Most draws will fail at least one filter meaning no jackpot for you.BobP

Reply #6

AriesMoon — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:16:21 GMT

Greetings All!I'm certainly NOT ignoring this wonderful thread....just taking it ALL in...for a WIN!!RipSnorterJack, you've given us a lot to consider and, no doubt, considering it we are.There is definately a method to what some might call our madness to relating to these numbers. To me, it's a way of finding one's peace in the midst of chaos (winning numbers representing the peace ...)Keep it comin

Reply #5

RJOh — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:34:52 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by SHTh on April 14, 2005The 'good' results are due the parameters used for my filtering. I generated the 90,000 combinations by filtering all combinations of 6/49.......particularly the zonal groups filters like 'repeats last draw'. Since there are only 18,424 combinations of 3's in a group of 49 numbers, you must be repeating every combinations of 3's an average of 5 times. You might consider adding a filter that would limit the occurrence of any combination of 3... [ More ]

Reply #4

SHTh — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:46:36 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on April 14, 2005Are your good results due to the number of combinations generated or their parameters . You might want to compare those results with 90,000 randomly generated combinations to see if those combinations are unique before applying a filter.RJOhHi RJOh,The 'good' results are due the parameters used for my filtering. I generated the 90,000 combinations by filtering all combinations of 6/49. Please Note the combinations vary slightly from draw to dra... [ More ]

Reply #3

SHTh — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:35:42 GMT

JKING thanks for your response.I generated all combinations of 6/49 and then reduced this down to 80,000 combinations, using filters such as Sum, OE, Gaps, Consecutive etc. (I did not use any economic filters). I'm happy with the filters used and the size of the passes. For instance contained within my generated 90,000 combinations was the winning Jackpot combination for Wed 13th April 2005, UK lottery. (Though the previous 2 draws I failed on 2 parameters).Essentially why I posted is that I'm s... [ More ]

Reply #2

SirMetro — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:10:36 GMT

A process I used recently on Fantasy 5 helped me reduce my list of 252 numbers down to 7. First, I decided on the group of numbers that I liked. This turned out to be 10 numbers that just looked like they was worth using. Then, I used Lottery Posts Wheel for 5 Number Games, using the 10 number selector (only have 16 or so uses left dang it). I copied and pasted the wheeled numbers into a text editor, inserted comma's where I needed em, saved the file as a TXT file and then imported the numbers d... [ More ]

Reply #1

RJOh — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:16:12 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by SHTh on April 13, 2005I've determined the profile of my 6/49 lotto and used these unique parameters as filters to generate 90,000 combinations (6if6 if all parameters meet). Back testing and dry paper runs give good jackpot results so far......... Are your good results due to the number of combinations generated or their parameters . You might want to compare those results with 90,000 randomly generated combinations to see if those combinations are unique before ap... [ More ]

Reducing filtered combinations help

JKING — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:58:29 GMT

Hi, The debate of which filters/reductions will vary from member to member. There is a wealth of methods buried in previous posts. It's just a matter of which ones appeal to you. Only one comment, as you filter out more and more combinations, it is more and more probable that the actual picks will fall outside one or more of the parameters you've chosen. Less is better. At some point, you'll have to deal with all the remaining combinations and decide a selection method.Good luck.... [ More ]